Accident report on the midair at Tenino

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
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gone, and has been replaced by a decidedly un-aerodynamic flat firewall.


The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that prop
that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.

The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that prop
that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.


Not if the engine is gone too.

Jose

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

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?

The facts are that: 1) you can't always get FF when you need it most
and 2) as many posters have pointed out, airplanes are very difficult
to see, especially behind you.

I fly in Chicago and have often used FF when available. But the most
common scenario is that the FF is abruptly terminated when I get close
to the Class C veil, which is when I most need it with a reliever
airport every 5 miles. This has been a major motivation for me to get
my IFR rating, which I use rain or shine. Even at that, I see maybe
half of the conflicts called to me.

"PaulH" wrote in message
om...

I fly in Chicago and have often used FF when available. But the most
common scenario is that the FF is abruptly terminated when I get close
to the Class C veil, which is when I most need it with a reliever
airport every 5 miles.


I believe you mean "Mode C veil", there is no "Class C veil".

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that
prop
that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.


Not if the engine is gone too.


No, but it remains an open question: which has more drag: an empty firewall
with no engine or prop, or a 'streamlined' cowling with an unpowered
spinning prop in front of it?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

No, but it remains an open question: which has more drag: an empty
firewall
with no engine or prop, or a 'streamlined' cowling with an unpowered
spinning prop in front of it?


Who gives a **** about drag after the engine falls off?

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:03:28 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

FIS sounds a bit useless at first,

Sounds very sensible to me!

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

how much do you fly?
I use flight following all the time, I have had traffic called out to me that I
never saw. Its hard to see a plane coming head on, its easier to see them when
they are off to the side a bit.

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:48:12 -0400, "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?


I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.

My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
flight following, etc.).

I think there are a lot of pilots out there who climb to cruise
altitude, never "clearing" the airspace in front of them with gentle
5-10 degree turns one way & then the other. Same thing with
descending from cruise altitude. They just lower the nose and drive
straight to the intended airport.

I also think there are a lot of pilots out there who cruise along to
their destination, never lifting (or lowering, for you bottom wingers)
a wing & then the other while scanning the entire viewable horizon
looking for other traffic.

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.

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.

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

speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ), while over
deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife), she was like "a plane just off
below us, he is climbing, he is right under us and climbing", she was getting
all excited now, I was like, where is he, she goes right below us, so I make a
hard turn and ask her if he was going to hit us and she was like no, I just
thought you wanted to know that he was down there, he is gone now.
I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.

the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up right under
us.

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?