Accident report on the midair at Tenino

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:05:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
was way too late.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

You're right George.... but on that note, I actually do regularly
lift either wing and look as far back as I can (I own a 170) in an
attempt at keeping people from running me down.

I admit my "vigilance" is a fairly recent thing (I was part of the
recovery crew on the C-210 / C-170 mid-air).

Another thought I had on this flight following thing is... how many
times have you been receiving advisories, only to have the
controller point out traffic to you, your (x) o-clock, so many
miles, indicating (y) altitude, the controller ain't talking to him,
and you end up never seeing him anyway?

Bela P. Havasreti

a few weeks ago on a trip back from Phoenix to Las Vegas, just before Kingman,az, center
called out to me a target that just departed kingman at my 12 o'clock climbing, not
talking to him, I asked for vectors around him and when I did see him, he turned out to
be a flight of 2 mooney's, which I reported back to center. They only say one plane when
there was actually 2 of them.

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:05:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
was way too late.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

You're right George.... but on that note, I actually do regularly
lift either wing and look as far back as I can (I own a 170) in an
attempt at keeping people from running me down.

I admit my "vigilance" is a fairly recent thing (I was part of the
recovery crew on the C-210 / C-170 mid-air).

Another thought I had on this flight following thing is... how many
times have you been receiving advisories, only to have the
controller point out traffic to you, your (x) o-clock, so many
miles, indicating (y) altitude, the controller ain't talking to him,
and you end up never seeing him anyway?

Bela P. Havasreti

Bela P. Havasreti wrote in message ...
I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

It's a great theory, but you only have half of see-and-avoid available
if one plane is approaching from your rear, and if they're flying into
the sun, they likely won't see you either.

Ever fly in the Northeast on a nice weekend? There are planes
everywhere. I had a Beech fly right under me from my rear quarter one
day... about 50' below. I doubt he saw me. Pretty unnerving.

Best, Kev

I've never used Flight Following, and really wouldn't know how to go
about it. I once asked my instructor about this and didn't understand
the answer. Some time later I asked the question on this newgroup and
didn't understood those answers either.

Of course I am an X-ray aircraft. I assume that makes a difference,
and that I couldn't get Flight Following even in the unlikely event
that my Yaseu handheld could do the necessary transmitting.

Indeed, it makes me nervous that someone would post such a didactic
statement about the absolute necessity of Flight Following. I worry
that they are depending on ATC to keep them out of trouble while they
chat on the cell phone (or worse, on 128.8).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

I've never used Flight Following, and really wouldn't know how to go
about it.


It's pretty straightforward. You call up on an appropriate frequency (they are
listed on the charts and in the AF/D - in a pinch a tower can start you off)
and say something like "Boston Approach, November two four one Romeo Charlie,
twenty five miles northeast of Pawling VOR, level at six point five, request
flight following to Nantucket" If they are busy, they may wait a moment before
answering (if they are really busy just announch your call sign and wait before
you get into the long spiel). When they answer you they will say something
like "two four one Romeo Charlie, squawk 3721". Repeat the code back to them,
put it in the window, they will say "two four one Romeo Charlie, radar contact
thirty miles east northeast of Pawling" and you're in.

Then listen for and acknowledge their traffic calls, and their frequency
changes (you'll get a lot of them - maybe even at the start if you call the
"wrong" sector.) You may get an occasional vector around airspace, but
basically, navigation is still up to you, as is everything else you are
normally responsible for.


But apart from that, I hated it whenever the tower called out traffic.
I could never see it! Finally the instructor told me to say "XXX is
looking for the traffic" and to stop craning around. That helped.


I agree with the first bit. Unless you have already seen the traffic, it may
take a moment to find it. Acknowledge the call, but DO look for that traffic.
That's why it's called out to you. In your normal scan, pay particular
attention to the direction they indicate, and the areas around it (when they
say "three o'clock" it may be off by a bit, for many reasons).

The more you do this, the more comfortable you will get with radio procedures.
It will soon be second nature.

As for preflight checklists from memory, try a paper one as a reminder after
you are done - to ensure that you in fact did remember everything. It's easy
to forget stuff and not realize it. Memory is the second thing to go.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

I've never used Flight Following, and really wouldn't know how to go
about it.


It's pretty straightforward. You call up on an appropriate frequency
(they are
listed on the charts and in the AF/D - ...

But Dan said he's Slant X-ray. Is it possible (or worth it) to get FF
without a transponder? I've never tried asking for it since flying slant
X-ray.

On 10 Jun 2004 12:17:38 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

It's pretty straightforward. You call up on an appropriate frequency (they are
listed on the charts and in the AF/D - in a pinch a tower can start you off)
and say something like "Boston Approach, November two four one Romeo Charlie,
twenty five miles northeast of Pawling VOR, level at six point five, request
flight following to Nantucket" If they are busy, they may wait a moment before
answering (if they are really busy just announch your call sign and wait before
you get into the long spiel). When they answer you they will say something
like "two four one Romeo Charlie, squawk 3721". Repeat the code back to them,
put it in the window, they will say "two four one Romeo Charlie, radar contact
thirty miles east northeast of Pawling" and you're in.

Thank you. I at least understand now why I never bothered with the
answers! I can't be heard at 25 miles, and I don't have a transponder.

I fear that flying will go down the same road as boating (if that
isn't a mixed metaphor). There's a very definite set of horn signals
for such tasks as raising a bridge. But starting about ten years ago,
you could circle around in front of the bridge for hours, blowing your
air horn, and nothing would happen. The bridge keepers were inside
their little house, playing cribbage with the radio turned up high.

Once nearly everybody had a radio (transceiver), it became unsafe or
at least terribly inconvenient to go sailing without one.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:

Of course, this mid-air could also have been avoided if at least
one pilot had been getting advisories. But always remember
that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
aircraft were in contact with ATC.

The classic example:

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/78-09-25(PSA).asp

...But always remember
that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
aircraft were in contact with ATC.

Bela P. Havasreti

I can't agree with "plenty", if you mean radar advisories, nor are
mid-airs in cruise other than a rare event. From NTSB data,
2001-2003, there were 25 mid-airs, most in the traffic pattern,
generally at nontowered fields.

Of the 12 occurring in "cruise" with a broad definition, 5 involved at
least one plane engaged in dual flight instruction; 4 involved
collision between jump planes, ag planes, fire tankers, or formation
flight. That leaves 3 -- avg 1 per year -- of the type we're
discussing. In only one case were the aircraft talking to ATC, and
occurred just after they both initiated contact and one pilot had
trouble doing so, with some unintelligible transmissions and faulty
Mode C under discussion. IOW, likely diverted attention just as in
the case of the fire tankers or pilots receiving dual. In fact, the
report hints the other pilot may have been distracted also, trying to
get a word in edgewise to a controller working two positions, several
approaches, and an unreadable guy with a bad xponder.

Another post suggested there's times you may be safer without trying
to get radar advisories, and this incident seems an example of just
such a time.

Fred F.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:45:51 -0400, "TaxSrv"
wrote:

...But always remember
that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
aircraft were in contact with ATC.

Bela P. Havasreti

I can't agree with "plenty", if you mean radar advisories, nor are
mid-airs in cruise other than a rare event. From NTSB data,
2001-2003, there were 25 mid-airs, most in the traffic pattern,
generally at nontowered fields.

Of the 12 occurring in "cruise" with a broad definition, 5 involved at
least one plane engaged in dual flight instruction; 4 involved
collision between jump planes, ag planes, fire tankers, or formation
flight. That leaves 3 -- avg 1 per year -- of the type we're
discussing. In only one case were the aircraft talking to ATC, and
occurred just after they both initiated contact and one pilot had
trouble doing so, with some unintelligible transmissions and faulty
Mode C under discussion. IOW, likely diverted attention just as in
the case of the fire tankers or pilots receiving dual. In fact, the
report hints the other pilot may have been distracted also, trying to
get a word in edgewise to a controller working two positions, several
approaches, and an unreadable guy with a bad xponder.

Another post suggested there's times you may be safer without trying
to get radar advisories, and this incident seems an example of just
such a time.

Fred F.

1 per year times how many years the NTSB has been keeping
track = plenty to me....

Bela P. Havasreti