Cirrus crash midair

Loek writes:

I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this.

A wild guess would be one that is no more probable than any other. What is
improbable about this explanation? What other explanations are of greater or
equal probability?

Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

I don't see any reason to suspend discussion of the accident until the NTSB
has finished with it.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

So read your previous statement.

The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby aircraft.

No ****?

Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant. If the
pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must take
appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that blind
spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic visible.

Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:

I don't see any reason to suspend discussion of the accident until the NTSB
has finished with it.

And I don't see any reason to continue a "discussion" with a
narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, neurotic, pious, prick that has cross
posted this "discussion" for his own gratification in his long
established trolling existence...

What happened Mx, get off the meds??

writes:

Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?

Normally you shouldn't need to see below without advance warning. Typically
you see below by anticipating where you will be and checking for traffic
before you get there. If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic below
is not necessarily an issue. If you are descending, your descent path is in
front of you and you can inspect it for traffic before you follow it.

Additionally, if you cannot see and avoid, you can try to rule out the
presence of traffic in other ways, as by communicating on the radio, obtaining
flight following, using on-board equipment to see other aircraft, and so on.

If you collide with another aircraft and survive under VFR, you'll generally
have to explain why you didn't see the other aircraft.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?

Normally you shouldn't need to see below without advance warning. Typically
you see below by anticipating where you will be and checking for traffic
before you get there. If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic below
is not necessarily an issue. If you are descending, your descent path is in
front of you and you can inspect it for traffic before you follow it.

Additionally, if you cannot see and avoid, you can try to rule out the
presence of traffic in other ways, as by communicating on the radio, obtaining
flight following, using on-board equipment to see other aircraft, and so on.

If you collide with another aircraft and survive under VFR, you'll generally
have to explain why you didn't see the other aircraft.

Yeah, sure.

Total lack of understanding noted.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mike Ash" wrote

Likewise, I'm just
having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

Ahh, the reason most often given why people engage a troll. As a result,
people that are attempting serious discussion leave by the bucket-fulls.

Really, man, engage him in private e-mail. Don't take a dump in our living
rooms.
--
Jim in NC

Mike Ash wrote:
Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.

You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.


Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Mike Ash" wrote

Likewise, I'm just
having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

Ahh, the reason most often given why people engage a troll. As a result,
people that are attempting serious discussion leave by the bucket-fulls.

Really, man, engage him in private e-mail. Don't take a dump in our living
rooms.

Funny, I see the cause and effect as backwards: only reason I'm
desperate enough to toy with the troll is because there's no legitimate
traffic going on.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article ,
romeomike wrote:

Mike Ash wrote:
Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.

You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.


Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article ,
says...

writes:

Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?

Normally you shouldn't need to see below without advance warning.

But hangon, you just said..."
The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby
aircraft.
Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant.
If the pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must
take appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that
blind spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic
visible"


Typically
you see below by anticipating where you will be and checking for traffic
before you get there. If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic below
is not necessarily an issue. If you are descending, your descent path is in
front of you and you can inspect it for traffic before you follow it.

Really? OK, you are straight and level. An a/c with the same horizontal
airspeed is below you and climbing. While they *should* see you, lets
assume they do not (sun is where you are, pretty much). What will you
do now? Hmm lets see, "If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic
below is not necessarily an issue.".

It seems you do not know the subject - in short - you don't know what
you are talking about. How are you lookouts in MSFS - pretty non-
existent I bet.

Additionally, if you cannot see and avoid, you can try to rule out the
presence of traffic in other ways, as by communicating on the radio, obtaining
flight following, using on-board equipment to see other aircraft, and so on.

If you collide with another aircraft and survive under VFR, you'll generally
have to explain why you didn't see the other aircraft.

OK, so a series of contradictions from you now - see that first stupid
statement you made, better quote it again, you seem famous at sniping
stuff out..."
Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant.
If the pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must
take appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that
blind spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic
visible".

Either you stick with your first claim, or you retract it and explain
yourself, or you just admit you don't know what real world flying is
about or like.

--
Duncan.