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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Greg Copeland wrote:
Shesh. I think some may be over analyzing...a lot! Welcome to Usenet. .... Alan -- Alan Gerber gerber AT panix DOT com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Phraseology Was: Collision alert!
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"?? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Phraseology Was: Collision alert!
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 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. |
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 04:40 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 03:21 PM |
interesting collision alert device | Steve / Sperry | Soaring | 1 | March 19th 04 10:31 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |