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
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
"Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"
Needless to say, I doubled my scan to see if the voice on the radio was talking to me. I didn't see anything but continue to scan until I heard more. I had never heard this before, so I was curious as to the situation in which some poor pilot had found himself. Having spent most of my brief flying life in '80K, I was relieved to hear the voice come back with, "'95X, collision alert! NORDOR traffic at 11 to 12 'o clock, traveling west bound, at 3600 feet! You have traffic at your 11 to 12 'o clock and we do not have radio contact!" It only took some fraction of a second to recall that I was, in fact, in '95X; a plane I had only flown three times before. It was also at this time I finally spotted the other plane. Sure enough, he's at my altitude and we were converging to a single point in space; me south bound and him west bound. The flight had started some 20 minutes or so earlier from KDTO. This flight was my madian flight into class bravo as a private pilot. My wife and youngest son were both on board. Both of which are fairly new to flying in spam cans. Needless to say I carried a little trepidation flying into class bravo, knowing full well high expectations follow such a privilege. The trepidation came from both the lack of experience on my part but also the desire to not have my family experience any loss of confidence in their pilot; in the event I stumble handling the demands of class bravo. I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of 170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact" or "no joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were my passengers. "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!" Having finally spotted the aircraft and realizing I was not flying '80K, whos callsign had become second nature to me, I replied back on the radio. We still had some time to react without acting rashly. After all, I didn't want to upset the "cargo". "95X, I have contact." Not wanting to compound the situation in the event other traffic was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend. "Your prerogative." I started to climb with full throttle and even traded some airspeed for altitude. "95X, climbing to 4500", was my reply. Had I to do it over again, I would would have descended. As I climed, the nose obscured the view of the other aircraft. Not wanting to worsen things with confusing signals (climbing...no wait...descending), I decided to stick with my climb. As I leveled off, it became clear the other aircraft had decided to climb too. Needless to say, when I lowered the nose, I wasn't pleased to see the other aircraft had followed me up to 4500 feet. In fact, now, we were really getting close and I was starting to get a little concerned. We were still converging and the other aircraft was noticeably larger now. Uncomfortably larger now. This time, I did not bother with the radio. I decided I would alter my course to pass behind the other aircraft. Simple solution. Only, as soon as I finished rolling into my new course, the other aircraft started to turn toward us. I mean straight, head-on, same altitude, toward us! Now, once again, I was very surprised. Without delay, I altered course once again. This time, altering course to the right via a 20-25 degree bank. I figured, if need be, I still had time to sharpen the bank angle. Surely this guy has seen us and he'll do the same. At this point, we're less than a mile away and he's still flying head on. Just as I start to push forward to dive and begin a steep turn, the other plane finally begins his turn to his right. I shallow my turn just slightly so I can maintain visual contact as long as possible. I'd estimate at our closest point, we were less than half mile away. Once I lost sight of him behind me, I resumed my assigned course. "95X, descending to 3500. Can you confirm the NORDO's position? He's flying very erratic and I no longer have visual." "95X, we have him at your six. He is following you to 3500." Needless to say, I'm now wondering if this guy is trying to commit suicide with an air to air. Almost a full minute later (well, I'm sure it wasn't...but seemed like...) and glued to the radio, "95X, the plane has resume his course to the west. He is no longer on your six." The rest of the flight went like clock work. The hand-offs to Waco Approach, Houston Approach, and finally KDWH were both painless and professional by all parties involved. Even the landing went well. Unfortunately, because of the bank angles, and angles of aircraft in the turns, we never were able to get the tail number of the idiot flying NORDO, in class bravo. I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot down and hold him accountable. Greg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Greg Copeland wrote:
snip I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot down and hold him accountable. You never know. I knew a guy in college who blundered right through Indy's airspace, apparently oblivious to the fact that he was even IN an airplane. Approach watched him land at UMP then called the FBO on the field and told them to tell the next guy to walk in to call them. So yeah, sometimes they do. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Hey Emily... I'm based at UMP and think I remember the incident.... ;-)
Jon Kraus '79 Mooney 201 4443H @ UMP Emily wrote: Greg Copeland wrote: snip I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot down and hold him accountable. You never know. I knew a guy in college who blundered right through Indy's airspace, apparently oblivious to the fact that he was even IN an airplane. Approach watched him land at UMP then called the FBO on the field and told them to tell the next guy to walk in to call them. So yeah, sometimes they do. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Greg Copeland:
I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of 170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact" or "no joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were my passengers. The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT" "Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive to effective communcations. This time, I did not bother with the radio. Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services you are receiving from ATC. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all. Ron Natalie wrote: Greg Copeland: I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of 170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact" or "no joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were my passengers. The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT" "Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive to effective communcations. This time, I did not bother with the radio. Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services you are receiving from ATC. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Correction... Negative Contact is only 5 syllables.... Should have had
my coffee first before replying.. ;-) Jon Kraus wrote: What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all. Ron Natalie wrote: Greg Copeland: I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of 170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact" or "no joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were my passengers. The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT" "Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive to effective communcations. This time, I did not bother with the radio. Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services you are receiving from ATC. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Greg, ya did good... Yup, the descending turn is the best way, so you can keep the other plane in sight... Other than that the only suggestion I can make is to stop worrying about the self loading cargo (passengers) and if (when) you get another converging situation maneuver decisively to get him off your nose... Don't waste time talking to ATC until you have it under control... Don't worry about the controller... Your PIC responsibility is take the evasive maneuvers needed, NOW... You can listen to the guy drinking coffee in an air-conditioned cab, whine about all his problems later... cheers ... denny |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Jon,
What's incorrect about No Joy? It's not standard phraseology. There are pilots out there who have not served in the Royal Airforce in WW2 (with apologies to Bob Gardner). They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that. Which lowers the overall safety of flight operations. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Thomas Borchert wrote: They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that. "no clue"? I couldn't name one, or even imagine one. Not that I am endorsing the phrase. If the frequency is busy I just say, "Looking." John |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:17:01 -0400, The Visitor wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote: They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that. "no clue"? I couldn't name one, or even imagine one. Not that I am endorsing the phrase. If the frequency is busy I just say, "Looking." John Interesting. I hear it used just about every time I fly. I had no idea people would hear common radio terminology and blissfully ignore it. Just the same, point well taken. Greg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 05:40 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Third Military-Civil MAC Jan. 18, 2005 | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 37 | February 14th 05 04:21 PM |
interesting collision alert device | Steve / Sperry | Soaring | 1 | March 19th 04 11:31 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |