If all midair collisions were eliminated...

You have to look at the whole package he brings to the table.


Not really Jim..

I have personally met some people I have met "on line" , and have
found them to be (fortunately AND unfortunately) to be very different
from their "online" personna. In all cases so far, there was MUCH
more to the person when I have met them in person.




But he has no desire to EVER go flying.

And thats OK, _ I have a very good friend who will NEVER get in an
airplane, unless it is an air ambulance and he has nothing to say
about it!

The
dude needs serious help.

Maybe, but he stil posts some pretty rational thoughts, and has
started some interesting discussions .



Even a broken clock is right twice per day. He is still only a broken
clock, that does not deserve the attention he has stolen here.

Agreed.... but when (he) IS CORRECT..... that should be
aknowledged, as it should be with anyone of us...... not blazed away
at just because he happened to hit the "send" buttton...


You represent the few who find him entertaining.

Ahhh, my bad. I should have been clearer. I don't find MX all that
entertaining, but some of the RESPONSES to his post certianly are!

I
seriously doubt your ability to make rational judgments, dude. Either that,
or you have not been around long enough to get the full measure of his pile
of crap. It has to be one or the other.

It must be my ability...I have only been here since about , oh,
1993.....

I guess that depends on if 17 years is "only a newbe" or "that's
long enough"

(Dave hangs head and shufles feet)

Dave

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:21:23 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:

Hmmmm...

OK.. first sentence of his first post referrs to the 27 potential
lives saved based on the OP's post....

Second post referrs to the potential of increased training etc.
reducing the deaths..

I am OK with that.

His motivation? Who really knows? And it does not really matter to
me.

What is _my_ motivation for even being here? To offer insight, to
learn from others? To "stirr the pot"? To offer news? To ask a
question?

Does anyone out there really care what MY motivaton is?

Actually, my motivation varies, - right now, its Sunday AM, cold
outside, I worked late last night installing a door, and have some
time on my hands, now and for the next 45 minutes.

(Sorry, best I can do for this session)

Does MY motivaton really matter to anybody?

......and I have quoted from books in my posts here as well... to get
feedback on the content, or to question the content....

No doubt , some here will question my motivation to defend MX, but I
have none other to comment on the entertainment value of the RESPONSES
his posts get, and I am not defending him at all.

My only comment is that I think that to blast away with multible
cannons and machine guns at a gopher just because it popped it's head
out of the hole seems a little silly.. (IMHO)

Who was that cartoon character anyway... "Yosemitie Sam" ? The one
with the big hat, mouth and shotgun that blasted away at anything that
moved?

Long time ago, I guess my age and immaturity is showing... Buggs Bunny
Show ?



Cheers!

D







Dave
I expressed a similar view of Mxs some years ago, much to my later
embarrassment when I found out what a jerk he really was. Of course
much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight
out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to
sound like he actually knows what he is talking about. To get an
idea of his modus operandi, have a read of his first 2 posts in the
impossible turn thread, namely the first sentence in each, and tell me
what you think his motivation for posting is.
Terry
.

Hi Dan!

If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how
huh?



How long have you been retired Dan?

Dave






On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:58:53 -0600, Dan wrote:

Of course
much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight
out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to
sound like he actually knows what he is talking about.
Terry
.


Mx has done that in several groups. He gets his jollies being an
irritant.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Interesting comments Jim.

And probably quite accurate.

With todays (cheap) technology, some "artifical intelligence" in the
flight controlls is probably possible at an acceptable cost..

This might run contrary to some design philosophies though..

Cirrus perhaps? (flame suit on!)



Dave


On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:32:40 -0600, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Dana wrote:

More opinion:
In fact, a review of the Nall Report statistics indicates that a large
majority of fatal fixed wing GA accidents could be categorized as due to
fundamental "improper use of flight controls." I.e. inadequate or rusty
flight skill (or one-time fatal mistakes of otherwise experienced pilots.)
Furthermore, since those causes appear to have dropped to a plateau below
which they appear not to be improving, and considering the high cost of
maintaining and improving those skills, the way I see it the following are
probably true:

1) Improvement in skill level of GA pilots is unlikely to improve in the
future in any cost-effective way. It seems reasonable to assume that the
pilot population already practices its skills as much as it can now afford.
Further improvements in piloting can probably only be made if GA becomes
more "elite" by raising the skill level required. (Though this winnowing of
the pilot population would run contrary to efforts to "Grow GA".)

2) If the GA pilot population is to improve its safety record or to grow in
number without compromising its existing safety record, then given what is
known of the current pilot population capabilities, the current design of
fixed wing aircraft controls must be changed in some fundamental ways.

For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
regimes. The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
in the accident rate. On the other hand the cost aspect is unknown.

Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment..................

We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
(100,000 operations /yr)

I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
trafffic around us

For $1500 !

Dave




On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:39:48 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

writes:

My point is you cannot eliminate mid air collisions no matter what
training is given that you insist will eliminate mid airs.

I don't recall insisting that any training would eliminate midair accidents.
Training is likely to reduce them, however.

... human factor will
contribute to UNAVOIDABLE collisions or errors in flying an
airplane.

Human beings who become careless or reckless and rationalize it by saying that
it's impossible to eliminate accidents, anyway, will surely be involved in new
accidents.

"Unavoidable" is a strong word. There haven't been many incidents that were
truly unavoidable. Just because a human being messes up doesn't mean that the
messing up was impossible to avoid.

But you don't know this since you sit behind a desktop simulator USING
TCAS that most of us don't have.

One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However,
only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very
same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft
who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and
1000 times cheaper for the sim version).

Could there be a better process to improve safety, possibly and
probably, but I don't have that answer.

Safety improvements tend to be incremental, not revolutionary.

Dave wrote:
Hi Dan!

If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how
huh?



How long have you been retired Dan?

Dave


Since 1994.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dave schreef:
We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
(100,000 operations /yr)
I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
trafffic around us
For $1500 !

But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I
got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice
extra source of info but nothing to really count on?

In rec.aviation.piloting jan olieslagers wrote:
Dave schreef:
We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
(100,000 operations /yr)
I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
trafffic around us
For $1500 !

But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I
got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice
extra source of info but nothing to really count on?


If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes.

However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that
most people don't have a mode C transponder.

The places were there are few transponders tend to be well removed from
major urban areas and full of things like gliders, sky divers, ultra lights
and such.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dave writes:

Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment..................

We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
(100,000 operations /yr)

I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
trafffic around us

For $1500 !

The Sandel ST3400 is a TAWS/RMI display that also includes TCAS capability,
with a fancy back-projected LCD display. That's probably why it is so
expensive. I suppose TCAS alone is a lot cheaper.

I looked at the ZAON XRX on their Web site and it looks like a pretty
practical gadget.

schreef:
In rec.aviation.piloting jan olieslagers wrote:
Dave schreef:
We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment
(100,000 operations /yr)
I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking
trafffic around us
For $1500 !

But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I
got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice
extra source of info but nothing to really count on?


If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes.

That's what I meant indeed.

However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that
most people don't have a mode C transponder.

Ah, yes, in them US of A, yes, of course...
Then again, how do you define "significant" traffic?
Which plane is more significant, the 5 you had heard on the radio or the
one you hadn't? Or the one you collide with?

The places were there are few transponders tend to be well removed from
major urban areas and full of things like gliders, sky divers, ultra lights
and such.

Which seems to me exactly where we want "eyes on our bum" as the saying
goes down here... far more than in controlled airspace where controllers
are paid to keep us posted on what's happening.

---

FYI here in Northern Belgium, and I guess in most of Western Europe,
uncontrolled airspace is scarce*, yet is the only place allowed for
ultralights (including our equivalent of the US'an LSA), gliders,
trikes, and what not. So we're either in controlled airspace, with a
transponder mandatory almost everywhere anyway, and a controller taking
care anyway, or we're in class G chaos where only our eyes will serve,
with a little help from the radio and perhaps perhaps AFIS - but they
are not aware of nordo-craft either. So to my humble opinion (I am a
low-time newbie pilot of a Rans Coyote, that would classify as an LSA at
yours) TCAS is much expense for little use down here. Then again, no
price is too dear for safety, of course, our own or others'.

* just for one example: transition is at 4500' AMSL, and everything
above is controlled. Another: there's sometimes zero, and only rarely
more than 40 NM between CTR's, which are mostly class C, sometimes D.
Enough said?