Mid-air in California

On Jan 21, 7:19 pm, D Ramapriya wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:51 pm, Slug wrote:

Well I was right. This time it was puddle jumpers.
The next time it may be a heavy over a school or shopping
mall. Near mid-air's and runway collisions are rapidly
rising within our Air Traffic control system. However, the
LIARS in FAA management continue to deny and obfuscate
reality.

The big one is coming. SOON.

I must've read on an average at least one newspaper article* with
similar headlines over the past five years about the (reportedly)
dangerous scene in India. Either the scribes have been unduly antsy or
we've been dashed lucky thus far.

Reports of near-misses between civilian and military aircraft where
the former use the latter's airfields - and there are a fair few of
them - are especially rife.

Ramapriya

* each month

C J Campbell wrote in
news:2008012105234616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

On 2008-01-20 20:52:36 -0800, Bertie the Bunyip said:

Rich Ahrens wrote in
. net:

C J Campbell wrote:
That fact that it is extremely rare probably does not make anyone
involved feel any better about it.

There were four souls lost in the collision between a 152 and a
172.
AP and CNN say one of them was in a car in the ground and the rest
on
board the planes. UPI says two of the victims were on the ground. I
suppose it will take some time to straighten out what happened.

And, true to form, the ABC station's live-on-the-scene bimbo noted
that they had been unable to determine yet if either plane had filed
a
flight plan with the Corona airport. Good grief.


I stopped paying any attention whatsoever to that stuff years ago
lest I
drive myself to apoplexy over it.

It's gaurunteed, every time.


Bertie

I see what you mean. Excite (AP) has "raining debris and bodies down
on
car dealership parking lots" and "investigators had not yet obtained a
flight plan."

You can just feel the sensitivity, can't you?

I remember when every light plane that crashed was a "Piper cub" An
after that Navajo fell into a school yard colliding with the Chopper
years ago one station spoke of "The terror from above". Oh yeah, and
shortly after the DC-10 rolled over in Chicago in 79, the radio was
reporting a DC3 that had crashed in FLA a few days after and was making
the point that they were both Douglas's and maybe there was something
inherently wrong with the brand...

I think that was the moment I stopped takin them seriously.
If I had been the Captain n the BA flight ( and survived!) I would have
taken the greatest glee in depriving those turkey vultures of their
carrion.


Bertie

On 2008-01-21 07:19:32 -0800, D Ramapriya said:

On Jan 21, 5:51 pm, Slug wrote:
Well I was right. This time it was puddle jumpers.
The next time it may be a heavy over a school or shopping
mall. Near mid-air's and runway collisions are rapidly
rising within our Air Traffic control system. However, the
LIARS in FAA management continue to deny and obfuscate
reality.

The big one is coming. SOON.


I must've read on an average at least one newspaper article with
similar headlines over the past five years about the (reportedly)
dangerous scene in India. Either the scribes have been unduly antsy or
we've been dashed lucky thus far.

Reports of near-misses between civilian and military aircraft where
the former use the latter's airfields - and there are a fair few of
them - are especially rife.

Ramapriya

Slug can take his FAA conspiracy theories elsewhere. The FAA probably
had nothing to do with a crash at Corona. There is no tower there and
neither plane may have even been in radio contact with any FAA facility.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote

Slug can take his FAA conspiracy theories elsewhere. The FAA probably had
nothing to do with a crash at Corona. There is no tower there and neither
plane may have even been in radio contact with any FAA facility.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Those points aside, though, I would agree that there is possible a large
problem with ATC about to develop.

The poor moral, for whatever reasons, such as long working hours,
understaffing, antiquated equipment, and more, could mean that many current
controllers will retire at the first opportunity that they can afford to do
so. That means very soon, for many controllers; many more replacements will
be needed than we are able to hire and train, at present time.

Unfortunately, that will likely mean more overtime, and less staffing,
leading down the cycle of lessening moral and more retirements...

I hope it is not as bleak as I fear.
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.

Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.

Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:44 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

That fact that it is extremely rare ...

A MAC occurred at Corona Municipal Airport less than ten years ago:
3/19/1998


We have automobile collisions collisions by the dozens every month. Once every
ten years would qualify as a fairly rare event, I would think.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Jan 21, 9:30*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:44 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

That fact that it is extremely rare ...

A MAC occurred at Corona Municipal Airport less than ten years ago:
3/19/1998 *

* *http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X09700&key=1
* * NTSB Identification: LAX98FA118A
* * 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
* * Accident occurred Thursday, March 19, 1998 in CORONA, CA
* * Probable Cause Approval Date: 10/13/2000
* * Aircraft: Cessna 310H, registration: N310RR
* * Injuries: 3 Fatal.
* * A Cessna 310 and a Cessna 152 collided in-flight about 2 miles
* * south of the Corona airport at 2,600 feet mean sea level (about
* * 2,000 above ground level). The Cessna 310, with two pilots aboard,
* * was descending toward another nearby area airport, and the Cessna
* * 152, flown by a certified flight instructor (the sole occupant)
* * from the right seat, was orbiting south of the airport awaiting
* * the reopening of the runway following construction. Radar data
* * showed that in the 1 minute 18 seconds prior to the collision, the
* * Cessna 310 descended from 4,000 feet to the collision point on a
* * southeast bound ground track at a rate of about 1,200 feet per
* * minute. Nine seconds prior to the collision, the Cessna 152, which
* * had been on a westbound track, began a right turn toward a
* * northwest bound ground track. Over the 1 minute 18 second period,
* * the horizontal separation decreased from 6.01 nautical miles to
* * zero as the vertical separation decreased 1,400 feet.
* * Reconstruction of the two airplanes revealed that at the point of
* * collision, the Cessna 310's lateral axis was about 80 degrees to
* * the Cessna 152's vertical axis as the 310's outer right wing and
* * tip tank contacted the 152's left main gear strut, lift strut, and
* * inboard left wing. In the one minute prior to the collision, the
* * relative horizontal bearing from the Cessna 310 ground track to
* * the Cessna 152 was between 8 and 10 degrees left of the track.
* * During this same period, the relative horizontal bearing from the
* * Cessna 152 ground track to the Cessna 310 varied between 25
* * degrees and 40 degrees right of the Cessna 152 ground track as it
* * maneuvered prior to the right turn. Trigonometric calculation of
* * altitude difference between the targets yielded a 2 degree 10
* * minute relative vertical angle between the target positions.

* * The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
* * cause(s) of this accident as follows:

* * The failure of both pilots to maintain an adequate visual lookout
* * and to see and avoid the other airplane.

* * Full narrative available

Wow, what are the odds of two Cessnas hitting each other at the same
airport within a ten year peiod? It's a conpiracy!

Wil

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.

Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.

Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214

Yeah, look at it closely.

The non-ATC controlled airspace around Corona is hardly limited.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:24:40 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:44 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008012019394416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

That fact that it is extremely rare ...

A MAC occurred at Corona Municipal Airport less than ten years ago:
3/19/1998


We have automobile collisions collisions by the dozens every month. Once every
ten years would qualify as a fairly rare event, I would think.

Given the disparity between the number of aircraft (239,162 in 2006*)
in the US and the number of automobiles (129,728,341 in 1998**) (542
times as many autos as planes), that's not a very good comparison.

When you factor in the MAC happening in the same location in less than
ten years time, it's even worse.



* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...9factcard.html

** http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs97/in3.pdf

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:45:03 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:32:09 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008012108320950073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

The FAA probably had nothing to do with a crash at Corona.

Wasn't it the FAA who created Class B, C, and D airspace? To the
extent that this concentrates aircraft not in contact with ATC in the
limited airspace outside of Bravo, Charlie, and Delta airspace, the
FAA can perhaps be seen as contributory. But it's a stretch.

Here's a TAC: http://skyvector.com/#32-24-2-4488-3214

Yeah, look at it closely.

The non-ATC controlled airspace around Corona is hardly limited.


I suppose that depends on how one characterizes 'limited.'

What I see is:

Class D with a ceiling of 2,700' within a mile north
Class Charlie with a floor of 2,700' overhead
Another Class Charlie a few miles to the SE
Class Bravo to the NW
Another Class Delta about 3 miles east
Another Class Charlie surface area ~15 miles east

And then there are the ~4,000' mountains ~5 miles to the southeast and
the Paradise VORTAC ~3 miles NW that tend to concentrate aircraft.

I find those as limiting the airspace available to flights not in
contact with ATC. You say 'tomato'...

Of course, this is a non-issue for IFR flights and those receiving
Radar Traffic Advisory Service from ATC.