Cirrus crash midair

"romeomike" wrote in message
...
Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
romeomike wrote:

Mike Ash wrote:
Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.

You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.


My observation over many years here is that when he posts something that
seems "reasonable" it's his way of subtly drawing people into an
escalating and frustrating attack and evade. It's not an educational to-
and-fro, just an exercise in "how far do I have to go to **** people off."

Very true. :-(

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Doe writes:

But hangon, you just said..."
The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby
aircraft.

Yes, but the probability of conflicting traffic varies with the relative
positions of the aircraft concerned.

When climbing after take-off, for example, it's much less likely that one will
be hit from below than it is that one will hit something above.

Then why are real pilots taught to drop the nose occasionally during climb?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mike Ash" wrote

You want to know who's destroying the group? It's Bertie and the others
who just go for full out, no-holds-barred insult fests.

Without chum, sharks rarely go into a feeding frenzy, within sight of man.
So, why tolerate a feeding frenzy? Get rid of the chum's source.

I see nothing wrong with some on-topic discussion just because one of
the participants is a jerk with no sense of his own limitations. It is
possible to participate in a conversation with him without letting it
get out of control.

Really? Name one thread, where a discussion with him did not degenerate
into one of his famous bait and switch strategies, with all who engage going
ballistic from his rediculous tactics. He lives to argue topics that have
no natural argument. He will not listen to logic, or valid rebuttals to his
views, when it is all said and done. That sounds like out of control, to
me, and that is how every one of the threads he jumps into ends. (he jumps
into EVERY thread that has a good discussion going. EVERY one, EVERY time,
destroying the discussion in the process.)

You want to save the group? Start some on-topic posts.

Pretty hard, when so many have left out of frustration. Much of the
frustration comes from people continuing to support and enable trolls. If
he was ignored, the stupid posts from him would stop, people would come back
and stay, and many good on topic discussions would be taking place.
--
Jim in NC

writes:

Then why are real pilots taught to drop the nose occasionally during climb?

Are they? You'd have to roll inverted to see someone coming up from behind.

You don't need to drop the nose to see someone below and in front of you when
you're climbing, unless he is climbing even faster. But in that case, you
should also worry about someone climbing from behind or directly below, which
you won't see by dropping the nose.

Gilbert Smith writes:

So you would be making the same mistake !!!
The tug and glider came up from below, right in front of him.

Then someone was where he didn't belong.

Morgans wrote:

If you feel you have to reply to MX's post to warn others, consider a
boilerplate warning something like the following.

"The poster (MXS whatever) responsible for the previous post is not a
pilot, and is considered to be a troll. Consider his posts to be
argumentative and unreliable. Consult a responsible and experienced
pilot (you would trust with your life) in a private communication
before you believe any advice or claims the troll has put forth on
this forum."

Good idea, I like that.
--
MikeW
What goes up must come down......unless it orbits

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Then why are real pilots taught to drop the nose occasionally during climb?

Are they? You'd have to roll inverted to see someone coming up from behind.

The word "behind" was not mentioned in the previous post and using it now
is misdirection.

And yes, they are.

You don't need to drop the nose to see someone below and in front of you when
you're climbing, unless he is climbing even faster. But in that case, you
should also worry about someone climbing from behind or directly below, which
you won't see by dropping the nose.

In most of the common Cessnas the nose will prevent you from seeing traffic
above you in a climb, especially if you are less than 6' tall.

But you would know that if you had ever actually been in an airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

That is a fact.

Morgans wrote:
Much of the
frustration comes from people continuing to support and enable trolls. If
he was ignored, the stupid posts from him would stop, people would come back
and stay, and many good on topic discussions would be taking place.

Almost overlooked this one John. Sorry about that.

We are flying the F-16 since 1980. And we may still have to continue to fly
this bird for a while. Politics as you may expect. But we are looking at the
Joint Strike Fighter as the next fighter for our AirForce. Fingers crossed.
No hard decisions have been made yet by our politicians.

Loek

"John Ward" schreef in bericht
...
Hi Loek,

Got it!

Thanks for the info', mate. :-))

Just out of curiosity, what are your fighter pilots flying these days?

Regards,
John Ward

"Loek" wrote in message
...
I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for
our Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!

Loek

On Feb 9, 9:54*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

The way I'd bet it goes is, unless the guy transmitted something to
suggest there was a problem or somebody saw the aircraft fail before
the collision, there's not going to be enough evidence to suggest
other theories. The investigators will settle on the simplest scenario
using by-the-book methods and since there were fatalities they'll
reconstruct their idea of what happened for training purposes.

If they want to assign blame rather than accept it, at the very least
they'll find him in violation of 14CFR 91.13 ("Careless or reckless
operation") and/or 91.113 (Right of Way.)

As for the Cirrus and your comment about collisions, having flown one
recently, I would consider the instrument panel rather than the
airplane itself. The Cirrus is nimble as hell and has great
visibility, but, the Garmin and Avidyne panels are so sexy they can be
mesmerizing. If fly the airplane by autopilot knob and heading bug,
you're more likely to be fixated on the panel rather than looking out
the window for your typical VFR awareness. A pilot could get into a
bad habit of flying low-altitude VFR as if it was IFR, where your eyes
are always on the panel.

-c
CFI