Mid-air in California

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

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

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

"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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.