light planes collide over Seattle?

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
This aspect of the report confuses me, as well. If the aircraft were
on "nearly parallel" flight paths, how could the sun be much of a
factor?

No one has said that the sun *was* a factor. There simply have been
people who have suggested that it *might* have been a factor.

I see...

I would agree that the "sun in the pilot's eyes" and the "parallel
flight courses" possibilities are mutually exclusive, assuming that
the parallel flights were in the same direction. If they were on a
head-on course (and I haven't heard any suggestion that they were),
the sun and visibility generally could have been a factor.

I thought about the head-on course as a possible explanation to cover the
"sun in the...", but it seems to me that could only have been a problem
for one of the pilots. The other would most likely have had a hard time
not noticing the shiny object hurtling toward him.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
I thought about the head-on course as a possible explanation to cover the
"sun in the...", but it seems to me that could only have been a problem
for one of the pilots.

Well, as I mentioned in my previous post, "the sun should only have been a
factor for one of the pilots at most". This is true regardless of the
relative flight paths.

Pete

Seth Masia wrote:
Agreed. A full stall landing isn't a good idea on floats, because it means
you come down on the tail of the floats -- and this could mean pitching
sharply forward and possibly going up and over. Instead, you want to settle
at minimum sink rate on the step, regardless of whether it's water, grass,
snow, plowed field or pavement, and come to as gradual a stop as possible
using the keels as your brakes. Which is exactly what happened in this
case. Bravo.

Have you *seen* the photos? There's no way you could bring that plane down on
the tail of the floats. The miracle is that the noses didn't dig into the grass.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

No, I didn't see the photos. I'm just talking about floatplanes in
general -- stalling at low altitude is the last thing I'd want to do in a
floatplane, for exactly this reason. Do you have a link to the pix?

Seth

"George Patterson" wrote in message
newsEcJe.4152$eR.3067@trndny04...
Seth Masia wrote:
Agreed. A full stall landing isn't a good idea on floats, because it
means you come down on the tail of the floats -- and this could mean
pitching sharply forward and possibly going up and over. Instead, you
want to settle at minimum sink rate on the step, regardless of whether
it's water, grass, snow, plowed field or pavement, and come to as gradual
a stop as possible using the keels as your brakes. Which is exactly what
happened in this case. Bravo.

Have you *seen* the photos? There's no way you could bring that plane down
on the tail of the floats. The miracle is that the noses didn't dig into
the grass.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Seth Masia wrote:
No, I didn't see the photos. I'm just talking about floatplanes in
general -- stalling at low altitude is the last thing I'd want to do in a
floatplane, for exactly this reason. Do you have a link to the pix?

Try http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0805/4812340_400X300.jpg

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.