Riddle me this, pilots

Yes, my old TCADs used to do that for me in eastern Kansas, too.
(Or maybe it was in western Missouri, I'm not too sure.)
I've not noticed it since I upgraded to a 9900BX last year, though.
---JRC---

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message =
...
=20
However, the TCAD
(traffic collision avoidance thing) would show an occassional target =
being
within 3 miles of us and we couldn't see them for nothing.
=20
D.
=20

"John R. Copeland" wrote in
:

Yes, my old TCADs used to do that for me in eastern Kansas, too.
(Or maybe it was in western Missouri, I'm not too sure.)
I've not noticed it since I upgraded to a 9900BX last year, though.
---JRC---

We're getting a few aircraft with the Goodyear system, & I love it. I see
aircraft flying out over the Gulf that I would never see at all if I didn't
see them come up on there. But we sometimes still can't see them, even on
a clear day. It depends a lot on the paint scheme and the position of the
sun. A white and blue helicopter over water is very difficult to see.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message
...

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. We both know this isn't quite how it works, but then again, a
chimpanzee flew Mercury 7.


A chimpanzee did not fly Mercury 7. The chimpanzee "Ham" flew on
Mercury-Redstone 2 and the chimpanzee "Enos" flew on Mercury-Atlas 5.
Mercury-Atlas 7 was flown by Scott Carpenter.

Skip, didn't a 172 & a Citation (or similar type) trade paint over
May-retta just north of ATL a few years back? Seems the 172 was IMC
with no transponder/ mode C.

john wrote:
Skip, didn't a 172 & a Citation (or similar type) trade paint over
May-retta just north of ATL a few years back? Seems the 172 was IMC
with no transponder/ mode C.

NTSB report....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X09798&key=2

Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message Mercury-Atlas 7 was flown by Scott
Carpenter.

Yeah, he didn't like it when I called him a Chimpanzee either.

D. :-)

I've read all the other comments posted so far.. pretty much a 50/50 split
in options..

As an IFR pilot, my first reaction would be to take the ATC suggested turn
I'm IFR so the bozo must be too, but "Monday morning" says to initially turn
away from the traffic.. not towards, at the 2 O'clock and 2 mile call, based
on the turning radius of the Baron at 180knts TAS plus, the turn away would
give him a little more free distance before possible collision and more time
to loose a little altitude. And based on the Baron's speed being a tad
faster than the Cessna Spam Can variety aircraft, the extra speed may pull
you out in front.

Turning into the traffic (point your nose at his tail, you'll miss 'em
theory), based on the turning radius, may put the two together sooner,
allowing less time to apply an altitude change to the solution.

If you delay the turn to late, the turning radius will kill the plan.

BT (former ZBOS)

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...
The other day, I had an air traffic situation I wanted to bounce off of
the
group. Those of you who don't know me, I'm a Center controller down here
in
Atlanta. Here's the deal.

I was working a Center departure sector mixing Atlanta terminal departures
of every ilk and kin with enroute overflight traffic north of metro
Atlanta.
The sector weather was typical summer MVFR down here- lots of convection,
hazy, hot, humid etc with building thunderstorms here and there impacting
the sector. I had received my briefing from the previous controller and
had
just assumed responsibility for the airspace. Part of my technique is to
do
one more quick traffic scan *after* I take over (while the previous
controller is still at hand) to ensure we didn't fumble a situation while
we
changed the guard.

I am working a Baron IFR at 7000 flying from Chattanooga TN to Charleston
SC, on course heading of about 110 or so. Doing my scan, I see he has an
IFR off the nose about 15 miles at 6000 and another IFR guy crossing from
the NE at 8000 and 20 miles, so he is separated. I notice additional
traffic for this guy, a VFR indicating 6600 about six miles south, heading
about 055 or so, converging with him. I ask the previous controller if
she had issued traffic, she said she hadn't.

I made the traffic call.. "Baron 123, VFR traffic one to two o'clock, six
miles, northeast bound converging, altitude indicates six thousand six
hundred." The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no contact."

I make a few unrelated routine calls to other traffic, keeping an eye on
this VFR target. His Mode C indicates that he is in a climb, and the
conflict alert activates (both data blocks begin to flash). I make
another
call at four miles. "Baron 123, your traffic now two o'clock, four miles,
northeast bound, altitude indicating six thousand niner hundred VFR,
converging right to left." The Baron responds "123 is IMC, no contact."
The situation now has my undivided attention.

At three miles converging (next update), the traffic is indicating 7000.
The next update, the traffic is still at 7000. This guy is flying VFR
where
one of my IFR's is IMC. I swing into alert mode. The target slashes are
a
mile long each and the radar display is delayed a bit from actual position
so these guys are getting close and closing fast. The Baron needs to yank
it right most ricky tic and get behind this guy.

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." The
Baron
pilot says "We're turning left to 090, no contact." I then watch as the
Baron swings into a left turn, prolonging the collision vector another
minute. His left turn away from the traffic puts him wing high with
closing
traffic off the right side. The Baron also descends four hundred feet
during the maneuver as the targets merge. To me, this looks remarkably
like
a TCAS maneuver because of the altitude change. I key up and say "N123,
are
you TCAD equipped, do you have traffic avoidance avionics?" He gives me a
curt "Negative, we do not have the traffic." The targets have merged
thanks
to the left turn, and I cannot distinguish the one from the other.
Anything
I say now about the traffic would be a dangerous guess because I have lost
the flick between these two aircraft. Instead of responding to the Baron,
I
issue a vector to the IFR traffic at 6000 to get him away from Baron 123
(who is now well below assigned IFR altitude). At the next position
update,
I have tail to tail between the baron and the VFR. I tell the Baron,
"Traffic no factor, maintain 7000." He responds "We never saw him..."
[The
unknown SOB in the VFR remains at 7000 for the next fifty miles- his
profile
never changed and I have every reason to believe that he never saw the
IFR,
IMC Baron].

My question for the group is about the Baron pilot's decision to disregard
my suggestion to yank it towards the traffic and instead to turn away from
him. From a controller's perspective, the quickest way to achieve "Oh
Sh*t"
lateral separation with crossing traffic is to aim one airplane right at
the
other. The idea is that as both aircraft are moving through space, the
maneuvering aircraft is steering for a point where the traffic *used* to
be
but no longer is. Once the nose of the turning aircraft swings through
his
traffic's vector, every additional second buys additional separation.
When
we do this with IFR traffic, we call this a "Wimpy Crossover" or a "Bubba
Turn". If an aircraft turns away from conflicting crossing traffic, every
additional second of turn sees the targets get closer until either they
merge or else they *finally* get to the point of course divergence. The
closer the targets are when an away turn is initiated, the less effective
an
"away" turn is.

Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my
suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath?

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
=---

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...
[...]
Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my
suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath?

I can't imagine why the Baron didn't turn as you suggested, assuming he
really was IMC. Roy's suggestion that the Baron pilot started the turn
before hearing your suggested vector may be the case, but it seems foolish
of the Baron pilot to make a decision to turn one direction or another
without any input from ATC, if in IMC.

As for whether the other traffic was VFR or not, that's less clear. The
Baron pilot stopped reporting IMC (at least according to your description)
well before the two planes actually converged. It's entirely possible the
Baron did wind up flying out of a cloud, and from that point on was actually
looking for the other traffic. Actually, I suppose if the Baron wound up in
VMC, that might explain the direction he turned and why he was willing to
make a turn without ATC advice.

In any case, keep making those "vectors for traffic" suggestions. Most
pilots, if IMC with no hope of seeing the other traffic, would listen to
you. I know I would.

Pete

Best damn thread in this newsgroup in a while, on topic, interesting
and no one being overly pugnacious. That said...

I think almost everyone can agree on a few basic facts:
-The turn into traffic idea, with appropriate spacing, is a good one
-If a controller suggests an "immediate" change in course... do it
-Traffic avoidence sooner rather than later is best

All that together makes it pretty clear, someone already mentioned
that once the pilot heard "traffic alert" they probably +started their
avoidence right away. without waiting the extra 4 or 5 sec to hear out
the controller... I have no doubt that is what I would do.
So I guess my suggestion to controllers in this situation is to spit
out the vector asap, something like "N123A traffic alert, right turn
to 180 immediately is suggested"... I know it sounds choppy, but I
wouldnt wait a second longer after hearing "traffic alert" to start
what I think is a logical turn. Having "right turn" being the next
words should start the process correctly.
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,
youre actually trying to get a pilots point of view. I hope you got a
better sense of what we're thinking up there, I certainly learned
quite a bit from your posts... im just stoaked about this thread lol.

"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