See & Avoid

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:52:12 -0700, Jay Beckman
wrote in om:

Unfortunately, that would cost $$$ and station managers hate spending $
$$...

I wonder how the TV station managers feel about killing their
personnel and facing law suits for negligence by the dead employee's
estate?

On Aug 1, 1:52 am, "Hilton" wrote:
Al,

Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the time.
It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that it
was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB reports are
littered with accidents and near misses where the pilots never saw each
other, the San Diego midair being a very important one in the history of
aviation.

Hilton

"Al G" wrote in message

...





"Hilton" wrote in message
et...
Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its
limitations and does not work?

Hilton

Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.

Al G

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote in message
groups.com...
Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
that newsworthy.
SEE AND AVOID.
Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Al
See and avoid is nonsense? Kid, I've been flying all over the world
more than 50 years and see and avoid has kept me alive. Certainly
there are occasions when a lapse has caused a mid-air such as the PHX
case in point. The moment you stick your head up your ass is when
you're gonna get buried that way. I don't care how careful you are,
accidents happen and all we can do is try to minimize them. ATC ain't
much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
danger to everyone concerned.
As for the SAN accident, I was working there at that time and it was a
case of everyone doing the right thing but no one was looking outside
in a very dangerous area for that particular approach into Lindbergh.
The 727 guys were involved in the approach to land, and the guys in
the 182 were involved in the missed approach procedures. They simply
didn't SEE AND AVOID. I mean, how big is a 727? Impacted near the wing
root?
Yah **** happens in spite of our efforts................
OL S&B 24,000 hrs and counting

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

See and avoid is nonsense?
He didn't say that. All he said is that it doesn't work all of the time, for
various reasons.

Adhominem

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:20:38 -0700, Ol Shy & Bashful
wrote in
. com:

Yah **** happens in spite of our efforts................

It also happens when FAA maximum speed regulations below 10,000' are
relaxed for military aircraft:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

Hilton wrote:
Al,

Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the
time. It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to
say that it was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB
reports are littered with accidents and near misses where
the pilots never saw each other, the San Diego midair being a very
important one in the history of aviation.

Hilton

You are right but this isn't one of those times. Those pilots new well or
should have known well that other news copters were in the area covering the
same story.

On Aug 1, 8:35 am, Adhominem wrote:
Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

See and avoid is nonsense?

He didn't say that. All he said is that it doesn't work all of the time, for
various reasons.

Adhominem

Ad...
snip..."helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that it
was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense."
Ummmm, which part of that did I miss?
Ol S&B

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Al,

Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the
time. It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to
say that it was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The
NTSB reports are littered with accidents and near misses where
the pilots never saw each other, the San Diego midair being a very
important one in the history of aviation.

Hilton

You are right but this isn't one of those times. Those pilots new well or
should have known well that other news copters were in the area covering
the same story.

Correct, there is absolutely no doubt they knew there were other aircraft
(very) near them. Let's assume that their attention was 100% outside with
perfect see-and-avoid scans etc. Still doesn't mean that either aircraft
even saw the other. Look, we have very few specifics about the accident, so
there is no way we can sit here and declare that the pilots definitely saw
each other and therefore see-n-avoid would have worked.

This all fits into the 'gees, what idiots, that'll never happen to me'. I
think that is a very dangerous attitude.

Hilton

When the camera guy is yelling at the pilot to get here, get there,
give me a better angle / / / it makes see and avoid hit and miss...
This time they hit... The FAA is unlikely to clamp down on the news
choppers (possible but not likely) unless they rain burning parts all
over the lawn of the White House or similar, then the reaction will be
swift...
Anyway, it doesn't matter to me - I don't watch the crap they call
news... I don't fly around the city at 200 feet, etc... So, let em go
on playing russian roulette as far as I'm concerned...

denny - pretty much apathetic today...

Hilton wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Al,

Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid'
crowd shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100%
of the time. It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and
Bashful to say that it was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is
nonsense. The NTSB reports are littered with accidents and near
misses where the pilots never saw each other, the San Diego midair
being a very important one in the history of aviation.

Hilton

You are right but this isn't one of those times. Those pilots new
well or should have known well that other news copters were in the
area covering the same story.

Correct, there is absolutely no doubt they knew there were other
aircraft (very) near them. Let's assume that their attention was
100% outside with perfect see-and-avoid scans etc. Still doesn't
mean that either aircraft even saw the other. Look, we have very few
specifics about the accident, so there is no way we can sit here and
declare that the pilots definitely saw each other and therefore see-n-
avoid would have worked.
This all fits into the 'gees, what idiots, that'll never happen to
me'. I think that is a very dangerous attitude.

Hilton

I agree that we don't know everything about the accident and that is the
problem with aircraft accidents we often never do.

But working from what we do know.

1. We know that there were at least two news choppers up there and they knew
or should have known that other choppers were there.

2. Unlike fixed-wing a helicopter can stop and if I lost sight of the other
helicopter(s) that is exactly what they should have done.

2A.(Pure Conjecture) There is a chance that a helicopter in the front
that lost sight of one behind did exactly that and the one in back ran into
him.

3. Pilots working under conditions like this one have an even higher
responsibility to see and avoid and should be well practiced in it.

4. I can think of no mechanical problem that could cause these helos to
collide if one or both weren't flying to close together in the first place
and hence there pilot error yet again raises it's ugly head.

I am a little concerned from what I've read here that ENG choppers aren't
coordinating like ones I worked with 20 years ago. And someone made the
comment that management wouldn't go for it. If I was flying and that was the
case I'd then try to deal with it over a beer with the other pilots.
Management would never know.

And at least as far as I'm concerned I've never said or thought, "gees, what
idiots, that'll never happen to me." I usually say or think 'gees, what
idiots, I hope I never do something that stupid."

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 1, 1:52 am, "Hilton" wrote:
Al,

Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the time.
It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that
it
was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB reports
are
littered with accidents and near misses where the pilots never saw each
other, the San Diego midair being a very important one in the history of
aviation.

Hilton

"Al G" wrote in message

...





"Hilton" wrote in message
et...
Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its
limitations and does not work?

Hilton

Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.

Al G

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote in message
groups.com...
Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
that newsworthy.
SEE AND AVOID.
Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Al
See and avoid is nonsense? Kid, I've been flying all over the world
more than 50 years and see and avoid has kept me alive. Certainly
there are occasions when a lapse has caused a mid-air such as the PHX
case in point. The moment you stick your head up your ass is when
you're gonna get buried that way. I don't care how careful you are,
accidents happen and all we can do is try to minimize them. ATC ain't
much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
danger to everyone concerned.
As for the SAN accident, I was working there at that time and it was a
case of everyone doing the right thing but no one was looking outside
in a very dangerous area for that particular approach into Lindbergh.
The 727 guys were involved in the approach to land, and the guys in
the 182 were involved in the missed approach procedures. They simply
didn't SEE AND AVOID. I mean, how big is a 727? Impacted near the wing
root?
Yah **** happens in spite of our efforts................
OL S&B 24,000 hrs and counting


Well, first, the nonsense comment wasn't mine. I said:

Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.


Second, Thanks, it has been 50 years since someone called me kid.
Pretty soon, they'll start carding me again(senior discount).

Third, I've been flying all over the world for more than 35 years
and see and avoid has Certainly kept me alive. My habit of scanning
everywhere spotted 2 F106's at my 7 o'clock, less than a mile. I avoided
them, and the miss was close enough for me to spot the Oakleaf under the
plastic on the Major's shoulder. The "picture" down into his cockpit will be
with me for a very long time.

Fourth, If you read the entire report on the San Diego accident,
you'll find that the captain could not see the 152 that was low and to the
right, because of the glareshield and the panel. The co-pilot was not in a
position to see the traffic either. A windshield post on the right side
blocked one eye, and the attach point of his optic nerve blocked the other
eye. By the time he moved enough to see the traffic, it was too late to
avoid. It is very difficult for slower traffic to scan behind them, as you
well know, but that doesn't stop me from trying.

My closest calls have all been while over 10,000', and in the higher
airspeeds. I find my odds are improved if I fly 100' off my VFR altitude,
1/2 mile to the right of an airway, and not directly over a VOR. I try to
always use flight following, for what it's worth. When I was instructing
full time, I would occasionally take a 172, and sneak up on one of my
students in the practice area. I didn't have to get close, just close enough
for him to spot me. After seeing an aircraft close by, they always started
scanning diligently. See and avoid definitely works, but nothing is 100%.


ATC ain't
much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
danger to everyone concerned.

Amen.



Al G CFIAMI 2069297