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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
Stefan wrote:
The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll never know. Stefan I can see where the original poster's apprehension stems from, having flown once, from the FO's seat. I wasn't at all inhibited in doing a stall, steepish banks and other jiggles - in fact, I did them all merrily. But I was petrified throughout the ride because the craft, a JetFox, didn't have a radar and the only way of recognizing traffic in the immediate neighborhood was by actually looking out the window. Just felt a sense of being helplessly vulnerable in an open sky. It might go away if I fly more, because the Capn seemed very assured Is it correct to assume that one can always be whacked by traffic coming from between the 4 and 8 o'clock positions, especially if the other craft is faster and climbing? Ramapriya |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
Military fighter radar sees other airplanes that are in the
area (a small area) in front of the fighter. That's why the has ground based surveillance radar and airborne surveillance radar, such as AWACS, so somebody can tell the fighter pilot that there is a target at his 2 or 3 o'clock position, 20 miles. The radar in civilian airplanes does not see other airplanes because the radar is on a frequency band designed to see water droplets and the antenna is too small to have a resolution high enough to see things like airplanes or cars. Why does it see water, because the water droplet resonates and returns a good return to the radar, if it is liquid. Ice in the form of hail is hard for an airborne radar to see since the solid water doesn't have the same properties. Bottom line is that, you can't use weather radar to detect targets, you might be able to see an oil tanker broadside at 5 miles, but not head on. What does work is systems that detect the transponder in the other airplane and present a warning display. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P wrote in message oups.com... | Stefan wrote: | | The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll never know. | | Stefan | | | I can see where the original poster's apprehension stems from, having | flown once, from the FO's seat. I wasn't at all inhibited in doing a | stall, steepish banks and other jiggles - in fact, I did them all | merrily. But I was petrified throughout the ride because the craft, a | JetFox, didn't have a radar and the only way of recognizing traffic in | the immediate neighborhood was by actually looking out the window. Just | felt a sense of being helplessly vulnerable in an open sky. It might go | away if I fly more, because the Capn seemed very assured | | Is it correct to assume that one can always be whacked by traffic | coming from between the 4 and 8 o'clock positions, especially if the | other craft is faster and climbing? | | Ramapriya | |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
Jim Macklin wrote:
What does work is systems that detect the transponder in the other airplane and present a warning display. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P That's what I went, a tad naively, expecting to find, although Bob Moore had given me a sneak peek at what I could reasonably hope to see, which was *not* an A320 layout But nothing could prepare me from the vulnerability I felt when airborne. Ramapriya |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
It is a big sky. Years ago the FAA [it is said] did a study
to show how safe aviation would be if all their ATC plans were fully funded and they could control every airplane from taxi to shutdown in the US airspace system. They came up with some tens of millions of flight hours between mid-air collisions, something like a chance every hour of 0.000000015 collisions per hour. Somebody asked what kind of improvement this was over no control at all. They had a university do a study and the number came back... 0.000000019. Big sky, few airplanes. The hazards at and near the busy, big airports. To a degree, the rules that say all traffic flies at cardinal altitudes concentrates traffic at certain places, such as 17,500 feet or 10,000 feet because those altitudes [in the USA] are where rules change. You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for other airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder to see because of the ground. But you look for moving shadows on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights and hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows. You look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because things on a collision course have zero relative motion. But the human eye seems motion better than it does small dark spots. In areas of high traffic, there are often radio procedures used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do have systems that can detect the transponder of other aircraft. And they are developing data-link systems that will put a ground based radar display in the cockpit of those airplanes and countries that can afford the cost. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P wrote in message ps.com... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | What does work is systems that detect the transponder in the other airplane and present | a warning display. | -- | James H. Macklin | ATP,CFI,A&P | | | That's what I went, a tad naively, expecting to find, although Bob | Moore had given me a sneak peek at what I could reasonably hope to see, | which was *not* an A320 layout | | But nothing could prepare me from the vulnerability I felt when | airborne. | | Ramapriya | |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
PED Scared of mid-airs
Near miss. No, I've never had one that almost missed me.
That would be a "nearly miss". A near miss is a miss. A deep lake is a lake. A red rose is a rose. A heavy rain is a rain. A near miss is a miss. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
PED Scared of mid-airs
ATC has a box around each IFR airplane, no other airplane
should be in that box. The size of the box changes, but in general [somebody will surely correct me] is 1,000 above and below within a distance of from 5 to 20 miles. Anything closer and it is a near-miss. When you are close enough to see the individual rivets or make out the color of the other pilot's eyes, it is also a near-miss. {I know, loss of separation} "Jose" wrote in message ... | Near miss. No, I've never had one that almost missed me. | | That would be a "nearly miss". A near miss is a miss. A deep lake is a | lake. A red rose is a rose. A heavy rain is a rain. | | A near miss is a miss. | | Jose | -- | The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. | for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:28:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in Mt2zg.84637$ZW3.19317@dukeread04:: You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for other airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder to see because of the ground. But you look for moving shadows on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights and hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows. You look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because things on a collision course have zero relative motion. But the human eye seems motion better than it does small dark spots. In areas of high traffic, there are often radio procedures used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do have systems that can detect the transponder of other aircraft. And they are developing data-link systems that will put a ground based radar display in the cockpit of those airplanes and countries that can afford the cost. Military flights, though exempt from FAR § 91.117's 250 knot maximum speed restriction below 10,000', do not detect Mode C transponder beacons (no TCAS). [rec.aviation.military added] |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... | On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:28:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin" | wrote in | Mt2zg.84637$ZW3.19317@dukeread04:: | | You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for other | airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the | horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and | airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder to | see because of the ground. But you look for moving shadows | on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights and | hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows. You | look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because | things on a collision course have zero relative motion. | | But the human eye seems motion better than it does small | dark spots. | | In areas of high traffic, there are often radio procedures | used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that | can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do have | systems that can detect the transponder of other aircraft. | And they are developing data-link systems that will put a | ground based radar display in the cockpit of those airplanes | and countries that can afford the cost. | | Military flights, though exempt from FAR § 91.117's 250 knot maximum | speed restriction below 10,000', do not detect Mode C transponder | beacons (no TCAS). | | | [rec.aviation.military added] |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote: True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar. No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to provide their own separation and to operate in areas without the all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control. Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff" happens--but it ain't murder. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
PED Scared of mid-airs
In article 5Z2zg.84642$ZW3.6823@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote: ATC has a box around each IFR airplane, no other airplane should be in that box. The size of the box changes, but in general [somebody will surely correct me] is 1,000 above and below within a distance of from 5 to 20 miles. Anything closer and it is a near-miss. When you are close enough to see the individual rivets or make out the color of the other pilot's eyes, it is also a near-miss. {I know, loss of separation} The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only* against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR. An IFR may report a "near miss" when a VFR does not consider it to be a threat. The "1000 above or below within 5 to 20 miles" applie only to Class A airspace, *not* to B, C, D, etc.; else traffic flow would trickle to a halt. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |