A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Collision alert!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 16th 06, 03:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Collision alert!

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:13:56 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
right-of-way.


That doesn't sound right, er, correct. Wouldn't the aircraft on the right
have the right of way?


Oops. Of course you are correct about the aircraft on the right
having the right of way.

4,500' would be an appropriate altitude for a westbound VFR aircraft.


Yes, except the OP was at an altitude assigned by Departure in the Class B
airspace.


I had failed to infer from Mr. Copeland's narrative, that both
aircraft were within Class B airspace at the time. His later follow
up post confirmed that fact.

What do you feel the other pilot did wrong?


Fly NORDO in Class B airspace?

... Alan


While operating within Class B airspace without an operative
transponder is possible (I've done it), I believe it is also possible
to operate NORDO if prior arrangements have been made or if radio
failure should occur while cleared in Class B airspace. So, while it
is likely the unidentified aircraft was in violation of regulations,
there does exist a possibility he was legally operating NORDO in Class
B airspace.

Thanks for your input.

  #22  
Old August 16th 06, 03:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Collision alert!

On 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, "tjd" wrote in
.com:

Larry Dighera wrote:
If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
right-of-way.


that's backwards, the OP had the right of way:


Yes. As Alan Gerber wrote in
, it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
right of the NORDO aircraft. However that has nothing to do with the
hemispherical regulation.

91.113 (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or
nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way.

From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were

trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
right of way rules.


Please explain how taking evasive action relieves the PIC from
complying with right-of-way regulations.

Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?


I had failed to infer from Mr. Copeland's narrative, that they were
within Class B airspace at the time, but he confirmed that fact in a
follow up message. It is likely the NORDO aircraft was not operating
on a clearance in Class B airspace, but that fact has not been
conclusively established.
  #23  
Old August 16th 06, 03:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default Collision alert!

there does exist a possibility he was legally operating NORDO in Class
B airspace.


I'd imagine that if he were legally operating NORDO in the Bravo, that
the controller would know about it. My impression from the story is
that it took the controller by surprise too.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #24  
Old August 16th 06, 03:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,175
Default Collision alert!

Larry Dighera wrote:


Please explain how taking evasive action relieves the PIC from
complying with right-of-way regulations.


The first part of the rule regarding right-of-way, states you
should sea and avoid.

With the exception of overtaking from the rear and approaching
head-on, the rules don't state any particular behavior to take
to avoid, other than the aircraft without the right of way
shall manouver to pass well clear.

Unlike nautical rules, there's no concept of the privileged
vessel standing on (i.e., maintaining course and speed).
O
  #25  
Old August 16th 06, 04:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Greg Copeland[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Collision alert!

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:44:35 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

On 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, "tjd" wrote in
.com:

Larry Dighera wrote:
If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
right-of-way.


that's backwards, the OP had the right of way:


Yes. As Alan Gerber wrote in
, it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
right of the NORDO aircraft. However that has nothing to do with the
hemispherical regulation.

91.113 (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or
nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way.

From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were

trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
right of way rules.


Please explain how taking evasive action relieves the PIC from
complying with right-of-way regulations.

Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?


I had failed to infer from Mr. Copeland's narrative, that they were
within Class B airspace at the time, but he confirmed that fact in a
follow up message. It is likely the NORDO aircraft was not operating
on a clearance in Class B airspace, but that fact has not been
conclusively established.


I would say it is far, far, far more likely he did not have clearance.
Weather was in the area. As were lots of planes. They were busy. It
took me a while to get clearance to simply enter. On top of that, his
flight path would have him traveling past the depature end of DFW. I have
a really hard time imagining them letting a NORDO, no squawking aircraft,
enter class B at this time when he could be flying under the shelf (
3000) or gone south a little to be flying 4000'. Especially in light of
the fact that denial for VFR, to enter class B, is not terribly uncommon.


Greg


  #26  
Old August 16th 06, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default Collision alert!

it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
right of the NORDO aircraft.


I'm a little confused here. The encounter was head-on or nearly so, no?
And the right of way rules apply to non-head-on approaches. So, how
did you "turn to pass behind" somebody who was nearly head on?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #27  
Old August 16th 06, 04:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Collision alert!

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:17:59 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote in :

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, tjd wrote:


From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were
trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
right of way rules. Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?
~20min, assuming ~40nm south of KDTO looks like you could be clear or
under the 4000MSL shelf at that point?



[...]

We were on the south side of Dallas, well within class B. I was flying at
the **assigned** altitude, as indicated by the story. We were not under the
40000 shelf....I had checked the GPS only moments before. We were in the
3000' shelf; squarely placing both of us *within* class B's 3000' shelf. I
just went back and verified on my GPS we were *in* the 3000' shelf.

Based on the voice's tone on the radio, I did get the impression he was
not supposed to be there but that's hardly authorative. He did say he was
not squawking ("with no squawk"), which also makes me think he was not
suppose to be there.


If the NORDO aircraft's transponder was not in operation, it begs the
question, how did ATC know its altitude? It is possible the
controller's "with no squawk" statement may have meant the NORDO
aircraft was not squawking an assigned beacon code, but 1200 or 7600,
or, more likely, it could have meant there was no beacon being
transmitted from the NORDO aircraft. ATC's statement is a bit
ambiguous.


Would it make you feel better if I said it happened about 15-minutes into
flight. [?] I had throttled back waiting for clearance.


It would have made the situation much clearer if you had definitely
stated that both aircraft were within Class B airspace.

Shesh. I think some may be over analyzing...a lot!


How is over analysis possible? The prudent pilot considers as many
factors as possible, right?


I also read several posts which seem to assert I yielded PIC authority.


That is your inference. That notion may have been implicit in my
citing the PIC's responsibility for controlling his flight, but ...

I dumbfounded as to how anyone could come to that conclussion.


I did not mean to imply that you had actually "yielded PIC authority,"
but your statement:

Not wanting to compound the situation in the event other traffic
was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend.

could be construed as expecting the controller to provide instructions
for you to evade the other aircraft.

While the section of FAA Order 7110.65 I cited does indicate that the
controller could provide such instructions as part of the alert, it is
the PIC who is in command of the flight. I think it was prudent of
you to query the controller for a suggestion for the reasons you
mention, but that query could also be construed as relinquishing some
PIC authority/responsiblity.

Please don't take this personal critizum. It was merely an attempt to
objectively scrutinize all the possibilities, and stands as an example
of how it might be viewd by an ALJ.

The initial sighting was by no means sure death in the next second. I did the
responsible thing by keeping the controller in the loop by ensuring I
didn't compound the problem with other traffic in the area. When time did
not allow for it, I didn't do it. I fail to understand how improving
situational awareness is a bad thing; contrary to the opinion asserted by
others here.


I don't know to which opinion you are referring, but I agree, quearing
the controller was a prudent thing to do at that time.

What I'm having trouble with is the controllers ability to accurately
determine the NORDO aircraft's altitude apparently from a primary
radar target.

  #28  
Old August 16th 06, 05:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Greg Copeland[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Collision alert!

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:31:56 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

If the NORDO aircraft's transponder was not in operation, it begs the
question, how did ATC know its altitude? It is possible the
controller's "with no squawk" statement may have meant the NORDO
aircraft was not squawking an assigned beacon code, but 1200 or 7600,
or, more likely, it could have meant there was no beacon being
transmitted from the NORDO aircraft. ATC's statement is a bit
ambiguous.


Agreed.



Would it make you feel better if I said it happened about 15-minutes into
flight. [?] I had throttled back waiting for clearance.


It would have made the situation much clearer if you had definitely
stated that both aircraft were within Class B airspace.


I thought it was implied as I lead in with the fact I was entering class
bravo. I guess not.


Shesh. I think some may be over analyzing...a lot!


How is over analysis possible? The prudent pilot considers as many
factors as possible, right?


You don't think it's over analyzing, trying to infer an aircraft position
based on a **very loose** time of travel ("some 20 minutes or so earlier")
while making many assumptions? In my book, not only is the time of travel
irrelivant to the story, attempting to infer an aircraft position based on
what is obviously a very imprecise estimate of time, most definately is
"over analyzing." Add to the fact this is after the fact, I fail to see
how post-analysis of irrelevant data while making broad assumptions is
anything but "over analyzing".

If you don't think so, we have very different definitions.

[snip]
Please don't take this personal critizum. It was merely an attempt to
objectively scrutinize all the possibilities, and stands as an example
of how it might be viewd by an ALJ.


Fair enough.


Greg

  #29  
Old August 16th 06, 05:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Collision alert!

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:26:35 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
right of the NORDO aircraft.


I'm a little confused here. The encounter was head-on or nearly so, no?


Not at first when the NORDO aircraft was westbound and Mr. Copeland
was on a heading of 170 degrees.

And the right of way rules apply to non-head-on approaches. So, how
did you "turn to pass behind" somebody who was nearly head on?


I suppose, if the aircraft is approaching from 90 degrees abeam, you
turn toward it so as to pass behind it.

Unfortunately, it appears that the NORDO PIC chose that moment to
change course turning toward Mr. Copeland. It was at that point, that
there was a head-on situation, if my analysis is correct.

  #30  
Old August 16th 06, 05:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Collision alert!

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:03:35 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote in :

How is over analysis possible? The prudent pilot considers as many
factors as possible, right?


You don't think it's over analyzing, trying to infer an aircraft position
based on a **very loose** time of travel ("some 20 minutes or so earlier")
while making many assumptions? In my book, not only is the time of travel
irrelivant to the story, attempting to infer an aircraft position based on
what is obviously a very imprecise estimate of time, most definately is
"over analyzing." Add to the fact this is after the fact, I fail to see
how post-analysis of irrelevant data while making broad assumptions is
anything but "over analyzing".


Oh. That analysis. Being unfamiliar with the area, I didn't really
consider it. I see what you're getting at. Perhaps it was fostered
in desperation as a result of inadequate information contained in the
original story.

While many of the readers of this newsgroup are very casual in what
they write, it's easy to see, that such imprecise language and
omission of facts quickly leads to erroneous avenues of investigation
and ambiguity. (A general observation, not personal criticism)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.