Mid-air in California

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
involved feel any better about it.

There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172. AP
and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on
board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.

Tragic. The longer I am a pilot, the more it seems to grieve me to hear
of things like this.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dane Spearing]

In article <2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
C J Campbell > wrote:
>That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
>involved feel any better about it.
>
>There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172. AP
>and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on
>board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
>suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.
>
>Tragic. The longer I am a pilot, the more it seems to grieve me to hear
>of things like this.
>--
>Waddling Eagle
>World Famous Flight Instructor
>

Indeed.

Based on the limited information that has come out thus far, both aircraft
appeared to have been in the Corona, CA area, which is fairly congested
airspace both due to the presence of the Corona airport (AJO) and because
it's a commonly used corridor around the Class C airspace associated
with John Wayne (SNA), Ontario (ONT) and Riverside (RIV).

You are correct in that despite of the rarity of such an event (as evident
by the fact that it made national news - when was the late time a fatal
car crash made national news?), it is still a terrible tragidy.

-- Dane

[Aluckyguess]

We get gas there all the time. That place gets busy on the weekend.
"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
> In article <2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> C J Campbell > wrote:
>>That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
>>involved feel any better about it.
>>
>>There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172. AP
>>and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on
>>board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
>>suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.
>>
>>Tragic. The longer I am a pilot, the more it seems to grieve me to hear
>>of things like this.
>>--
>>Waddling Eagle
>>World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> Based on the limited information that has come out thus far, both aircraft
> appeared to have been in the Corona, CA area, which is fairly congested
> airspace both due to the presence of the Corona airport (AJO) and because
> it's a commonly used corridor around the Class C airspace associated
> with John Wayne (SNA), Ontario (ONT) and Riverside (RIV).
>
> You are correct in that despite of the rarity of such an event (as evident
> by the fact that it made national news - when was the late time a fatal
> car crash made national news?), it is still a terrible tragidy.
>
> -- Dane

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
> involved feel any better about it.
>
> There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172. AP
> and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on board
> the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I suppose it
> will take some time to straighten out what happened.

And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted that
they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed a flight
plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
>> involved feel any better about it.
>>
>> There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172.
>> AP and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on
>> board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
>> suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.
>
> And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted
> that they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed a
> flight plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.
>

I stopped paying any attention whatsoever to that stuff years ago lest I
drive myself to apoplexy over it.

It's gaurunteed, every time.


Bertie

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-20 20:52:36 -0800, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> . net:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
>>> involved feel any better about it.
>>>
>>> There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172.
>>> AP and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on
>>> board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
>>> suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.
>>
>> And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted
>> that they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed a
>> flight plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.
>>
>
> I stopped paying any attention whatsoever to that stuff years ago lest I
> drive myself to apoplexy over it.
>
> It's gaurunteed, every time.
>
>
> Bertie

I see what you mean. Excite (AP) has "raining debris and bodies down on
car dealership parking lots" and "investigators had not yet obtained a
flight plan."

You can just feel the sensitivity, can't you?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Travis Marlatte]

When you hear these comments on the air or see them in print, take the time
to send an email or letter to the reporter. Don't lecture or go overboard.
Politely point out how stupid it sounds for them to say such things. Not too
technical. I use something like,

"Regarding the tragic airplane accident that you reported on XXXXX. Since
airplane accidents are fairly rare, I do understand why they get so much
media attention. As a pilot and frequent airplane passenger, I wish they
didn't happen at all. However, we all accept a level of risk in most things
that we do - like driving cars or just walking down the street.

I wanted to make you aware that flight plans are not required for a large
portion of flights that occur in this country. Very similar to leaving the
driveway in your car. You are responsible for maneuvering your car, avoiding
others, following the rules of the road, and getting to your destination
without causing an accident. This is true for every flight. The commercial
flights and many General Aviation flights do use Air Traffic Control to
assist, but the responsibility still largely remains with the pilot. A
"Flight Plan" is not necessary to fly safely nor does it guarantee safety.

Sometimes, things go wrong. Maybe a mechanical problem that affects your
ability to control your car - or someone else. Sometimes, it is a lapse in
judgment - or distractions. We all try to avoid these situations to the best
of our ability in all things that we do.

As you reported, we don't yet know all the details of what went wrong with
the accident planes on XXXXX. When we do, pilots everywhere will be looking
for lessons learned to avoid putting themselves in the same situation. I
wish other car drivers were as diligent as my fellow pilots in trying to
follow the rules and learn from the past.

Until we know more, sensationalizing these kinds of stories based on
conjecture or a lack of understanding is not the kind of responsible
reporting I have come to expect from you or your station/paper.

I would be happy to discuss flying more or to put you in contact with other
local pilots, Air Traffic Control, or airport authorities. If you would like
to understand the system and what flying in the United States is like, let
me know."

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
>> involved feel any better about it.
>>
>> There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172. AP
>> and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on board
>> the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I suppose it
>> will take some time to straighten out what happened.
>
> And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted that
> they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed a flight
> plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.

[Slug]

Well I was right. This time it was puddle jumpers.
The next time it may be a heavy over a school or shopping
mall. Near mid-air's and runway collisions are rapidly
rising within our Air Traffic control system. However, the
LIARS in FAA management continue to deny and obfuscate
reality.

The big one is coming. SOON.


NEWARK (CBS) -- There was another near mid-air collision at
Newark Liberty Airport Wednesday, forcing the Federal
Aviation Administration to call an emergency meeting on the
matter.

http://wcbstv.com/local/newark.airport.continental.2.632715.html

Another example of the FAILED Aviation Administration's
march toward disaster. But don't worry, the FAA's
"Diversity" hiring goals have been met.

It really does not matter if FAA management is "Qualified"

People are going to die soon. Real soon.

So go ahead FAILED Aviation Administration management. Keep
screwing over your controllers and technicians while
expanding your FAA management staff. The burned bodies and
guts will be on your back soon. Get ready.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:44 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>That fact that it is extremely rare ...

A MAC occurred at Corona Municipal Airport less than ten years ago:
3/19/1998

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X09700&key=1
NTSB Identification: LAX98FA118A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, March 19, 1998 in CORONA, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 10/13/2000
Aircraft: Cessna 310H, registration: N310RR
Injuries: 3 Fatal.
A Cessna 310 and a Cessna 152 collided in-flight about 2 miles
south of the Corona airport at 2,600 feet mean sea level (about
2,000 above ground level). The Cessna 310, with two pilots aboard,
was descending toward another nearby area airport, and the Cessna
152, flown by a certified flight instructor (the sole occupant)
from the right seat, was orbiting south of the airport awaiting
the reopening of the runway following construction. Radar data
showed that in the 1 minute 18 seconds prior to the collision, the
Cessna 310 descended from 4,000 feet to the collision point on a
southeast bound ground track at a rate of about 1,200 feet per
minute. Nine seconds prior to the collision, the Cessna 152, which
had been on a westbound track, began a right turn toward a
northwest bound ground track. Over the 1 minute 18 second period,
the horizontal separation decreased from 6.01 nautical miles to
zero as the vertical separation decreased 1,400 feet.
Reconstruction of the two airplanes revealed that at the point of
collision, the Cessna 310's lateral axis was about 80 degrees to
the Cessna 152's vertical axis as the 310's outer right wing and
tip tank contacted the 152's left main gear strut, lift strut, and
inboard left wing. In the one minute prior to the collision, the
relative horizontal bearing from the Cessna 310 ground track to
the Cessna 152 was between 8 and 10 degrees left of the track.
During this same period, the relative horizontal bearing from the
Cessna 152 ground track to the Cessna 310 varied between 25
degrees and 40 degrees right of the Cessna 152 ground track as it
maneuvered prior to the right turn. Trigonometric calculation of
altitude difference between the targets yielded a 2 degree 10
minute relative vertical angle between the target positions.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The failure of both pilots to maintain an adequate visual lookout
and to see and avoid the other airplane.

Full narrative available

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 21, 5:51 pm, Slug > wrote:
> Well I was right. This time it was puddle jumpers.
> The next time it may be a heavy over a school or shopping
> mall. Near mid-air's and runway collisions are rapidly
> rising within our Air Traffic control system. However, the
> LIARS in FAA management continue to deny and obfuscate
> reality.
>
> The big one is coming. SOON.


I must've read on an average at least one newspaper article with
similar headlines over the past five years about the (reportedly)
dangerous scene in India. Either the scribes have been unduly antsy or
we've been dashed lucky thus far.

Reports of near-misses between civilian and military aircraft where
the former use the latter's airfields - and there are a fair few of
them - are especially rife.

Ramapriya

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 21, 7:19 pm, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 5:51 pm, Slug > wrote:
>
> > Well I was right. This time it was puddle jumpers.
> > The next time it may be a heavy over a school or shopping
> > mall. Near mid-air's and runway collisions are rapidly
> > rising within our Air Traffic control system. However, the
> > LIARS in FAA management continue to deny and obfuscate
> > reality.
>
> > The big one is coming. SOON.
>
> I must've read on an average at least one newspaper article* with
> similar headlines over the past five years about the (reportedly)
> dangerous scene in India. Either the scribes have been unduly antsy or
> we've been dashed lucky thus far.
>
> Reports of near-misses between civilian and military aircraft where
> the former use the latter's airfields - and there are a fair few of
> them - are especially rife.
>
> Ramapriya

* each month

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2008012105234616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2008-01-20 20:52:36 -0800, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>> That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
>>>> involved feel any better about it.
>>>>
>>>> There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a
172.
>>>> AP and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest
on
>>>> board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
>>>> suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.
>>>
>>> And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted
>>> that they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed
a
>>> flight plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.
>>>
>>
>> I stopped paying any attention whatsoever to that stuff years ago
lest I
>> drive myself to apoplexy over it.
>>
>> It's gaurunteed, every time.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I see what you mean. Excite (AP) has "raining debris and bodies down
on
> car dealership parking lots" and "investigators had not yet obtained a
> flight plan."
>
> You can just feel the sensitivity, can't you?

I remember when every light plane that crashed was a "Piper cub" An
after that Navajo fell into a school yard colliding with the Chopper
years ago one station spoke of "The terror from above". Oh yeah, and
shortly after the DC-10 rolled over in Chicago in 79, the radio was
reporting a DC3 that had crashed in FLA a few days after and was making
the point that they were both Douglas's and maybe there was something
inherently wrong with the brand...

I think that was the moment I stopped takin them seriously.
If I had been the Captain n the BA flight ( and survived!) I would have
taken the greatest glee in depriving those turkey vultures of their
carrion.


Bertie

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-21 07:19:32 -0800, D Ramapriya > said:

> On Jan 21, 5:51 pm, Slug > wrote:
>> Well I was right. This time it was puddle jumpers.
>> The next time it may be a heavy over a school or shopping
>> mall. Near mid-air's and runway collisions are rapidly
>> rising within our Air Traffic control system. However, the
>> LIARS in FAA management continue to deny and obfuscate
>> reality.
>>
>> The big one is coming. SOON.
>
>
> I must've read on an average at least one newspaper article with
> similar headlines over the past five years about the (reportedly)
> dangerous scene in India. Either the scribes have been unduly antsy or
> we've been dashed lucky thus far.
>
> Reports of near-misses between civilian and military aircraft where
> the former use the latter's airfields - and there are a fair few of
> them - are especially rife.
>
> Ramapriya

Slug can take his FAA conspiracy theories elsewhere. The FAA probably
had nothing to do with a crash at Corona. There is no tower there and
neither plane may have even been in radio contact with any FAA facility.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" <> wrote

> Slug can take his FAA conspiracy theories elsewhere. The FAA probably had
> nothing to do with a crash at Corona. There is no tower there and neither
> plane may have even been in radio contact with any FAA facility.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Those points aside, though, I would agree that there is possible a large
problem with ATC about to develop.

The poor moral, for whatever reasons, such as long working hours,
understaffing, antiquated equipment, and more, could mean that many current
controllers will retire at the first opportunity that they can afford to do
so. That means very soon, for many controllers; many more replacements will
be needed than we are able to hire and train, at present time.

Unfortunately, that will likely mean more overtime, and less staffing,
leading down the cycle of lessening moral and more retirements...

I hope it is not as bleak as I fear.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.

Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.

Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:44 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>> That fact that it is extremely rare ...
>
> A MAC occurred at Corona Municipal Airport less than ten years ago:
> 3/19/1998


We have automobile collisions collisions by the dozens every month. Once every
ten years would qualify as a fairly rare event, I would think.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 21, 9:30*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:44 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
> >That fact that it is extremely rare ...
>
> A MAC occurred at Corona Municipal Airport less than ten years ago:
> 3/19/1998 *
>
> * *http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X09700&key=1
> * * NTSB Identification: LAX98FA118A
> * * 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> * * Accident occurred Thursday, March 19, 1998 in CORONA, CA
> * * Probable Cause Approval Date: 10/13/2000
> * * Aircraft: Cessna 310H, registration: N310RR
> * * Injuries: 3 Fatal.
> * * A Cessna 310 and a Cessna 152 collided in-flight about 2 miles
> * * south of the Corona airport at 2,600 feet mean sea level (about
> * * 2,000 above ground level). The Cessna 310, with two pilots aboard,
> * * was descending toward another nearby area airport, and the Cessna
> * * 152, flown by a certified flight instructor (the sole occupant)
> * * from the right seat, was orbiting south of the airport awaiting
> * * the reopening of the runway following construction. Radar data
> * * showed that in the 1 minute 18 seconds prior to the collision, the
> * * Cessna 310 descended from 4,000 feet to the collision point on a
> * * southeast bound ground track at a rate of about 1,200 feet per
> * * minute. Nine seconds prior to the collision, the Cessna 152, which
> * * had been on a westbound track, began a right turn toward a
> * * northwest bound ground track. Over the 1 minute 18 second period,
> * * the horizontal separation decreased from 6.01 nautical miles to
> * * zero as the vertical separation decreased 1,400 feet.
> * * Reconstruction of the two airplanes revealed that at the point of
> * * collision, the Cessna 310's lateral axis was about 80 degrees to
> * * the Cessna 152's vertical axis as the 310's outer right wing and
> * * tip tank contacted the 152's left main gear strut, lift strut, and
> * * inboard left wing. In the one minute prior to the collision, the
> * * relative horizontal bearing from the Cessna 310 ground track to
> * * the Cessna 152 was between 8 and 10 degrees left of the track.
> * * During this same period, the relative horizontal bearing from the
> * * Cessna 152 ground track to the Cessna 310 varied between 25
> * * degrees and 40 degrees right of the Cessna 152 ground track as it
> * * maneuvered prior to the right turn. Trigonometric calculation of
> * * altitude difference between the targets yielded a 2 degree 10
> * * minute relative vertical angle between the target positions.
>
> * * The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
> * * cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>
> * * The failure of both pilots to maintain an adequate visual lookout
> * * and to see and avoid the other airplane.
>
> * * Full narrative available

Wow, what are the odds of two Cessnas hitting each other at the same
airport within a ten year peiod? It's a conpiracy!

Wil

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

> >The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.

> Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
> extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
> limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
> FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.

> Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214

Yeah, look at it closely.

The non-ATC controlled airspace around Corona is hardly limited.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:24:40 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:44 -0800, C J Campbell
>> > wrote in
>> <2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>>
>>> That fact that it is extremely rare ...
>>
>> A MAC occurred at Corona Municipal Airport less than ten years ago:
>> 3/19/1998
>
>
>We have automobile collisions collisions by the dozens every month. Once every
>ten years would qualify as a fairly rare event, I would think.

Given the disparity between the number of aircraft (239,162 in 2006*)
in the US and the number of automobiles (129,728,341 in 1998**) (542
times as many autos as planes), that's not a very good comparison.

When you factor in the MAC happening in the same location in less than
ten years time, it's even worse.



* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060419factcard.html

** http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs97/in3.pdf

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:45:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
>> > wrote in
>> <2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>> >The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.
>
>> Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
>> extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
>> limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
>> FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.
>
>> Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214
>
>Yeah, look at it closely.
>
>The non-ATC controlled airspace around Corona is hardly limited.


I suppose that depends on how one characterizes 'limited.'

What I see is:

Class D with a ceiling of 2,700' within a mile north
Class Charlie with a floor of 2,700' overhead
Another Class Charlie a few miles to the SE
Class Bravo to the NW
Another Class Delta about 3 miles east
Another Class Charlie surface area ~15 miles east

And then there are the ~4,000' mountains ~5 miles to the southeast and
the Paradise VORTAC ~3 miles NW that tend to concentrate aircraft.

I find those as limiting the airspace available to flights not in
contact with ATC. You say 'tomato'...

Of course, this is a non-issue for IFR flights and those receiving
Radar Traffic Advisory Service from ATC.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
>> involved feel any better about it.
>>
>> There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a 172.
>> AP and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest on
>> board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
>> suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.
>
> And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted that
> they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed a flight
> plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.

Now it's two in each plane and one on the ground, and a 150 and 172.

I like this bit from the LA Times:

"Without assessing a cause for Sunday's accident, Pollack noted that the
airport has no flight control tower. 'It's considered to be an
uncontrolled airport,' he told reporters."

(Pollack is NTSB investigator Wayne Pollack.) There's no context around
that passage to explain that uncontrolled airports are the norm or that
primary responsibility for avoiding traffic falls on pilots under VFR.
Whether the reporters intended it or not (and I doubt they did),
unknowledgeable readers are going to think the lack of a tower had to be
a cause of this accident.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:45:03 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
> >> > wrote in
> >> <2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
> >
> >> >The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.
> >
> >> Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
> >> extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
> >> limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
> >> FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.
> >
> >> Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214
> >
> >Yeah, look at it closely.
> >
> >The non-ATC controlled airspace around Corona is hardly limited.


> I suppose that depends on how one characterizes 'limited.'

> What I see is:

> Class D with a ceiling of 2,700' within a mile north

TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south. The only way
to get to Corona through the CNO class D is to first go through the
ONT class C, and almost nobody does that except students being shown
how to use the radio.

> Class Charlie with a floor of 2,700' overhead

See above. If you are under the Class C and going to or coming from
Corona, you would never be that high anyway.

> Another Class Charlie a few miles to the SE

The floor of the SNA class C in that area is 3500 feet. There is no
reason to go in that direction unless you are actually going to SNA.

You can't go down the coast that way as you would have to go through
a restricted areas around Camp Pendleton.

> Class Bravo to the NW

And you have to go a long way to the west before the floor of the
class B drops below 7000 feet.

> Another Class Delta about 3 miles east

If you are going that way, you would be above 2700 feet by the time
you got there anyway. And you do want to be above 2700 in that direction
because of the terrain.

> Another Class Charlie surface area ~15 miles east

That's March ARB. If you are going that direction, the only place to
go is through the Banning pass and you will be above the class C
anyway.


> And then there are the ~4,000' mountains ~5 miles to the southeast and
> the Paradise VORTAC ~3 miles NW that tend to concentrate aircraft.

And on the other side of those hills (the mountains are to the north)
is SNA and two restricted areas. You aren't going that way unless
you are going to either SNA or Hawaii.

I can think of no reason to anywhere near Paradise VORTAC either departing
or arriving VFR at Corona.

> I find those as limiting the airspace available to flights not in
> contact with ATC. You say 'tomato'...

I find the Pacific Ocean and the 10,000 foot mountains far more
limiting than any controlled airspace area.

Most of the airports in the basin are towered. The only ones that are
not are CCB, AJO, L67 (going away to developers), SBD, RIR and REI.

> Of course, this is a non-issue for IFR flights and those receiving
> Radar Traffic Advisory Service from ATC.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[LWG]

I figured out why they are obsessed with flight plans. Part of the human
angle of the story is where the departed was/were going. "They were headed
for a reunion with their long-lost children..." They check on the flight
plan to see if they can wrangle that part of the story out of the relatives.


> And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted that
> they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed a flight
> plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.

[BDS[_2_]]

> wrote
>
> TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south.

Now you tell me! Here I've been flying it at 1532 all this time...

BDS

[[email protected]]

BDS > wrote:

> > wrote
> >
> > TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south.

> Now you tell me! Here I've been flying it at 1532 all this time...

Yeah, I know.

I didn't remember what it is so I looked it up and that's the official
TPA.

Much like the Cable official TPA of 2244 which I always fly 4 feet low.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Slug]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-01-21 07:19:32 -0800, D Ramapriya > said:
>
>> On Jan 21, 5:51 pm, Slug > wrote:
>>> Well I was right. This time it was puddle jumpers.
>>> The next time it may be a heavy over a school or shopping
>>> mall. Near mid-air's and runway collisions are rapidly
>>> rising within our Air Traffic control system. However, the
>>> LIARS in FAA management continue to deny and obfuscate
>>> reality.
>>>
>>> The big one is coming. SOON.
>>
>>
>> I must've read on an average at least one newspaper article with
>> similar headlines over the past five years about the (reportedly)
>> dangerous scene in India. Either the scribes have been unduly antsy or
>> we've been dashed lucky thus far.
>>
>> Reports of near-misses between civilian and military aircraft where
>> the former use the latter's airfields - and there are a fair few of
>> them - are especially rife.
>>
>> Ramapriya
>
> Slug can take his FAA conspiracy theories elsewhere. The FAA probably
> had nothing to do with a crash at Corona. There is no tower there and
> neither plane may have even been in radio contact with any FAA facility.
>

Conspiracy?

1. Are you sure the tower was not closed due to
FAA budget cutbacks so the FAA could fund diversity
conferences in Vegas or their controller staffing
cutbacks or their management staff expansions(desk jobs in
DC)or their big contractor contracts or their Gay Pride
celebrations?
2. Are you sure the radios were operational in that
airspace? Did you know that more and more FAA systems
including Air Traffic communications stay broke as the FAA
cuts back on staffing of critical technical positions but
expands their civil rights and diversity staff and funds Gay
Pride celebrations?
3. Are you sure the controllers in that airspace were
adequately staffed if the pilots were under FAA control and
properly trained and experienced(Most of the FAA seasoned
controllers are bailing due to pathetic FAA management and
cutbacks)
4. Are you sure one or both of the pilots were adequately
checked out by FAA flight inspectors?(The FAA has cut back
inspector positions under the Bush Administration but kisses
big contractors asses)
5. Are you sure one or both of the aircraft were adequately
inspected mechanically?(The FAA has cut back inspector
positions under the Bush Administration but kisses big
contractors asses redux)

Conspiracy?

Why don't you open your eyes to the possibility that direct
or indirect FAA decisions and/or incompetence and/or budget
staffing cutbacks contributed to this incident.

Or is it easier to blame it ALL on the two pilots and
bury your head in the sand?

Dig deep. You may be surprised to find you can't blow off
all the air accidents in America calling it a "Conspiracy
against the FAA" DIG a little. If one or more of the above
five scenarios are not in play I will electronically kiss
your ass.

Wake up. The FAA could care less about Air Safety. They are
only worried about their Loser management empires and Gay
Pride celebrations.

[[email protected]]

Slug > wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:

> > Slug can take his FAA conspiracy theories elsewhere. The FAA probably
> > had nothing to do with a crash at Corona. There is no tower there and
> > neither plane may have even been in radio contact with any FAA facility.
> >

> Conspiracy?

> 1. Are you sure the tower was not closed due to
> FAA budget cutbacks so the FAA could fund diversity
> conferences in Vegas or their controller staffing
> cutbacks or their management staff expansions(desk jobs in
> DC)or their big contractor contracts or their Gay Pride
> celebrations?

There is not now nor has there ever been in the last 40 years a tower
at Corona. Before that I don't know but would bet money there has
never been a tower at Corona.

> 2. Are you sure the radios were operational in that
> airspace? Did you know that more and more FAA systems
> including Air Traffic communications stay broke as the FAA
> cuts back on staffing of critical technical positions but
> expands their civil rights and diversity staff and funds Gay
> Pride celebrations?

Irrelevant; no tower at Corona and the airspace they were in is
uncontrolled.

Moreover, a lot of aircraft that use Corona don't even have radios.

> 3. Are you sure the controllers in that airspace were
> adequately staffed if the pilots were under FAA control and
> properly trained and experienced(Most of the FAA seasoned
> controllers are bailing due to pathetic FAA management and
> cutbacks)

Irrelevant; no tower at Corona and the airspace they were in is
uncontrolled.

> 4. Are you sure one or both of the pilots were adequately
> checked out by FAA flight inspectors?(The FAA has cut back
> inspector positions under the Bush Administration but kisses
> big contractors asses)

Irrelevant; checkouts are normally done by the pilot's CFI of
choice.

> 5. Are you sure one or both of the aircraft were adequately
> inspected mechanically?(The FAA has cut back inspector
> positions under the Bush Administration but kisses big
> contractors asses redux)

Irrelevant; inspections are normally done by the owner's mechanic
of choice.

> Conspiracy?

> Why don't you open your eyes to the possibility that direct
> or indirect FAA decisions and/or incompetence and/or budget
> staffing cutbacks contributed to this incident.

Because that's a raving fantasy.

> Or is it easier to blame it ALL on the two pilots and
> bury your head in the sand?

The area they were in is see and avoid.

They didn't see and they didn't avoid.

> Dig deep. You may be surprised to find you can't blow off
> all the air accidents in America calling it a "Conspiracy
> against the FAA" DIG a little. If one or more of the above
> five scenarios are not in play I will electronically kiss
> your ass.

Looks like you can kiss my ass.

> Wake up. The FAA could care less about Air Safety. They are
> only worried about their Loser management empires and Gay
> Pride celebrations.

This may or may not be true, but it is obvious to the most casual
observer that it isn't relevant to the Corona incident.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[RST Engineering]

Roughly the same odds as teaching the clueless how to snip dozens of lines
for a two line reply.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford





Wow, what are the odds of two Cessnas hitting each other at the same
airport within a ten year peiod? It's a conpiracy!

Wil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:55:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:45:03 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>
>> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
>> >> > wrote in
>> >> <2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>> >
>> >> >The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.
>> >
>> >> Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
>> >> extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
>> >> limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
>> >> FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.
>> >
>> >> Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214
>> >
>> >Yeah, look at it closely.
>> >
>> >The non-ATC controlled airspace around Corona is hardly limited.
>
>
>> I suppose that depends on how one characterizes 'limited.'
>
>> What I see is:
>
>> Class D with a ceiling of 2,700' within a mile north
>
>TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south. The only way
>to get to Corona through the CNO class D is to first go through the
>ONT class C, and almost nobody does that except students being shown
>how to use the radio.

The floor of outer ring of the KONT Class C is 2,700', so there's no
need to transition the KONT Class C from the north though the KCNO
Class D if you stay below 2,700', but that's not at issue here.

>
>> Class Charlie with a floor of 2,700' overhead
>
>See above. If you are under the Class C and going to or coming from
>Corona, you would never be that high anyway.

If remaining in VMC required it, you might.

>
>> Another Class Charlie a few miles to the SE
>
>The floor of the SNA class C in that area is 3500 feet. There is no
>reason to go in that direction unless you are actually going to SNA.

Of course, there is the reciprocal to that statement, when you are
arriving at KAJO.

>You can't go down the coast that way as you would have to go through
>a restricted areas around Camp Pendleton.

All you have to do to fly down the coast is stay a mile or two off
shore, and you'll be clear of R2503 A & D.

[...]

>
>> And then there are the ~4,000' mountains ~5 miles to the southeast and
>> the Paradise VORTAC ~3 miles NW that tend to concentrate aircraft.
>
>And on the other side of those hills (the mountains are to the north)
>is SNA and two restricted areas. You aren't going that way unless
>you are going to either SNA or Hawaii.
>
>I can think of no reason to anywhere near Paradise VORTAC either departing
>or arriving VFR at Corona.

KAJO is located 3 miles from Paradise VORTAC; you don't get a choice.

>> I find those as limiting the airspace available to flights not in
>> contact with ATC. You say 'tomato'...
>
>I find the Pacific Ocean and the 10,000 foot mountains far more
>limiting than any controlled airspace area.

Agreed. But that wasn't part of what we were discussing.

>
>Most of the airports in the basin are towered. The only ones that are
>not are CCB, AJO, L67 (going away to developers), SBD, RIR and REI.

What is your point?

>> Of course, this is a non-issue for IFR flights and those receiving
>> Radar Traffic Advisory Service from ATC.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-21, Slug > wrote:
> Wake up. The FAA could care less about Air Safety. They are
> only worried about their Loser management empires and Gay
> Pride celebrations.

Well, we know where your true agenda lies, at least.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:55:03 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:45:03 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
> >> >> > wrote in
> >> >> <2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
> >> >
> >> >> >The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.
> >> >
> >> >> Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
> >> >> extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
> >> >> limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
> >> >> FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.
> >> >
> >> >> Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, look at it closely.
> >> >
> >> >The non-ATC controlled airspace around Corona is hardly limited.
> >
> >
> >> I suppose that depends on how one characterizes 'limited.'
> >
> >> What I see is:
> >
> >> Class D with a ceiling of 2,700' within a mile north
> >
> >TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south. The only way
> >to get to Corona through the CNO class D is to first go through the
> >ONT class C, and almost nobody does that except students being shown
> >how to use the radio.

> The floor of outer ring of the KONT Class C is 2,700', so there's no
> need to transition the KONT Class C from the north though the KCNO
> Class D if you stay below 2,700', but that's not at issue here.

Or in other words, there is a huge area around the class C, so it is
hardly airspace limiting.

> >
> >> Class Charlie with a floor of 2,700' overhead
> >
> >See above. If you are under the Class C and going to or coming from
> >Corona, you would never be that high anyway.

> If remaining in VMC required it, you might.

Not unless your A/C climbs like a fighter or has airbrakes for the
decent.

However, if it is not VMC below you, you certainly aren't going VFR
to Corona

> >
> >> Another Class Charlie a few miles to the SE
> >
> >The floor of the SNA class C in that area is 3500 feet. There is no
> >reason to go in that direction unless you are actually going to SNA.

> Of course, there is the reciprocal to that statement, when you are
> arriving at KAJO.

So how would the presence of SNA be a limitation on getting to Corona
from SNA?

> >You can't go down the coast that way as you would have to go through
> >a restricted areas around Camp Pendleton.

> All you have to do to fly down the coast is stay a mile or two off
> shore, and you'll be clear of R2503 A & D.

SNA is to the west; if you were going down the coast to one of the San
Diego airports starting from Cornoa, the direct route is between SNA
and Camp Pendleton.


> [...]

> >
> >> And then there are the ~4,000' mountains ~5 miles to the southeast and
> >> the Paradise VORTAC ~3 miles NW that tend to concentrate aircraft.
> >
> >And on the other side of those hills (the mountains are to the north)
> >is SNA and two restricted areas. You aren't going that way unless
> >you are going to either SNA or Hawaii.
> >
> >I can think of no reason to anywhere near Paradise VORTAC either departing
> >or arriving VFR at Corona.

> KAJO is located 3 miles from Paradise VORTAC; you don't get a choice.

Traffic over Paradise is +/- 3 miles, and again I can think of no
reason to be near Paradise.

> >> I find those as limiting the airspace available to flights not in
> >> contact with ATC. You say 'tomato'...
> >
> >I find the Pacific Ocean and the 10,000 foot mountains far more
> >limiting than any controlled airspace area.

> Agreed. But that wasn't part of what we were discussing.

I thought were discussing the limitations of controlled airspace.

> >
> >Most of the airports in the basin are towered. The only ones that are
> >not are CCB, AJO, L67 (going away to developers), SBD, RIR and REI.

> What is your point?

The point is that if you are going to controlled airspace on purpose,
the fact that the airspace is controlled is hardly limiting as you
have to talk to ATC and going no-radio isn't an option.

> >> Of course, this is a non-issue for IFR flights and those receiving
> >> Radar Traffic Advisory Service from ATC.

Though in some places it is a very good ideo to have flight following,
one can fly for hours in the basin without turning on the radio.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:55:03 GMT, wrote
>> See above. If you are under the Class C and going to or coming from
>> Corona, you would never be that high anyway.
>
> If remaining in VMC required it, you might.
>

If you're remaining in VMC by climbing, you're not arriving VFR at AJO,
and you wouldn't transit the area that low to begin with (see: mountains).

> Of course, there is the reciprocal to that statement, when you are
> arriving at KAJO.

But no one flies SNA-AJO (even students; why fly all the way out there
when you're practically standing on a perfectly good Class C?), and
there's no other conceivable scenario that would involve the SNA Class C
and arriving at AJO. You're either higher than the top, or have gone
around it as a more efficient path.


>> I can think of no reason to anywhere near Paradise VORTAC either departing
>> or arriving VFR at Corona.
>
> KAJO is located 3 miles from Paradise VORTAC; you don't get a choice.

All the traffic that transits the area over Paradise does so much higher
than the ONT Class C, for obvious reasons, and becomes a non-issue to
local AJO traffic.

TheSmokingGnu

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:05:39 GMT, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote in
<Tbclj.3438$hk4.3134@trnddc03>:

>But no one flies SNA-AJO (even students; why fly all the way out there
>when you're practically standing on a perfectly good Class C?), ...

The cost of fuel is considerably cheaper at AJO than at SNA (and many
other places in the nation). That's enough to motivate some folks
with aircraft with considerable fuel capacity such as the PA28-235 (85
gallons) to fill up at AJO.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-21 08:57:00 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>> The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.
>
> Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
> extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
> limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
> FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.
>
> Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214

In any event, I doubt if the FAA's affirmative action program had
anything to do with it.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[TheSmokingGnu]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:05:39 GMT, TheSmokingGnu
> > wrote in
> <Tbclj.3438$hk4.3134@trnddc03>:
>
>> But no one flies SNA-AJO (even students; why fly all the way out there
>> when you're practically standing on a perfectly good Class C?), ...
>
> The cost of fuel is considerably cheaper at AJO than at SNA (and many
> other places in the nation). That's enough to motivate some folks
> with aircraft with considerable fuel capacity such as the PA28-235 (85
> gallons) to fill up at AJO.

While you are correct in that fueling at AJO will, in the PA-28's case,
save you about $25 (over closer services at FUL, and ~$135 per at SNA),
you have to take into account the added wear and tear on the aircraft;
AJO is 19nm straightline, and the PA-28 will need something like 0.4
hours roundtrip to fuel at AJO (under perfect, traffic-less conditions
and ideal flight path and no winds; don't forget time-on-ground, too).
Assuming a TBO of 1500 hours (wild guess, am I ballpark?), you're
looking at a savings of ~$43,000; can you overhaul an O-540 with that
much money? What will it cost you in oil, tires and time to fly all the
way out there and back each time for fuel?

Also consider that this is relying on the only available supplier at SNA
on AirNav; I'm almost certain there are more FBO's at SNA than one (been
a long time). Consider that LGB is closer than AJO to SNA, and has
self-serve fuel just 30 cents more expensive than AJO.

Besides, I don't even think there are any good hamburger joints at AJO.

I mean really! What's the point? :P

TheSmokingGnu

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:20:14 GMT, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote in
<yWflj.3634$hk4.200@trnddc03>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:05:39 GMT, TheSmokingGnu
>> > wrote in
>> <Tbclj.3438$hk4.3134@trnddc03>:
>>
>>> But no one flies SNA-AJO (even students; why fly all the way out there
>>> when you're practically standing on a perfectly good Class C?), ...
>>
>> The cost of fuel is considerably cheaper at AJO than at SNA (and many
>> other places in the nation). That's enough to motivate some folks
>> with aircraft with considerable fuel capacity such as the PA28-235 (85
>> gallons) to fill up at AJO.
>
>While you are correct in that fueling at AJO will, in the PA-28's case,
>save you about $25 (over closer services at FUL, and ~$135 per at SNA),
>you have to take into account the added wear and tear on the aircraft;
>AJO is 19nm straightline, and the PA-28 will need something like 0.4
>hours roundtrip to fuel at AJO (under perfect, traffic-less conditions
>and ideal flight path and no winds; don't forget time-on-ground, too).
>Assuming a TBO of 1500 hours (wild guess, am I ballpark?),

You're only off by 33%: Lycoming O-540 TBO = 2,000 hours.

>you're
>looking at a savings of ~$43,000; can you overhaul an O-540 with that
>much money? What will it cost you in oil, tires and time to fly all the
>way out there and back each time for fuel?
>
>Also consider that this is relying on the only available supplier at SNA
>on AirNav; I'm almost certain there are more FBO's at SNA than one (been
>a long time).

Two. Newport Jet Center, and Signature Flight Support.

>Consider that LGB is closer than AJO to SNA, and has
>self-serve fuel just 30 cents more expensive than AJO.
>
>Besides, I don't even think there are any good hamburger joints at AJO.

The fare at Bob's Chili & Chow Hall is good for dinner food. I'd rate
it above Flo's at Chino.

>I mean really! What's the point? :P

Bragging rights about havening purchased the cheapest fuel for $4.10 /
gallon instead of $6.01? That's nearly a 33% ($1.91/gallon) savings,
or say $143.25 savings for 75 gallons.

[Denny]

Wow, what are the odds of two Cessnas hitting each other at the same
airport within a ten year peiod?

Bad Karma!


denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:45:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>> >> Of course, this is a non-issue for IFR flights and those receiving
>> >> Radar Traffic Advisory Service from ATC.
>
>Though in some places it is a very good ideo to have flight following,
>one can fly for hours in the basin without turning on the radio.
>

One can indeed, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea or
responsible. Such generalizations, without specifics such as location,
altitude, aircraft type, ..., aren't too useful.

Personally I always burn a landing light and receive Radar Traffic
Advisory Service within 100 miles of Los Angeles. I've personally
seen a lot of traffic that didn't see me, and that drives a stake
through the heart of the Big Sky Theory for me. A prudent pilot needs
to employ all the eyeballs, equipment, and services available to him
if he intends to escape being labeled as negligent.

[Dane Spearing]

In article <yWflj.3634$hk4.200@trnddc03>,
TheSmokingGnu > wrote:
>Also consider that this is relying on the only available supplier at SNA
>on AirNav; I'm almost certain there are more FBO's at SNA than one (been
>a long time).

Yup. There are two: Signature and Atlantic Aviation. Current fuel prices
for both are about $6.00/gal at the moment. No self serve. OTOH, AJO's
fuel price is currently $4.10.

>Besides, I don't even think there are any good hamburger joints at AJO.

WHAT?!? Bob's Chili and Chow Hall is quite possibly one of the best
greasy-spoon airport restaurants in the entire LA Basin! You need to get
away from your home airport a little more often. :) We're talking
classic $100 hamburger fare here folks.

-- Dane

[Larry Dighera]

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/22/investigators-seek-cause-of-midair-collision-in/
Investigators seek cause of midair collision in Corona
By Greg Risling
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 22, 2008

... There were bodies falling out of the sky," witness Hector
Hernandez told KCBS-TV. "One of them crashed into the top of a
Ford Mustang, and another one fell not too far behind that one on
the parking lot."

In one of the car lots, the twisted hull of a plane rested against
two vehicles.

Witnesses told authorities that one of the planes slammed into the
other. One of the aircraft shattered on impact, while the other
spiraled to the ground, left mostly intact.

Authorities haven't released the planes' origins or destinations.
The crash occurred about a mile south of the Corona Municipal
Airport, which doesn't have a manned control tower.

The crash is the sixth in the area over the past 10 years.

...

The Riverside County Coroner's Office identified the dead as Scott
Gayle Lawrence, 55, of Cerritos; Paul Luther Carlson, 73, also of
Cerritos; Brandon William Johnson, 24, of Costa Mesa; Anthony Joel
Guzman, 20, of Hesperia; and Earl Smiddy, 58, of Moreno Valley.

Smiddy was crushed in the car dealership.




http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080121-1413-ca-planescollide.html
... One of the planes was a Cessna 172 registered to William A.
Reinke of La Habra, according to aircraft databases. Reached at
his home Sunday night, Reinke declined to say who was flying his
plane or who might have been on board.

The second plane, a Cessna 150, is registered to Air Corona Inc.,
based in Dover, Del. Many plane owners register their aircraft in
Delaware even if they are not based there because of the state's
low taxes.

[Aluckyguess]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:20:14 GMT, TheSmokingGnu
> > wrote in
> <yWflj.3634$hk4.200@trnddc03>:
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:05:39 GMT, TheSmokingGnu
>>> > wrote in
>>> <Tbclj.3438$hk4.3134@trnddc03>:
>>>
>>>> But no one flies SNA-AJO (even students; why fly all the way out there
>>>> when you're practically standing on a perfectly good Class C?), ...
>>>
>>> The cost of fuel is considerably cheaper at AJO than at SNA (and many
>>> other places in the nation). That's enough to motivate some folks
>>> with aircraft with considerable fuel capacity such as the PA28-235 (85
>>> gallons) to fill up at AJO.
>>
>>While you are correct in that fueling at AJO will, in the PA-28's case,
>>save you about $25 (over closer services at FUL, and ~$135 per at SNA),
>>you have to take into account the added wear and tear on the aircraft;
>>AJO is 19nm straightline, and the PA-28 will need something like 0.4
>>hours roundtrip to fuel at AJO (under perfect, traffic-less conditions
>>and ideal flight path and no winds; don't forget time-on-ground, too).
>>Assuming a TBO of 1500 hours (wild guess, am I ballpark?),
>
> You're only off by 33%: Lycoming O-540 TBO = 2,000 hours.
>
>>you're
>>looking at a savings of ~$43,000; can you overhaul an O-540 with that
>>much money? What will it cost you in oil, tires and time to fly all the
>>way out there and back each time for fuel?
>>
>>Also consider that this is relying on the only available supplier at SNA
>>on AirNav; I'm almost certain there are more FBO's at SNA than one (been
>>a long time).
>
> Two. Newport Jet Center, and Signature Flight Support.
>
>>Consider that LGB is closer than AJO to SNA, and has
>>self-serve fuel just 30 cents more expensive than AJO.
>>
>>Besides, I don't even think there are any good hamburger joints at AJO.
>
> The fare at Bob's Chili & Chow Hall is good for dinner food. I'd rate
> it above Flo's at Chino.
>
>>I mean really! What's the point? :P
>
> Bragging rights about havening purchased the cheapest fuel for $4.10 /
> gallon instead of $6.01? That's nearly a 33% ($1.91/gallon) savings,
> or say $143.25 savings for 75 gallons.

3.99 gallon today I just flew in and filled up.

[[email protected]]

aluckyguess > wrote:


> 3.99 gallon today I just flew in and filled up.

I contemplated stirring the oil a bit this morning but it looked too
nasty.

Where are you based and how was it?

When I have no place to go and nothing to do, I like to do dawn patrol
from Cable out to the Rialto practice area, do a few maneuvers to prove
to myself I can still do them, out to the Redlands area to see the sights,
then back to Cable.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Aluckyguess]

> wrote in message
...
> aluckyguess > wrote:
>
>
>> 3.99 gallon today I just flew in and filled up.
>
> I contemplated stirring the oil a bit this morning but it looked too
> nasty.
>
> Where are you based and how was it?
Riverside. Gas there is 5.25
>
> When I have no place to go and nothing to do, I like to do dawn patrol
> from Cable out to the Rialto practice area, do a few maneuvers to prove
> to myself I can still do them, out to the Redlands area to see the sights,
> then back to Cable.

I have been training to get instrument rated, so I have been burning some
gas. sure is fun.

Kevin
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.