![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:33:45 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote: ...Skyhawk XXX. Traffic is 12 o'clock, two miles, altitude 7600, closing. Recommend turn left 30 degrees immediately." A few weeks ago I was flying out of my base airport on a short cross country flight. As I climbed out of runway 23 the controller told me to make a "structured" right downwind and to maintain 1000'. The word "structured" threw me for a second. I had never heard that term used before. But I assumed he meant to fly a standard closed circuit which I did. I established myself on the downwind and nailed it at 1000' because the controller had traffic at 1500'. All is good until I get down to the arrival end of the runway abeam the numbers. Then out of the corner of my eye, in a split second a Cessna passed directly under me about ten degrees off the nose. I believe he was less than 100' below me. I never thought about it again and proceeded with the flight. But I begin to wonder about it the next day. The day before I took this aformentioned flight I had schedlued a visit to the control tower for the next weekend. So when I went for the visit I mentioned the incident the controller. It happened to be the same guy that was working me the previous weekend. He remembered the particular aircraft in question and said that they in the contrl tower were taken completely by surprise by that Cessna driver. We talked about it for a little while and moved on to other topics. (As a side note I told him that the word "structured" confused me for a second. He said that it was something he had used as a military controller and that it might be best to rethink his use of it now.) The reason I mention this close encounter is that I have always been hesitant about how well I can spot aircraft at a distance. I felt that I should have seen this guy at least a few miles out but never did. Depending on the sun angles, the haze, the background clutter etc., I am not completely confident yet on my ability to be able to immediately spot an aircraft 3 or 5 miles out. And in this case I never saw him until he was right under me. Is it resaonble to expect that Casey or the other pilot should have been able to see each other 3, 4 or 5 miles out? Or do you have to have the infamous eyesight of Chuck Yeager. For the average GA pilot what would be the expected level of visual acuity? When conditions are right I can see aircraft 3 to 4 miles out but when the controllers report traffic that far out it can take me some time to spot it. Sometimes I never can because of the conditions. Usually it takes the lightreflecting off the aircraft just rightfor me to see it. Does the ability to spot other aircraft improve with experience? Kirk |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The reason I mention this close encounter is that I have always been
hesitant about how well I can spot aircraft at a distance. I felt that I should have seen this guy at least a few miles out but never did. Depending on the sun angles, the haze, the background clutter etc., I am not completely confident yet on my ability to be able to immediately spot an aircraft 3 or 5 miles out. And in this case I never saw him until he was right under me. It's not so much being able to =see= him, as being able to =notice= him. I can see traffic many miles away, once I notice it. Sometimes however I have to notice it again before I can see it again. Motion, a glint of sun, a good silhouette against a cloud, these things help. Does the ability to spot other aircraft improve with experience? Yes, some. However, it will probably never be excellent. The field of good vision is narrow, and the eye doesn't actually send an image to the brain, it pre-processes it. Different parts of the retina (different areas of view) are pre-processed differently. There's a lot of sky to scan. Lots of experienced pilots, myself included, miss lots of targets that are called out. That's why four eyes are better than two. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Jose wrote: The reason I mention this close encounter is that I have always been hesitant about how well I can spot aircr................. I too have to work hard to see other traffic from my 172 & I know that some of my friends are better at spotting traffic than I am. Perhaps it depends on our individual eyesight when the eye lens muscles are relaxed. Supposedly the eye should then focus at a far distance, If there is no background clutter, such as only a hazy sky, the best answer would be to get a good pair of prescription sunglasses, cut for best visual acuity at infinity - even if we don't wear glasses normally. On the other hand, every serious potential near miss I have ever experienced involved a high performance aircraft that never saw me, and under the technical rules-of-the-road should have yielded to me. Pilots that I've observed sweeping out airspace at a high rate of speed, seem to spend proportionately more time looking at the panel rather than outside. The J-3s etc never give collision trouble. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |