Riddle me this, pilots

I think the logic of what you say is correct but in the heat of things but
is not intuitive to a pilot who has not been taught this and had the
opportunity to think it out on the ground. The instinctive reaction of a
pilot otherwise is to turn left when he is told traffic is on the right,
even though futher analysis under calm conditions leads to an alternate
conclusion as you noted.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

That's not proof, that's a statement. The other plane was
"saying" it's VMC.

A pilot's report of his flight conditions is taken as fact.

Procedurally, you are correct -- if the pilot says he's IMC,
ATC handles him accordingly. However, his statement isn't a
"fact" in the legal sense in that it's uncorraborated and in
the situation being discussed, another pilot is "saying" it's
VMC by his actions. Which of the two "facts" is correct?

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...

Procedurally, you are correct -- if the pilot says he's IMC,
ATC handles him accordingly. However, his statement isn't a
"fact" in the legal sense in that it's uncorraborated and in
the situation being discussed, another pilot is "saying" it's
VMC by his actions. Which of the two "facts" is correct?


The pilot not communicating with ATC isn't saying anything.

Peter Duniho wrote:

wrote in message ...
It has already saved a few friends of mine, in one case IFR vs. IFR in the
flight levels. Perhaps it is not as safe as it could be, but it's a lot
safer
than not having it at all.

Again, you are mistaking a technology that helps increase overall safety
statistics with one that can be counted on in every situation to improve
safety.

There's a difference.

Yes, the former is achievable; the latter is not.

wrote in message ...
Yes, the former is achievable; the latter is not.

Nevertheless, the guidelines are written to be as close to possible to the
latter, not the former.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote

Procedurally, you are correct -- if the pilot says he's IMC,
ATC handles him accordingly. However, his statement isn't a
"fact" in the legal sense in that it's uncorraborated and in
the situation being discussed, another pilot is "saying" it's
VMC by his actions. Which of the two "facts" is correct?

The pilot not communicating with ATC isn't saying anything.

Actions speak louder than (as loud as) words. If the other
pilot believes it to be VMC, he doesn't have to talk to ATC
and can pass through any altitude desired to or from a VFR
altitude.

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...

Actions speak louder than (as loud as) words. If the other
pilot believes it to be VMC, he doesn't have to talk to ATC
and can pass through any altitude desired to or from a VFR
altitude.


There's no evidence that the VFR pilot was not in VMC at all times.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message news:ihatessppaamm-

I haven't had an opportunity to check my TCAS sources. But
I seem to remember the TCAS II unit having some interface
with the Radar Altimeter. Also, I'm pretty sure that a GPWS
(or TAWS) warning/alert/whateveritiscalled takes priority over
an RA.

Note that a radar altimeter isn't normally used above 2500' agl.

I found some TCAS II block diagrams and it is connected to both
the pressure alt and the radar altimeter. There appears to be
a shift in the RA behavior at 1700' AGL which would jive with your
2500' threshold

"Chip Jones" wrote in message ...
Part of this "voice" thing for me is always sound like I'm in complete
control (even when I am not). I did try to be clear and concise and I did
emphasize the control suggestion in this scenario but I did not really
change my tone of voice to what I think of as "urgent". I am reevaluating
my technique here- your suggestion certainly has some merit.

Chip, JMO, but I don't think your technique needs reevaluation.

Long ago in days gone by when the kids walked 2 miles to school
through 3 ft tall drifts uphill in both directions, I was an
EMT in a major hospital emergency room. I learned two things
PDQ:
1) in an emergency, if I wanted anyone to do what I said, I
had to cultivate a calm, DEEP tone of voice (as a young
woman, the deep part was more of an issue for me)
2) the experienced hands all knew this and would chide me
"calm down, relax" if I didn't make a point of it, which
was embarassing and all that

I believe there have actually been some studies done which
show that in a crisis situation, humans respond best to a calm
authoritative voice.

FWIW
Sydney

In article ,
Snowbird wrote:
Doesn't this sound like a good title for a thriller?

"The Haunted Controller"

While I don't know of any that actually involve ghosts, the concept of
"Controller spends the rest of his life thinking about people who
died because of something he thinks he did/didn't do" has been done,
well, to death.

"Airport" had one, "Turbulance" had one, and I'm sure there are lots
more...

Tina Marie
--
Life is like an analogy. http://www.tripacerdriver.com