GA paying fair (fare?) share

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Remember -
IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.


Only if they ask to be vectored around them.

Not true at all.

If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance measures.
The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.

Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.

On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue through
like they own the place.

Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines, not
the other way around.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Remember -
IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.


Only if they ask to be vectored around them.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Not true at all.


Of course it's true. Why do you say it isn't?



If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my
course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance measures.


It's been my experience that very few commercial planes request vectors
around VFR targets which they've been advised of.



The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.


He can't see it?



Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the
midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.


No more so than the other participant in the midair.



On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue through
like they own the place.


Comply with altitudes and vectors? What altitudes or vectors would there be
for them to comply with?



Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines,
not
the other way around.


You have a poor understanding of the system.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Not true at all.


Of course it's true. Why do you say it isn't?


Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.





If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my
course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance
measures.

It's been my experience that very few commercial planes request vectors
around VFR targets which they've been advised of.



Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude, same heading,
5 miles, do you see them?

Lear: No Visual

Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.

Lear: ???????

You propose to ignore this warning?



The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished
by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.


He can't see it?


Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
him, maybe from behind.



Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the
midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.


No more so than the other participant in the midair.


I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change course
by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying perfectly
legally.



On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue
through
like they own the place.


Comply with altitudes and vectors? What altitudes or vectors would there
be
for them to comply with?


Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors by
ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right at
me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I told
him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed to
avoid possible conflicts.




Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines,
not
the other way around.


You have a poor understanding of the system.


On what do you make this assumption? I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.


That's swell, but it doesn't answer my question.



Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude,
same heading, 5 miles, do you see them?

Lear: No Visual

Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.

Lear: ???????

You propose to ignore this warning?


What do mean by "this warning"? The traffic advisory or the improper ATC
instruction? The traffic is five miles away and moving in the same
direction, there's certainly no imminent threat.



Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
him, maybe from behind.


So what prevents the Lear from spotting the traffic?



I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change
course
by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying
perfectly
legally.


What bet? Does IFR traffic have a greater responsibility than VFR traffic
to see and avoid other traffic? Why do you have the controller issuing
improper instructions in your scenario?



Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors
by
ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right at
me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I
told
him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed
to
avoid possible conflicts.


ATC can issue headings and altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B and Class C
airspace, in the outer area associated with Class C airspace, and in a TRSA.
Nowhere else.



On what do you make this assumption?


From your statements.



I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?


I have no questions on this subject.

You apparently think you know everything, and are being argumentative and
obtuse. I am not getting anything from this anymore, and I am done. I will
talk to the guys at the FSDO, and maybe I will learn something there.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.


That's swell, but it doesn't answer my question.



Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude,
same heading, 5 miles, do you see them?

Lear: No Visual

Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.

Lear: ???????

You propose to ignore this warning?


What do mean by "this warning"? The traffic advisory or the improper ATC
instruction? The traffic is five miles away and moving in the same
direction, there's certainly no imminent threat.



Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
him, maybe from behind.


So what prevents the Lear from spotting the traffic?



I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change
course
by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying
perfectly
legally.


What bet? Does IFR traffic have a greater responsibility than VFR traffic
to see and avoid other traffic? Why do you have the controller issuing
improper instructions in your scenario?



Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors
by
ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right
at
me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I
told
him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed
to
avoid possible conflicts.


ATC can issue headings and altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B and Class
C
airspace, in the outer area associated with Class C airspace, and in a
TRSA.
Nowhere else.



On what do you make this assumption?


From your statements.



I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?


I have no questions on this subject.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
You apparently think you know everything, and are being argumentative and
obtuse.


Obtuse is the exact word I was thinking of when reading Steven's posts. I
don't believe he was always this way, it just started with the Rutan space
thread. Perhaps he should get in for a thorough check-up?

Allen

"Dude" wrote in message
...

You apparently think you know everything, and are being argumentative
and obtuse.


No, I don't know everything, but I do know everything about the subject
we're discussing.



I am not getting anything from this anymore, and I am done.


I don't think you've tried to get anything from this.



I will talk to the guys at the FSDO, and maybe I will learn something
there.


What will you ask the guys at FSDO?