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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... What McNicoll is trying to say in his oh-so-charming way is that "radar identified" has a very specific meaning, and the VFR traffic wasn't radar identified. Being visible on the radar scope is not in and of itself sufficient for being "radar identified". McNicoll did say that, in his usual succinct manner. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of the 7110.65? I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety (regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and all that. :-) To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event) *unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E), there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft. Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000. Chip, ZTL ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Actually, it is you that is fooling yourself, when you imagine you know something about air traffic procedures. The situation described in this thread called for a traffic advisory and a safety alert, not merging target procedures. That's the policy created by a bunch of inward thinking idiots at FAA Headquarters (ATP). That doesn't mean that application of merging target procedures before it gets to a traffic advisory, then safety alert, whouldn't be more prudent. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Heck, you don't even know if his Mode C was correct.
On 2 occassions , in that same general vicinity, my Mode C was showing the wrong altitude by about 6,000 feet! Why? Transponder problem? I guess so, but it only happened one other time in one other place and hasn't happened again. "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... We don't know that the VFR guy was in IMC, we don't know that he broke any rules. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Maule Driver" wrote in message om... Heck, you don't even know if his Mode C was correct. Yes, as I stated in an earlier message. On 2 occassions , in that same general vicinity, my Mode C was showing the wrong altitude by about 6,000 feet! Why? Transponder problem? I guess so, but it only happened one other time in one other place and hasn't happened again. A couple of years ago we had a guy flying through GRB approach airspace that always had bad Mode C. But it was only bad with GRB approach, no other facility had a problem with it. He had it checked at an avionics shop and they found nothing wrong. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"John R. Copeland" wrote in
: Yes, my old TCADs used to do that for me in eastern Kansas, too. (Or maybe it was in western Missouri, I'm not too sure.) I've not noticed it since I upgraded to a 9900BX last year, though. ---JRC--- We're getting a few aircraft with the Goodyear system, & I love it. I see aircraft flying out over the Gulf that I would never see at all if I didn't see them come up on there. But we sometimes still can't see them, even on a clear day. It depends a lot on the paint scheme and the position of the sun. A white and blue helicopter over water is very difficult to see. -- Regards, Stan |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message ... We're getting a few aircraft with the Goodyear system, & I love it. BFG = Goodrich. Wrong tire company. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Peter Duniho wrote: I guess that's a matter of debate. A faulty Mode C readout could cause a TCAS unit to cause an accident, rather than avoid one. The problem is that we're working with 50 year old technology here. The idea that we can't reliably transmit one 24-bit message every 5 seconds is absurd. TCAS was known to be a crock when it was proposed. It was a political rather than a technical solution. .. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote: Had I known that these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety (regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. That is far and away the better procedure. I have had a few situations like that and I will never let it get to a safety alert status. The IFR guy will get vectored. It also saves time. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
Riddle me this, pilots | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | August 30th 03 04:02 AM |