TIS and What could have been

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Had you been assigned any altitude restriction prior to your descent
request? If not, then you were free to descend at any time. But it seems
odd that you weren't assigned an altitude restriction as you'd be pretty
much right over DAY.

DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let
me fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing traffic.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and
then beat you with experience"
-- Dilbert's Words Of Wisdom

Mark T. Dame wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


But it
seems odd that you weren't assigned an altitude restriction as you'd
be pretty much right over DAY.

DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let
me fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing traffic.

To clarify: I was at 4,500 when I contacted them and they didn't give
me an assigned altitude. They just gave the usual "advise of altitude
change".


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer."
-- Star Trek: Dr. McCoy, "The Devil In The Dark"

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let me
fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing
traffic.


I think you're missing the point. DAY is busy enough to warrant Class C
airspace and in Class C airspace VFR aircraft must be separated from IFR
aircraft. Overflying VFR aircraft are typically assigned an altitude
restriction 500' above whatever is used as the initial altitude for IFR
departures.

I assume you were VFR when all this happened?


"Chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
going into Moraine also."

So now we have a low wing (my Archer) above a high wing (172) and I
have been cleared to decend. I tell the controller that I am stopping
my decent and turning left 30 deg (and speeding up). He did not
respond. The 430 display over the next minute shows seperation and I
turn back to course and see the 172. I continue to keep my speed
greater that his and we both land without further problem.

I think TIS may have saved my ( and others) life today and the FAA is
decomissioning the sites with the explination that ADS-B is going to be
better when they get it implemented in the next few years and an an
inexpensive plane electronic becomes available.

God, I wish I knew how to stop this decomissioning of TIS before ADS-B
is widely available. My life (and maybe yours) may depend on it.

Chuck

"Chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
going into Moraine also."

So you were overtaking the 172? Did you not see him prior to descending?

"John Doe" wrote:

So you were overtaking the 172? Did you not see him prior to descending?

I assume that you see every aircraft near you. I wish I were that
good. Even when given aircraft advisories I often never see the
aircraft.

Ron Lee

Boy, isn't that true. With the TIS showing the distance at a mile or
so, I sometimes still can't see the plane. Big planes easy, but small
ones, not so.

In this case I did not have a visual on the 172. He was under me.

No, but I clear my flight path religiously. Most people I've flown with are
lucky to clear during turns, descents are the worst. Folks just assume
there's no one below them. I learned long ago to do a 'belly check' in low
wing aircraft to make sure I don't hit exactly the issue below.



"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"John Doe" wrote:

So you were overtaking the 172? Did you not see him prior to descending?

I assume that you see every aircraft near you. I wish I were that
good. Even when given aircraft advisories I often never see the
aircraft.

Ron Lee

"Chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Unnerveing thing happen to me today.
I have TIS displayed on the Garmin 430.
I was 15 or 20 miles north of Moraine (I73) in southern Ohio and
talking to Dayton Controller under Flight Following.
I'm at 4500 ft and landing at Moraine. I request (I'm in his air
space) the controller that I would like to start my decent and he says
cleared to decend. Shortly, the display squacks and says "traffic" and
I see a traffic indicated at 500 ft below. I tell controller that I
have traffic on my display 500 ft below and he says "Yes, it is a 172
going into Moraine also."

No offence, but wasn't this a VFR flight? If so, the primary way to find out
about traffic is to look out of the window. I agree that the circumstances
were such that the task of spotting the other guy was made harder (your low
wings and his high wings, for example) but there are ways (e.g. weaving
descents) to improve your chances.

While I agree that electronic assistance can be a very useful secondary
device for picking up the odd bit of traffic you've not eyeballed, it's
essential to remember that looking out of the window is rule number one, and
if you'd descended onto the top of this other aircraft, it'd have been your
fault. The other thing to remember, of course, is that TIS relies on the
other aircraft giving a correct altitude - which in the aircraft I fly
relies on the the pilot having the correct altimiter setting.

D.

"David Cartwright" wrote in message
...

No offence, but wasn't this a VFR flight? If so, the primary way to find
out about traffic is to look out of the window. I agree that the
circumstances were such that the task of spotting the other guy was made
harder (your low wings and his high wings, for example) but there are ways
(e.g. weaving descents) to improve your chances.

While I agree that electronic assistance can be a very useful secondary
device for picking up the odd bit of traffic you've not eyeballed, it's
essential to remember that looking out of the window is rule number one,
and if you'd descended onto the top of this other aircraft, it'd have been
your fault. The other thing to remember, of course, is that TIS relies on
the other aircraft giving a correct altitude - which in the aircraft I fly
relies on the the pilot having the correct altimiter setting.


Isn't the altitude encoder the source of altitude used by TIS?