If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Thomas Borchert wrote: Then you should listen in on Napa, CA, tower for a while (home of Japan Airlines basic training). Or Goodyear, AZ (home of Lufthansa training). Or any other place with a lot of non-native speakers. Most people who have not grown up with English language war movies will just go "Huh?" upon hearing that. They came to learn, and learn they will. Well at least the controller knows what it means. And the pilot saying it knows what it means. And if the other aircraft in the equation is contains the English challenged pilot, that phrase is not used towards him, when he is warned of traffic. Everyone else is a bystander. I don't like it myself, but I don't feel it is a big deal at all. Just sounds kinda hokieto me. "no joy" WWII ? "Tally-ho" I guess from foxhunting. "Bogie" I like his movies. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Dave Doe wrote:
Do you folk use the phrase LOOKING ? (means the same thing, can't see it, but am trying to). I do, but it usually slips out by habit and I am trying to stop it. "Looking" is implied in the phrase, "no contact," for I cannot imagine any pilot replying with a "no contact" and then ceases to continue to look for the called traffic. -- Peter |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
The,
They came to learn, and learn they will. What they learn is ICAO standard phraseology. The phrases pilots use all around the world. I don't like it myself, but I don't feel it is a big deal at all. Well, what can I say? The use of non-standard phraseology, sadly very common, is more than obviously detrimental to safety. If you can't "feel" it, that simply leaves me speechless. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Peter,
I do, but it usually slips out by habit and I am trying to stop it. Same here. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
Thomas Borchert wrote: I don't like it myself, but I don't feel it is a big deal at all. Well, what can I say? The use of non-standard phraseology, sadly very common, is more than obviously detrimental to safety. If you can't "feel" it, that simply leaves me speechless. Your over reacting. Not to mentin twisting my meaning to sensationalize. Saying "no joy" isn't that big of a deal. As I explained. I agree, non standard phraseology is a safety issue. All non-standard phraseology, isn't equal. And it won't go away. Even controllers resort to it. And if my less than hyper disdain for it "leaves you speechless"; I shudder that what other, bigger issues do to you. "No joy" is virtually a non issue. I don't care for it, and would never use it, but I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch over it. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:05:23 +0000, Bob Moore wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!" Sure sound's like something that you wrote-up for Flying's "I learned About Flying From That" column. A little too dramatic don't you think? [snip] Like it or not...that's what happened. I'm sorry you have this desire to rewrite history. Yes, I attempted to write it with a dramatic style as I thought it would be fun. My intention was certainly not to cause the drama to stick in your throat. If you back up, stop over analyzing, stop being anal, and accept the facts offered as facts, you have the whole story. The long of the short, the facts provided are accurate. The verbage provided is accurate. Maybe not to the letter, but certainly not significantly changed. For example, "on your six" may of been "at your six"..."following"...may have been "followed." You get the idea. And yes, "collision alert" is what he said. The substance is there and accurate. These minor changes to do not change the content or details one iota. If you want to dismiss the story because your ego requires it...by all means, please do. I must admit, I am very, very surprised at the reaction this very true story received. The entire time I was writing it, I was seriously wondering what the general thinking was on action being taken against the other pilot (assuming he wasn't supposed to be there; which is my belief). What I get is the vast majority racing to rewrite history...some openly in denial. Some looking to over analyze to explain away the situation. Only a few comments were actually constructive. Greg |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:41:21 +0000, Jose wrote:
Having finally spotted the aircraft and realizing I was not flying '80K, whos callsign had become second nature to me, I replied back on the radio. We still had some time to react without acting rashly. After all, I didn't want to upset the "cargo". "95X, I have contact." Not wanting to compound the situation in the event other traffic was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend. "Your prerogative." I started to climb with full throttle At this point, how imminent was the threat? From the way you described it, there was plenty of time. You made it to 4500 feet (with time to spare); even at 1000 feet per minute, that's thirty seconds, and you already see him. I'd've probably stayed at my altitued, said "traffic in sight" and then maintained altitude, maneuvering to avoid him as necessary. It might not have even been necessary. In hindsight, that would have been the better thing to do. You are correct, we are not talking about impending death seconds aways. I thought I had done a pretty good job of spelling that out in both the original posting and follow ups. There was no drastic, last second manuvering to avoid a near miss. As I said, I seriously doubt we were closer than 1/2 mile at our closest point. If he was at 11 o'clock, and travelling at 90 degrees to you, you'd probably pass behind with no further action on your part. Actually, we were very clearly converging to a single point in space. Would it have resulted in a near miss? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The prudent thing to do was to change course and/or elevation. I picked elevation. My intention was to cruise at 5500 once out of class B...so I'm guessing this is where the desire to climb came from. Ya, that's pretty lame but probably the truth. After climbing, finding him again at your altitude, turning, finding him turning towards you, and turning again, you then say you're "less than a mile away". Even half a mile, if you're watching, isn't all that close (the Hudson river is only a mile wide). It would seem to me that there was never an imminent threat; the aircraft were too far away. A threat was developing, but once you had him in sight it would not take such drastic action to avoid trading paint (or pained expressions) with the other aircraft. I suspect controllers will call out a collision alert further away, because of the limited resolution of their screens (vs the High That was my expectation as well. Assuming he's looking at a pretty big area, planes within a couple of miles of each other probably look like they are on top of each other. Resolution Plexiglass Display most aircraft carry), and the time it takes for any action they take to translate into aircraft movement. As for tracking the idiot, check passur.com. Maybe they have radar histories for that airport. For what airport? DFW? Jose Greg |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
You are
correct, we are not talking about impending death seconds aways. I thought I had done a pretty good job of spelling that out in both the original posting and follow ups. Well, yes that was there (it was how I inferred it) but you also conveyed a sense of urgency in the dramatization of your story. As for tracking the idiot, check passur.com. Maybe they have radar histories for that airport. For what airport? DFW? No, not DFW. They have Boston however, and Nantucket, and Westchester, and others. It's actually pretty interesting. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Collision alert!
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:26:35 +0000, Jose wrote:
it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the right of the NORDO aircraft. I'm a little confused here. The encounter was head-on or nearly so, no? And the right of way rules apply to non-head-on approaches. So, how did you "turn to pass behind" somebody who was nearly head on? Jose No. Remember, this all started with me south bound and him west bound. At this point, I had only changed elevation (climbed) to find he had done the same when I lowered my nose. I turned (to my left; maybe 10-15 degrees) to pass behind. He then turned (to his right; some 90 degrees) head on. I then started turning right. As I started to push forward (barely moved) and increase bank angle (got a couple more degrees rolled in), he finally started his turn to his right. I **assume** he finally saw the larger profile of a plane turning. When I went back to 3500', that's when I was told he was behind me (at my six) and was now also, back at 3500'. If we make the logical assumption, the "with no squawk" comment probably means he was squawking 1200; meaning no assigned squawk code. Thus, mode c was probably enabled. Greg |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Phraseology Was: Collision alert!
"I have a visual". Can't they just say "I see him/it/whatever"??
"I have a visual" is six syllables; "I see him" is only three. Why do so many people say "individual" (five syllables) when the correct word is "person" (two syllables)? It's called "the lure of the additional syllable." Many individuals....er.. people... think it sounds "educated." It doesn't. vince norris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Third Military-Civil MAC Jan. 18, 2005 | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 37 | February 14th 05 03:21 PM |
interesting collision alert device | Steve / Sperry | Soaring | 1 | March 19th 04 10:31 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |