Scared of mid-airs

Stefan wrote:

The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll never know.

Stefan


I can see where the original poster's apprehension stems from, having
flown once, from the FO's seat. I wasn't at all inhibited in doing a
stall, steepish banks and other jiggles - in fact, I did them all
merrily. But I was petrified throughout the ride because the craft, a
JetFox, didn't have a radar and the only way of recognizing traffic in
the immediate neighborhood was by actually looking out the window. Just
felt a sense of being helplessly vulnerable in an open sky. It might go
away if I fly more, because the Capn seemed very assured

Is it correct to assume that one can always be whacked by traffic
coming from between the 4 and 8 o'clock positions, especially if the
other craft is faster and climbing?

Ramapriya

Military fighter radar sees other airplanes that are in the
area (a small area) in front of the fighter. That's why the
has ground based surveillance radar and airborne
surveillance radar, such as AWACS, so somebody can tell the
fighter pilot that there is a target at his 2 or 3 o'clock
position, 20 miles.

The radar in civilian airplanes does not see other airplanes
because the radar is on a frequency band designed to see
water droplets and the antenna is too small to have a
resolution high enough to see things like airplanes or cars.
Why does it see water, because the water droplet resonates
and returns a good return to the radar, if it is liquid.
Ice in the form of hail is hard for an airborne radar to see
since the solid water doesn't have the same properties.

Bottom line is that, you can't use weather radar to detect
targets, you might be able to see an oil tanker broadside at
5 miles, but not head on. What does work is systems that
detect the transponder in the other airplane and present a
warning display.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

wrote in message
oups.com...
| Stefan wrote:
|
| The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll
never know.
|
| Stefan
|
|
| I can see where the original poster's apprehension stems
from, having
| flown once, from the FO's seat. I wasn't at all inhibited
in doing a
| stall, steepish banks and other jiggles - in fact, I did
them all
| merrily. But I was petrified throughout the ride because
the craft, a
| JetFox, didn't have a radar and the only way of
recognizing traffic in
| the immediate neighborhood was by actually looking out the
window. Just
| felt a sense of being helplessly vulnerable in an open
sky. It might go
| away if I fly more, because the Capn seemed very assured

|
| Is it correct to assume that one can always be whacked by
traffic
| coming from between the 4 and 8 o'clock positions,
especially if the
| other craft is faster and climbing?
|
| Ramapriya
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

What does work is systems that detect the transponder in the other airplane and present
a warning display.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


That's what I went, a tad naively, expecting to find, although Bob
Moore had given me a sneak peek at what I could reasonably hope to see,
which was *not* an A320 layout

But nothing could prepare me from the vulnerability I felt when
airborne.

Ramapriya

It is a big sky. Years ago the FAA [it is said] did a study
to show how safe aviation would be if all their ATC plans
were fully funded and they could control every airplane from
taxi to shutdown in the US airspace system. They came up
with some tens of millions of flight hours between mid-air
collisions, something like a chance every hour of
0.000000015 collisions per hour. Somebody asked what kind
of improvement this was over no control at all. They had a
university do a study and the number came back...
0.000000019.

Big sky, few airplanes. The hazards at and near the busy,
big airports. To a degree, the rules that say all traffic
flies at cardinal altitudes concentrates traffic at certain
places, such as 17,500 feet or 10,000 feet because those
altitudes [in the USA] are where rules change.

You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for other
airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the
horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and
airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder to
see because of the ground. But you look for moving shadows
on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights and
hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows. You
look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because
things on a collision course have zero relative motion.

But the human eye seems motion better than it does small
dark spots.

In areas of high traffic, there are often radio procedures
used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that
can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do have
systems that can detect the transponder of other aircraft.
And they are developing data-link systems that will put a
ground based radar display in the cockpit of those airplanes
and countries that can afford the cost.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

wrote in message
ps.com...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| What does work is systems that detect the transponder in
the other airplane and present
| a warning display.
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
|
| That's what I went, a tad naively, expecting to find,
although Bob
| Moore had given me a sneak peek at what I could reasonably
hope to see,
| which was *not* an A320 layout
|
| But nothing could prepare me from the vulnerability I felt
when
| airborne.
|
| Ramapriya
|

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:28:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
Mt2zg.84637$ZW3.19317@dukeread04::

You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for other
airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the
horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and
airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder to
see because of the ground. But you look for moving shadows
on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights and
hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows. You
look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because
things on a collision course have zero relative motion.

But the human eye seems motion better than it does small
dark spots.

In areas of high traffic, there are often radio procedures
used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that
can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do have
systems that can detect the transponder of other aircraft.
And they are developing data-link systems that will put a
ground based radar display in the cockpit of those airplanes
and countries that can afford the cost.

Military flights, though exempt from FAR § 91.117's 250 knot maximum
speed restriction below 10,000', do not detect Mode C transponder
beacons (no TCAS).


[rec.aviation.military added]

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:28:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote in
| Mt2zg.84637$ZW3.19317@dukeread04::
|
| You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for
other
| airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the
| horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and
| airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder
to
| see because of the ground. But you look for moving
shadows
| on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights
and
| hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows.
You
| look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because
| things on a collision course have zero relative motion.
|
| But the human eye seems motion better than it does small
| dark spots.
|
| In areas of high traffic, there are often radio
procedures
| used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that
| can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do
have
| systems that can detect the transponder of other
aircraft.
| And they are developing data-link systems that will put a
| ground based radar display in the cockpit of those
airplanes
| and countries that can afford the cost.
|
| Military flights, though exempt from FAR § 91.117's 250
knot maximum
| speed restriction below 10,000', do not detect Mode C
transponder
| beacons (no TCAS).
|
|
| [rec.aviation.military added]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to provide their
own separation and to operate in areas without the
all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
happens--but it ain't murder.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04::


True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level
targets?

To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
if then.