Accident report on the midair at Tenino

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

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.

My house is under D airspace. Last summer I wanted to fly up the bay
to my dock, for the delectation of my granddaughters. So I flew
overhead at 2900 feet and asked the tower for permission to descend
through pattern altitude to 500 feet for a tour of the bay. Long
silence. Then: where was I? "Over Adams' Point and circling." Long
silence. Finally I got permission to descend, but I had a big
suspicion that the radar had never picked me up.

To compound things, once I was at 500 feet he could no longer hear me.
So I exited his airspace by flying at 500 feet up the bay, thanking
him profusely as I departed.


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

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your engine
comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die.

This was something we often discussed in our hangar lying sessions at
SPX. There was quite a bit of speculation that if you immediately
prevented the stall by pushing forward, you'd be able to survive the
loss of the engine. I guess this has been proven, at least for the
C170B.

off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

It would be balanced by the fact the aerodynamically-shaped cowling has
gone, and has been replaced by a decidedly un-aerodynamic flat firewall.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article eAFxc.19854$HG.16770@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck wrote:
How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

I suspect at nearly full forward elevator, the tail is producing upforce
(rather than the usual downforce) - it becomes a lifting surface. I
should imagine the aircraft would become extremely twitchy in pitch
though.

The tail on most light taildraggers can hold the aft fuselage up on the
ground with virtually no airspeed (many can do it whilst stationary
given sufficient propwash over the tail). Even our little C140 could
keep the tail up at low airspeed with two fat buggers in the cabin (who
are behind the main wheels), so the tail will generate a reasonable
amount of lift.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , John Harlow wrote:
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.

If I understand right, there is a fair bit of non-flat terrain in the
area the accident occurred. Flight following might simply be impossible.
For example, where I fly gliders, there's a small mountain between us
and the nearest radar facility (our equivalent of flight following is
Radar Information Service). It's only a 2000' mountain, but in the area
I'm towing gliders, you can't even get any radio contact until nearly
3000' MSL let alone radar service. Therefore I don't even bother to try,
instead I remain on the local gliding frequency.

Flight following is fine, but even in small countries often there are
regions where terrain/lack of radar facilities make it impossible.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article kiZxc.5044$2i5.1188@attbi_s52, G. Burkhart wrote:
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.

It's interesting to see the different approaches of different parts of
the world; we essentially have three different types of 'flight
followingy type' services you can just call for and ask:

- Radar Advisory Service: Generally used when flying in poor visibility
or IMC in class G airspace (over most of the British Isles, this goes
up to FL245). If you ask for RAS, ATC will advise headings for traffic
avoidance.
- Radar Information Service. Pretty much the equivalent of flight
following. ATC advises you of traffic and you choose what to do.
- Flight information service. A bit less than RIS, you'll be advised of
general things happening in your area. You don't need radar contact or
a transponder, ATC just needs a general clue about where you are.

FIS sounds a bit useless at first, but when you're crossing the Irish
Sea (all cross country flights where I live involve at least 30nm over
open water) I consider it essential that someone knows where I am in
case the chips go down and I have to make an unpleasantly wet landing
somewhere. If I'm already in radio contact with someone who knows my
general location, it means much less radio chatter in the mayday call!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

...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.

John...

I SOMEWHAT agree with you... I CHOOSE to use flight following the
majority of the time when I get airborne, especially anything that is
more than local touch and go pattern work... and I agree that radar
services are a wonderful aid: They have alerted me to 2 POTENTIAL Near
Mid Air situations well before I could have seen the aircraft in
question (merging targets, same altitude, I requested suggested vectors
in both situations). BUT, VFR radar services are on a time and workload
permitting basis. Just because they(ATC)are talking to me doesnt mean
they will call ALL pertinent traffic. There have been many times that
I've seen traffic they(ATC)later called or didnt call at all.

I do believe the use of Radar Services is under-taught and
under-utilized. I can attest to my primary flying partner not doing it
out of laziness but out of discomfort: He just doesnt feel comfortable
with ATC. He flys solely out of uncontrolled strips, and got his ticket
10 years ago, sat out for 8 years, then has just recently returned to
flying. He's a passable pilot but he's intimidated by ATC. Hardly lazy.

My first instructor introduced me to flight following on my first flight
with him. He was just a private pilot, and future brother-in-law at the
time when we took a long XC to visit kin and so it was something I
became very comfortable and proficient with as we did
"pre-instructional" flying.

I agree that many instructors dont seem to emphasize flight following. I
have taken many a newly minted PP or even other students along for
"flying junkie jaunts" and my use of radar services has been their first
exposure to the service. Its a wonderful tool, but I would have to agree
with others: "mandatory" is just an opinion, and one has to be careful
not to become overly dependent on an "as able" service to provide
separation for them.

Blue Skies,
Dave


John Harlow wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:


"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
control radar
services at the time of the collision."

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.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?

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

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.


Actually, when I responded, I had taken "X-ray" to be "expermental" and not "no
transponder".

No transponder, not much of a radio -- no flight following. Nothing wrong
with that, I fly a lot without FF too.

Jose

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