Collision alert!

Greg Copeland wrote:
I seriously doubt he was "taking evasive action" until he started he turn
to the right. Unlike me, he had a window view of us. The fact that he
continued to climb into our path, in class B, with a window view, does
not indicate to me he was "evading" anything. The fact that he turned,
head on, after climbing, to me, does not indicate he was "evading."

Hi Greg, it was not my intent to offend you - just playing "what if"
with the information you provided. After your clarification it sounds
like this definitely took place in the class B but that was not clear
(at least to me) from your initial post. As far as what the other guy
was thinking, unfortunately we'll likely never know - but given he was
climbing and turning, it still sounds to me like he did see you. Given
the guy was apparently operating illegally in class B, there's
certainly reason to question his piloting skills, but the fact this
happened on class B has no real bearing on the subsequent events. The
other guy may have been completely unaware he was there (which is a
problem for the FAA to worry about), and VFR traffic advisories are
optional regardless.

Just to play devil's advocate, consider what the other guy might have
been thinking. He sees your plane, knows you have the right of way,
and climbs to 4500. He won't be able to see you any better in the
climb than you can see him, right? Then he turns to the right only to
see you've turned to the left. He waits a little bit to see what
you're going to do next, and after he sees you turn to the right he
also turns right. After the incident is over, maybe he thought his
initial course was underneath the class B shelf, but now that he's
diverted to the north and climbed he's inside it, so he turns
southbound and descends back to 3500.

Did it happen that way? I obviously don't know, but it sounds
possible. It's also possible the other guy was being a complete idiot,
but there's no way to know for sure. I don't think you did anything
wrong, but maybe the other guy didn't do anything wrong either, aside
from violating airspace. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out,
there's no sure-fire method for resolving the conflict even if both
parties are aware of it. And, as I said before, really the important
part is that the conflict did get resolved and everyone's still around
to debate the circumstances.

todd.

Greg Copeland wrote:
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

I wasn't trying to "over-analyze" anything - I read the story, spent 30
seconds looking at the DFW chart, and just thought I'd raise the
possibility. You later clarified that you were indeed still in the
class B, but also said the other guy would only have to have "gone
south a little" to be under the 4000' shelf.

I really think you're misinterpreting my intentions. I'm not trying to
be critical or poke holes in your account. I'm just trying to have a
constructive discussion about the incident, which I presume was what
you were looking for when you posted. You can certainly assume the
other guy was a complete idiot, but there may be other explanations,
and I think it's worth exploring them for a couple reasons. First,
without the other pilot's story there's no real way to know, and
second, understanding all the possibilities hopefully makes all of us
better pilots.

I'm a very new PP myself, and I'm honestly just trying to be helpful if
I can. I posted here about my "near miss" a little while back, where
some guy flew straight through the pattern opposite direction just as I
was turning final. My initial reaction was the same - "that idiot was
trying to kill me", but people pointed out that the guy was not
necessarily doing anything wrong (ill-advised, maybe). Ultimately,
that has made me a better pilot than if everyone had just agreed with
me.

todd.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:27:27 -0700, tjd wrote:


Greg Copeland wrote:
I seriously doubt he was "taking evasive action" until he started he turn
to the right. Unlike me, he had a window view of us. The fact that he
continued to climb into our path, in class B, with a window view, does
not indicate to me he was "evading" anything. The fact that he turned,
head on, after climbing, to me, does not indicate he was "evading."

Hi Greg, it was not my intent to offend you - just playing "what if"

I wasn't offended. I was just pointing out non-factual information was
being used to paint a nicer picture for the other pilot. I firmly believe,
had you been there, your impression of the other other pilot would have
been, "what an idiot". Oddly, I've wondered if he was thinking the same
thing.

with the information you provided. After your clarification it sounds
like this definitely took place in the class B but that was not clear
(at least to me) from your initial post. As far as what the other guy
was thinking, unfortunately we'll likely never know - but given he was
climbing and turning, it still sounds to me like he did see you. Given

I still believe he did not.

the guy was apparently operating illegally in class B, there's

I believe that to be true but can not authoratively state it is fact.

[snip]
Just to play devil's advocate, consider what the other guy might have
been thinking. He sees your plane, knows you have the right of way, and
climbs to 4500. He won't be able to see you any better in the climb
than you can see him, right?

Incorrect. At this point, he is still west bound and has a window view of
me to his right. He initiated a climb immediately after I did (I
never saw his nose go up before I climbed) and maintained his west bound
path. This means he would have been able to watch me climb as he was
essentially climbing with me; as he still has a window view of me to his
right. His next action is to turn head on after I had already changed
course to fly behind him. That to me, indicates he never saw me. Or, we
can assume he did see me, which means he is an absolute idiot. That would
mean he saw me climb, climbed with me, saw me turn to pass behind him,
then purposely turned head on to once again be on an intercept course,
where he finally decided to turn to avoid collision.

Hopefully you can see, I was already painting the nicer picture for the
other pilot by assuming he simply hadn't seen me until we were both
turning right.

[snip]
And, as I said before, really the important part is that
the conflict did get resolved and everyone's still around to debate the
circumstances.

Agreed!

Greg

Greg Copeland wrote:
Shesh. I think some
may be over analyzing...a lot!

Welcome to Usenet.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

I heard a controller once say "my bad", meaning his mistake, probably
not standard phraseology either. But I appreciate the post with the
correct words; it's been so long since I've heard them used I'd
forgotton what they were.

What really irks me is the action TV shows (24, Unit) where they say
"I have a visual". Can't they just say "I see him/it/whatever"??

Is it just me that's having a sense of deja moo? Certainly feel I've
read such bull before...

Ramapriya


Greg Copeland wrote:
"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.

Bob Fry wrote:
I heard a controller once say "my bad", meaning his mistake, probably
not standard phraseology either.


Don't know whether it's standard phraseology but my bad = my mistake,
no other interpretation that I'm aware of

Ramapriya

In article ,
says...
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.

Because it's not in the standard phraseology that is designated by the
AIM and the ATC Handbook as conveying the information. "I have
Contact" is more of an issue because it almost sounds like the
proper phraseology for the OPPOSITE meaning.

No Joy tends to get heavily used for many negative responses and
doesn't specifically mean that I have not located the conflicting
traffic.

NEGATIVE CONTACT specifically means that. It doesn't mean anything
else.

Do you folk use the phrase LOOKING ? (means the same thing, can't see
it, but am trying to).

--
Duncan

Do you folk use the phrase LOOKING ? (means the same thing, can't see
it, but am trying to).

All the time.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

At this point, how imminent was the threat? From the way you described
it, there was plenty of time. You made it to 4500 feet (with time to
spare); even at 1000 feet per minute, that's thirty seconds, and you
already see him. I'd've probably stayed at my altitued, said "traffic
in sight" and then maintained altitude, maneuvering to avoid him as
necessary. It might not have even been necessary.

If he was at 11 o'clock, and travelling at 90 degrees to you, you'd
probably pass behind with no further action on your part.

After climbing, finding him again at your altitude, turning, finding him
turning towards you, and turning again, you then say you're "less than a
mile away". Even half a mile, if you're watching, isn't all that close
(the Hudson river is only a mile wide).

It would seem to me that there was never an imminent threat; the
aircraft were too far away. A threat was developing, but once you had
him in sight it would not take such drastic action to avoid trading
paint (or pained expressions) with the other aircraft.

I suspect controllers will call out a collision alert further away,
because of the limited resolution of their screens (vs the High
Resolution Plexiglass Display most aircraft carry), and the time it
takes for any action they take to translate into aircraft movement.

As for tracking the idiot, check passur.com. Maybe they have radar
histories for that airport.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.