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 traffice to you, your (x) o-clock, so many
miles, raw return indicates

Bela P. Havasreti

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

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

It's nice to have traffic pointed out,

The first time I ever flew out of a towered field was while taking
stall-training at Chandler AZ. This was also the first time I used a
panel radio. It was awful, given that I needed three channels and I
had only the two (!) radios.

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 have a regular scan pattern, including the engine instruments, and I
hate to have it interrupted. Same with the preflight checks, which are
done by memory, including tactile.

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.

But Dan said he's Slant X-ray. Is it possible (or worth it) to get FF
without a transponder?


I haven't tried. However, by verifying the type and altitude of a primary
echo, it might be of use to controllers who are not too busy with other (IFR
for example) traffic. It's just as useful to be called out as traffic as it is
to have traffic called out. And you may still get good radar services if their
screen's not too cluttered.

Newps? Ron?

Jose

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

"G. Burkhart" wrote in message
news:kiZxc.5044$2i5.1188@attbi_s52...

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.


While a transponder is not a prerequisite for flight following, it's
unlikely a rag and tube taildragger will present a usable radar target
without one. I fly an Aeronca 7AC myself, and also use a handheld
transceiver. While the receiver side works well, I can pick up the ATIS
thirty miles out and identify the guy that recorded it through the ignition
noise (unshielded), I have to be pretty much on top of the ATC receiver to
transmit effectively. Weak target + iffy communications = no flight
following.

In article ,
"John Harlow" wrote:


What a shame.

I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

The shame is thinking radar services will save you. Two weeks ago,
while getting traffic advisories from approach, I was climbing to
altitude. I had relaxed a little since I was above 3500' (the real kill
zone here is 2000 and below) and was enjoying the scenery. I looked low
on the left side to find that my 206 now appeared to be a biplane since
there was a wing sticking out on the left below me. It took a
nanosecond to realize what I was looking at...we were same direction and
the other airplane was within 10 feet of me. I broke hard up and right
expecting to feel/hear a collision. Once clear I rolled back and check
to find the other traffic continuing as if nothing had happened. I was
talking to approach, I have a permanently assigned code, the other
aircraft was a Katana so I'm sure he is Mode C equipped as well.
Approach never said a thing.

I fly skydivers. We have a letter of agreement with Approach that
assigns our airplanes specific transponder codes. The usual call is
I'll give them a call at 2000' or so and report on and altitude climbing
to. The service I get depends greatly on the controller. Some simply
acknowledge radar contact and that's the last I hear until I give the 1
minute warning for jumpers away. Others call traffic as if I am the
only airplane they are working....one guy even reports the jumpers once
they open...didn't realize approach radar was that good. Twice last
weekend before I had reported on the frequency the controller came on
and said "81Z you on?", I replied and he called closing traffic for
me...one of which would have been a little close for comfort (this
particular controller is one of two that are friggin' awesome!!).

Point is, the service you get depends greatly on the individual
controller. I've flown all over the country into small airports as well
as Class B areas. I usually use radar services if able, but certainly
don't depend on them and in some cases find it easier to do without.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

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