Riddle me this, pilots

"Newps" wrote in message
news:N3h0b.192923$Ho3.26290@sccrnsc03...

That was cool. I would tag up the "VFR" pilot and run him thru FSDO.
You have proof he was IMC.


You'd have proof that he was in IMC only if he had collided with the guy at
7000 in IMC.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...
This kind of turn can be be counter intuitive to the pilots involved.

Yup. It was to me until I gave it more thought.

In
the case of the aircraft heading 090 and the aircraft heading 360, let's
suppose that I issue traffic traffic and then initiate an separation
resolution. To the north bound aircraft, I call traffic at ten o'clock
and
ten miles, eastbound co-altitude. I then initiate a vector to put the
north
bound airplane behind the east bound airplane. "Turn left heading 310,
vectors behind traffic."

The "vectors behind traffic" phrase sounds very useful. It concisely
explains to the pilot, in real time, why the counterintuitive instruction
actually makes sense.

Thanks for posting this. If I'm ever in such a situation, having thought
about it beforehand might help me avoid wasting a second or two trying to
figure it out.

--Gary

In article ,
(blanche cohen) wrote:

Um....Bob & Chip...could you explain in more detail the reason
for the "turn into traffic"? I'm having problems visualizing
it. And I have the most horrible feeling that someday I'll run
in the same problem and want to understand it.

thanks


That one's easy.

Let's say you've got two objects moving in space (doesn't matter if
they're airplanes, boats, or cars). They are on intercept courses,
something like this:

#1------

^
|
|
#2

Assume for the moment you're object #2, trying to decide how to avoid
hitting #1. Assume that #1 is going to keep moving at a constant speed
and direction. Further assume that the problem is reduced to 2D (i.e.
nobody can change altitude).

You've basicly got 4 choices: you can speed up, slow down, turn left, or
turn right. In boats or planes, speed changes usually happen pretty
slowly, so they're really not effective for short-term collision
avoidance. This leaves you with turn left or turn right.

Let's say I make an 45 degree turn to the right (away from the target).
Now the situation is this:

#1------

^
/
/
#2

Quick, is this an intercept situation? Can you work out in your head if
#2 will cross in front of #1? They're still moving towards each other,
so it's hard to tell.

But, what if #2 turned to the left, toward the target? Now you've got:

#1------

^
\
\
#2

It should be obvious in the picture above that #2 is going to pass
behind #1. Look at the arrow heads (the lengths of the arrows are how
far each target will move in, say, 1 minute). By the time #2 gets to
the head of its arrow, #1 has already moved from it left side to its
right side.

The basic rule is that if you're aiming right at a crossing target,
you'll never hit it, because while you're moving towards it, it's moving
cross-wise to you and will move away from where you're aiming. The
correlary of this is that if you *want* to hit the target, you need to
lead it (this is the "firing solution" stuff they're always doing in
submarine movies when they launch a torpedo).

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:44:03 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...
This kind of turn can be be counter intuitive to the pilots involved.

Yup. It was to me until I gave it more thought.


Actually, to me it seems quite logical and would have been my initial
reflect to turn TOWARDS the conflicting traffic, since the whole
purpose of the exercise would be to change the constant bearing of
closure.. turning away from it will only slow the rate of bearing, not
necessary change the angle (as viewed from overhead both, not as in
"clock" positions from the pilot's perspective).. turning towards it
will increase the rate briefly until the vector angle is depassed and
then it will widen again. Of course if the other traffic does the
same thing, then you're going from a constant relative 90 degree
closing bearing to a constant relative head-on closing bearing which
will also be a bad thing... of course in this particular case the
other [unidentified] aircraft was seen to maintain his course.

Leland

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:EQf0b.149627$Oz4.41062@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
Chip Jones wrote:
In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say "Baron
123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the right
indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately."

Why did it get that far? If I'm the Baron I'm thinking, "I can't see
the traffic, I won't see the traffic in IMC, why is this guy waiting
for me to spot this plane?"

Ben, you raise a good point, but if I'm the Baron, I would have been
re-stating "Baron 1234 is IMC" and at the second call "negative contact,
we're IMC, *request vector for traffic*.

IMO the PIC has a responsibility to be pro-active here.

If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?

Just to point out here, Chip isn't working the "VFR" target, he
has no idea what this guy's intentions really are. Coulda been
an instrument training flight climbing up to get cool and about
to start practicing steep turns or the like. Kinda complicates
getting other people out of the way, I would think.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message ...
Chip Jones wrote in message The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no
contact."

While your scenario may be right on the money, let me point out that some
pilots will claim to be IMC even when there isn't a cloud in the sky. Their
reasoning is that by doing this, it keep the onus of seperation on the
controller.

Hi Doug,

There's also the vis. factor. If it's hazy and you're flying towards
the sun, you can't see a durn thing even if there isn't a cloud out
there. You're flying on instruments; isn't that properly described
as "IMC" with no funky legal reasoning behind it?

OTOH, a plane flying perp. or away from the sun can legitimately
see 3+ miles

IIRC the Baron was flying 110, early a.m., perhaps this is possible?

Cheers,
Sydney

"Chip Jones" wrote in
:

The only problem about issuing the 180 heading as an instruction
instead of a suggestion is that I do not have separation
responsibility between an IFR and a VFR in this class of airspace.
Because of that, I have to follow the 7110.65's provisions regarding
safety alerts and traffic alerts, and the 7110.65 requires me to make
a suggestion instead of taking control with an instruction in this
case. In fact, the 7110.65 even instructs me to use the phraseolgy
"immediately" if I offer a suggested course of action. Hence, if your
best course of action was to hold your present heading, and I
suggested this to you, I would actually have to key up and say
something as ridiculous as "N123, traffic alert [insert appropriate
information here], suggest you fly your present heading immediately
for traffic!" Silly, ain't it?

Any similarity between logic and government regulations is purely
coincidental and completely unintended. But if you ever see me heading for
another aircraft, please point me somewhere else, whatever phraseology you
can come up with that will satisfy 7110.65. If we have a midair, you'll be
down there blameless in the FAA's eyes, but I'll come back and haunt you.
;-)

--
Regards,

Stan

"Snowbird" wrote in message om...
Jesu! I hate pilots who fly illegal IMC. Making the most charitable
interpretation possible, it's possible that the Baron was in spotty
IMC and the other pilot climbing through a hole, and that his Mode C
was off.

Or the visibility was right at three miles and the sun was in the Baron
pilot's eyes, etc...

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote in message
...
[snipped]


Note to Chip! Chip, your name rings a bell...didn't you have a rather
elaborate ATC website { I could have the wrong person but your sector
mention after your name [ZTL] rings a bell ... as well as a secondary
website dealing with flight safety [read: crash] investigation issues?

Not me. :-)

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 =---

"Martin" wrote in message
om...
Chip youre a good man, many controllers (well the ones I know here in
the northeast at least) tend to just say "f**king pilot" and move on

While we are (at least tangentially) on the subject of good controllers...

I was picking my way through a line of thunderstorms west of Huntsville a
few weeks ago. I have stormscope, but no radar. In and out of IMC, and the
stormscope is starting to look like a video game screen. The controller
(Memphis Center, I believe) was unbelievably helpful. He was working a dozen
or so planes, offering quick deviations left and right, while at the same
time responding to calls for info from pilots like me. I ended up (with his
blessing, of course) descending 10,000 feet in steep turns to avoid a storm
ahead of me, turning 50 degrees north to go under the clouds in a gap he and
I agreed was there, and was past the weather in ten minutes.

If I wanted to commend his work to his supervisor, how would I do so? He did
a great job - every handoff was accompanied by "123.45, Great job today!
Thanks"


Michael