Flying patterns

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

Sorry, I assumed the pilot would be awake and have eyes open.

How does that help him to see a plane below and behind him?

It helps by seeing the planes that are not below or above or behind you
- that surely, is better than not looking at all. And fingers crossed,
the dude that (say for eg) is behind you, is looking out like you are,
he'll see you. Cool eh.

--
Duncan

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

John Clonts writes:

Wrong again. The burden for separation with VFR traffic is legally
upon you whether you have them in sight or not (in most airspace, as
Thomas said).

The discussion concerns IFR traffic (as Thomas said), not VFR. By
definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE SAME
THING before it sinks in?

Neil

In article ,
says...
John Clonts writes:

Wrong again. The burden for separation with VFR traffic is legally
upon you whether you have them in sight or not (in most airspace, as
Thomas said).

The discussion concerns IFR traffic (as Thomas said), not VFR. By
definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

Hey I said that MSFS has some good docs, I'm sure VFR and IFR are in
there. Stop flying yer MSFS! - and do some reading!

If yer IFR in VMC, you most certainly do have a responsibility to
lookout and avoid traffic. Controllers do make mistakes - did I tell
you about the time a Tower controller lined me and two other lighties up
on the main runway, them on 20 (it was a 15kt southerly) and me on 02?
I asked him to confirm 02, he told me to make a 180 and line up 20 (I
was in front of the other two a/c). He then cleard the 'middle' a/c for
t/o. Luckily he was on the ball and declined and pointed out a C-172
(me) just ahead on the rwy. I snuck in too and cheekily and ambigously
advised, "ready 20". They're humans yer know.

--
Duncan

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
By definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

Why do you persist in repeating this falsehood?

In most airspace, when you're flying IFR, ATC isn't even required to
*mention* VFR traffic to you (so there is nothing for you to "acknowledge").
In fact, ATC doesn't even necessarily have any way to *see* any VFR traffic
near you (they don't necessarily have radar coverage of your area; to
separate IFR planes from one another, ATC can just clear one IFR plane at a
time into a given length of airway at a given altitude, and rely on
occasional position reports from the IFR pilot). We have repeatedly pointed
you to reference material that documents the pertinent rules.

Mxsmanic, you are single-handedly undermining the quality of this newsgroup
by posting a copious stream of grossly ignorant, often-dangerous falsehoods
stated as facts (in the past month, you have become this group's most
prolific poster). Those of us who want this newsgroup to be a reliable
source of aviation advice have no choice but to waste our time cleaning up
after you. By now, the only credible explanation for your conduct is that
you are imposing this annoyance intentionally, knowing that we cannot afford
to just ignore you if you post sufficiently hazardous misinformation.

Some here respond to you with childish taunts, which only further degrades
the discourse here. I suggest that in the future, we reply only with the
following terse boilerplate:

"Boilerplate response: Mxsmanic, by his own account, has never flown an
aircraft or taken a flying lesson; he is unfamiliar with even the most basic
aviation training material. Yet he habitually and repetitively posts absurd
or dangerous claims here, adopting a misleadingly factual, authoritative
tone, and ignores our factual corrections. Please do not mistake his remarks
for knowledgeable or well-intentioned discussion."

--Gary

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE SAME
THING before it sinks in?

What's the definition of insanity?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Newps,

You must separate yourself from all aircraft you can see.


Yep. How much time and brain capacity I devote to that "seeing" (or
rather, looking for) is strongly dependant on the type of airspace I'm
in. Simple economics.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Sylvain writes:

but it still does not absolve you of your responsability to
see and avoid.

How do you carry out that responsibility, in such a case? ESP?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Marty Shapiro writes:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro writes:

After reading this, explain to us again how when IFR
you don't have to look out the window.

Show me where I said that you don't have to look out the window.


On Saturday, September 30, you stated "In IFR, you don't have to look
out the window for other aircraft. You have help from controllers."

FOR OTHER AIRCRAFT

A controller may ask if you have visual contact with traffic. If you
do, you can say so, and thereby assume responsibility for maintaining
separation with it. If you don't see it, you cannot maintain
separation, so you are not responsible for doing so.

On Sunday, October 1, you stated "By definition, if you are flying by
instruments, you aren't looking out the window. ATC provides separation."

Yes. If you can see everything yourself, you don't need IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Logajan writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
By definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see
or visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

A pilot who acted according to your statement would be in violation of U.S.
Federal Aviation Regulation 91.113(b). It states:

"When weather conditions permit [i.e. VMC], regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules [IFR] or visual flight
rules [VFR], vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an
aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft."

Where's the conflict?

In other words, if you as a pilot are flying under IFR through VMC, the
right-of-way rules require you to keep a visual watch for other aircraft.

If you are flying IFR, by definition, you may or may not be able to
see other aircraft. If you can see aircraft, you can maintain visual
separation; otherwise you cannot.

If other aircraft are spotted that present a right-of-way conflict, you may
need to alter course if the other craft has the right-of-way as indicated
by the remainder of 91.113. I see no mention of "implicit agreement" in the
rules on this matter, nor any mention of "acknowledging visual contact".
Where are you getting your information?

I read it, but I don't remember where.

The part you quoted from the regulations says nothing about being
required to acquire and maintain visual contact. Only vigilance is
required. Absent proof of a lack of vigilance, you're following the
rules.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sylvain writes:

what you fail to understand is that when you fly in VMC, you
do share the airspace with other people who may fly VFR.

If you are flying IFR in VMC, VFR traffic is required to see you, but
you are not required to see VFR traffic (or any other traffic).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.