Mid-air in California

Rich Ahrens wrote:
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.

Now it's two in each plane and one on the ground, and a 150 and 172.

I like this bit from the LA Times:

"Without assessing a cause for Sunday's accident, Pollack noted that the
airport has no flight control tower. 'It's considered to be an
uncontrolled airport,' he told reporters."

(Pollack is NTSB investigator Wayne Pollack.) There's no context around
that passage to explain that uncontrolled airports are the norm or that
primary responsibility for avoiding traffic falls on pilots under VFR.
Whether the reporters intended it or not (and I doubt they did),
unknowledgeable readers are going to think the lack of a tower had to be
a cause of this accident.

Larry Dighera wrote:
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

TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south. The only way
to get to Corona through the CNO class D is to first go through the
ONT class C, and almost nobody does that except students being shown
how to use the radio.

Class Charlie with a floor of 2,700' overhead

See above. If you are under the Class C and going to or coming from
Corona, you would never be that high anyway.

Another Class Charlie a few miles to the SE

The floor of the SNA class C in that area is 3500 feet. There is no
reason to go in that direction unless you are actually going to SNA.

You can't go down the coast that way as you would have to go through
a restricted areas around Camp Pendleton.

Class Bravo to the NW

And you have to go a long way to the west before the floor of the
class B drops below 7000 feet.

Another Class Delta about 3 miles east

If you are going that way, you would be above 2700 feet by the time
you got there anyway. And you do want to be above 2700 in that direction
because of the terrain.

Another Class Charlie surface area ~15 miles east

That's March ARB. If you are going that direction, the only place to
go is through the Banning pass and you will be above the class C
anyway.


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.

And on the other side of those hills (the mountains are to the north)
is SNA and two restricted areas. You aren't going that way unless
you are going to either SNA or Hawaii.

I can think of no reason to anywhere near Paradise VORTAC either departing
or arriving VFR at Corona.

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

I find the Pacific Ocean and the 10,000 foot mountains far more
limiting than any controlled airspace area.

Most of the airports in the basin are towered. The only ones that are
not are CCB, AJO, L67 (going away to developers), SBD, RIR and REI.

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I figured out why they are obsessed with flight plans. Part of the human
angle of the story is where the departed was/were going. "They were headed
for a reunion with their long-lost children..." They check on the flight
plan to see if they can wrangle that part of the story out of the relatives.


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.

wrote

TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south.

Now you tell me! Here I've been flying it at 1532 all this time...

BDS

BDS wrote:

wrote

TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south.

Now you tell me! Here I've been flying it at 1532 all this time...

Yeah, I know.

I didn't remember what it is so I looked it up and that's the official
TPA.

Much like the Cable official TPA of 2244 which I always fly 4 feet low.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

C J Campbell wrote:
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.


Conspiracy?

1. Are you sure the tower was not closed due to
FAA budget cutbacks so the FAA could fund diversity
conferences in Vegas or their controller staffing
cutbacks or their management staff expansions(desk jobs in
DC)or their big contractor contracts or their Gay Pride
celebrations?
2. Are you sure the radios were operational in that
airspace? Did you know that more and more FAA systems
including Air Traffic communications stay broke as the FAA
cuts back on staffing of critical technical positions but
expands their civil rights and diversity staff and funds Gay
Pride celebrations?
3. Are you sure the controllers in that airspace were
adequately staffed if the pilots were under FAA control and
properly trained and experienced(Most of the FAA seasoned
controllers are bailing due to pathetic FAA management and
cutbacks)
4. Are you sure one or both of the pilots were adequately
checked out by FAA flight inspectors?(The FAA has cut back
inspector positions under the Bush Administration but kisses
big contractors asses)
5. Are you sure one or both of the aircraft were adequately
inspected mechanically?(The FAA has cut back inspector
positions under the Bush Administration but kisses big
contractors asses redux)

Conspiracy?

Why don't you open your eyes to the possibility that direct
or indirect FAA decisions and/or incompetence and/or budget
staffing cutbacks contributed to this incident.

Or is it easier to blame it ALL on the two pilots and
bury your head in the sand?

Dig deep. You may be surprised to find you can't blow off
all the air accidents in America calling it a "Conspiracy
against the FAA" DIG a little. If one or more of the above
five scenarios are not in play I will electronically kiss
your ass.

Wake up. The FAA could care less about Air Safety. They are
only worried about their Loser management empires and Gay
Pride celebrations.

Slug wrote:
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.


Conspiracy?

1. Are you sure the tower was not closed due to
FAA budget cutbacks so the FAA could fund diversity
conferences in Vegas or their controller staffing
cutbacks or their management staff expansions(desk jobs in
DC)or their big contractor contracts or their Gay Pride
celebrations?

There is not now nor has there ever been in the last 40 years a tower
at Corona. Before that I don't know but would bet money there has
never been a tower at Corona.

2. Are you sure the radios were operational in that
airspace? Did you know that more and more FAA systems
including Air Traffic communications stay broke as the FAA
cuts back on staffing of critical technical positions but
expands their civil rights and diversity staff and funds Gay
Pride celebrations?

Irrelevant; no tower at Corona and the airspace they were in is
uncontrolled.

Moreover, a lot of aircraft that use Corona don't even have radios.

3. Are you sure the controllers in that airspace were
adequately staffed if the pilots were under FAA control and
properly trained and experienced(Most of the FAA seasoned
controllers are bailing due to pathetic FAA management and
cutbacks)

Irrelevant; no tower at Corona and the airspace they were in is
uncontrolled.

4. Are you sure one or both of the pilots were adequately
checked out by FAA flight inspectors?(The FAA has cut back
inspector positions under the Bush Administration but kisses
big contractors asses)

Irrelevant; checkouts are normally done by the pilot's CFI of
choice.

5. Are you sure one or both of the aircraft were adequately
inspected mechanically?(The FAA has cut back inspector
positions under the Bush Administration but kisses big
contractors asses redux)

Irrelevant; inspections are normally done by the owner's mechanic
of choice.

Conspiracy?

Why don't you open your eyes to the possibility that direct
or indirect FAA decisions and/or incompetence and/or budget
staffing cutbacks contributed to this incident.

Because that's a raving fantasy.

Or is it easier to blame it ALL on the two pilots and
bury your head in the sand?

The area they were in is see and avoid.

They didn't see and they didn't avoid.

Dig deep. You may be surprised to find you can't blow off
all the air accidents in America calling it a "Conspiracy
against the FAA" DIG a little. If one or more of the above
five scenarios are not in play I will electronically kiss
your ass.

Looks like you can kiss my ass.

Wake up. The FAA could care less about Air Safety. They are
only worried about their Loser management empires and Gay
Pride celebrations.

This may or may not be true, but it is obvious to the most casual
observer that it isn't relevant to the Corona incident.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Roughly the same odds as teaching the clueless how to snip dozens of lines
for a two line reply.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford





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

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:55:03 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
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

TPA at Corona is 1533 and the pattern is to the south. The only way
to get to Corona through the CNO class D is to first go through the
ONT class C, and almost nobody does that except students being shown
how to use the radio.

The floor of outer ring of the KONT Class C is 2,700', so there's no
need to transition the KONT Class C from the north though the KCNO
Class D if you stay below 2,700', but that's not at issue here.


Class Charlie with a floor of 2,700' overhead

See above. If you are under the Class C and going to or coming from
Corona, you would never be that high anyway.

If remaining in VMC required it, you might.


Another Class Charlie a few miles to the SE

The floor of the SNA class C in that area is 3500 feet. There is no
reason to go in that direction unless you are actually going to SNA.

Of course, there is the reciprocal to that statement, when you are
arriving at KAJO.

You can't go down the coast that way as you would have to go through
a restricted areas around Camp Pendleton.

All you have to do to fly down the coast is stay a mile or two off
shore, and you'll be clear of R2503 A & D.

[...]


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.

And on the other side of those hills (the mountains are to the north)
is SNA and two restricted areas. You aren't going that way unless
you are going to either SNA or Hawaii.

I can think of no reason to anywhere near Paradise VORTAC either departing
or arriving VFR at Corona.

KAJO is located 3 miles from Paradise VORTAC; you don't get a choice.

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

I find the Pacific Ocean and the 10,000 foot mountains far more
limiting than any controlled airspace area.

Agreed. But that wasn't part of what we were discussing.


Most of the airports in the basin are towered. The only ones that are
not are CCB, AJO, L67 (going away to developers), SBD, RIR and REI.

What is your point?

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

On 2008-01-21, Slug wrote:
Wake up. The FAA could care less about Air Safety. They are
only worried about their Loser management empires and Gay
Pride celebrations.

Well, we know where your true agenda lies, at least.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390