You mean I have to TALK to ATC? - long

"Jeff" jfranks1971 minus wrote in message
...
"zac.badenoff" wrote in message
...

Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me a
bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?
__
zb

I was about to contact him when he turned away from us. We were really

Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

In rec.aviation.student zac.badenoff wrote:
Jeff wrote:

snip

Apparently, we were inside someone else's practice are, because we got
to fly some formation maneuvers with a Piper who liked our airspace. We
safely snuck behind him, but I still don't think he ever saw us.
jf


snip

Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me
a bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?

If he suddenly performed a steep turn, or any extreme direction change,
how would that have affected your position?

I was under the impression that *see and be seen* was paramount for
safety in the air?

Anyway .. nice story otherwise.

You're rather jumping to conclusions here. He never stated just how far
away the other aircraft was. "Formation maneuvers" is no doubt hyperbole,
and given the way some pilots treat traffic the other aircraft could have
been two miles away and still have caused nervousness. Without knowing the
distances and more importantly altitudes involved we can't say whether
there was any danger, and generally you should assume that the pilots in
question were competent and thus hopefully there was none.

PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
in this day and age. My 2c.

I find this to be tremendously and amusingly ironic given that you
basically attacked the other poster about his behavior in the air, albeit
using nice words while doing so.

It is easy to misinterpret motivations over the internet when all you have
to go by is text. For best effect, give others the benefit of the doubt.

The only cases of outright and unambiguous hostility I have seen in here
have been toward a target who absolutely and richly deserves it. There is
nothing immature about berating a pompous ass who has once again decided
to act like a prick.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
...
"Jeff" jfranks1971 minus wrote in message
...
"zac.badenoff" wrote in message
...

Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me
a bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?
__
zb

I was about to contact him when he turned away from us. We were really

Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?



Yell really, *REALLY* loudly out the window, of course g

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

Michael Ash wrote:
You're rather jumping to conclusions here. He never stated just how far
away the other aircraft was. "Formation maneuvers" is no doubt hyperbole,


OK Michael, let's dance.

".. no doubt hyperbole" .. that would be *you* jumping to a conclusion
then?

and given the way some pilots treat traffic the other aircraft could have
been two miles away and still have caused nervousness. Without knowing the
distances and more importantly altitudes involved we can't say whether
there was any danger, and generally you should assume that the pilots in
question were competent and thus hopefully there was none.

The way Jeff had written it though, led me to believe there *may* have
been a potential for danger, that's all.

PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
in this day and age. My 2c.

I find this to be tremendously and amusingly ironic given that you
basically attacked the other poster about his behavior in the air, albeit
using nice words while doing so.


Michael, at *no* stage was my reply an attack and to make that
assumption makes me wonder about your approach to posts on Newsgroups,
that you'd immediately apply an aggressive stance to my post. There was
no such intent from me, you have read this into my post, for no good
reason, all by yourself.


It is easy to misinterpret motivations over the internet when all you have
to go by is text. For best effect, give others the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps and indeed you should apply that good advice for yourself?

The only cases of outright and unambiguous hostility I have seen in here
have been toward a target who absolutely and richly deserves it. There is
nothing immature about berating a pompous ass who has once again decided
to act like a prick.

Yes, that's why I have a kill file. If you don't wish to read this chaps
post then *plonk* him into your kill file and voila, less stress in your
life. However I do understand and note that it is *good sport* to berate
and insult those whom you vehemently disagree with, rather than take the
higher ground and simply choose to ignore them.

Thanks for your reply Michael.

__
zb

In rec.aviation.student zac.badenoff wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
You're rather jumping to conclusions here. He never stated just how far
away the other aircraft was. "Formation maneuvers" is no doubt hyperbole,

OK Michael, let's dance.

".. no doubt hyperbole" .. that would be *you* jumping to a conclusion
then?

I don't think so. The scenario is a student flying with his instructor and
getting close enough to another airplane, away from an airport, for the
student to take note. The reasonable assumption is that the instructor is
competent, the student interested, and the term "formation maneuvers" used
for effect, not a literal description, particularly given that reasonable
formation maneuvers require the cooperation of the other guy.

and given the way some pilots treat traffic the other aircraft could have
been two miles away and still have caused nervousness. Without knowing the
distances and more importantly altitudes involved we can't say whether
there was any danger, and generally you should assume that the pilots in
question were competent and thus hopefully there was none.

The way Jeff had written it though, led me to believe there *may* have
been a potential for danger, that's all.

You said it "shocked" you, and you then proceeded to question his
judgement in not contacting the other aircraft. This would appear to go
beyond idle speculation about possibilities.

PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
in this day and age. My 2c.

I find this to be tremendously and amusingly ironic given that you
basically attacked the other poster about his behavior in the air, albeit
using nice words while doing so.

Michael, at *no* stage was my reply an attack and to make that
assumption makes me wonder about your approach to posts on Newsgroups,
that you'd immediately apply an aggressive stance to my post. There was
no such intent from me, you have read this into my post, for no good
reason, all by yourself.

Well, I don't really believe it was an attack but it's easy to read it as
one, what with "shocked", the stars around the obvious words like
"contact", the description of dire consequences should the other plane
have done something unexpected, and the overly dramatic restating of basic
principles of airmanship. This is exactly what I mean as far as posts
which are not meant to be an attack getting interpreted as one.

It is easy to misinterpret motivations over the internet when all you have
to go by is text. For best effect, give others the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps and indeed you should apply that good advice for yourself?

The only cases of outright and unambiguous hostility I have seen in here
have been toward a target who absolutely and richly deserves it. There is
nothing immature about berating a pompous ass who has once again decided
to act like a prick.

Yes, that's why I have a kill file. If you don't wish to read this chaps
post then *plonk* him into your kill file and voila, less stress in your
life. However I do understand and note that it is *good sport* to berate
and insult those whom you vehemently disagree with, rather than take the
higher ground and simply choose to ignore them.

The poster in question goes far beyond "disagree with". He regularly posts
knowledgeable-sounding articles in subject areas with which he has no
actual experience or real knowledge, e.g. flying airplanes.

While I personally believe that if you ignore him he will go away, some
other posters seem to believe that he needs to be debunked lest some less
experienced souls mistake his worthless spoutings for actual knowledge. I
don't agree but I can certainly see why they would do this.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

-snippage-


I was about to contact him when he turned away from us. We were really

Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

What I was about to do was key the mic and say something along the lines of
"Piper doing maneuvers 10 miles NW of Shelbyille, 51F is a C172 at your 2
o'clock (or whever we were)....." And then maybe explain that we'd pass
behind him if he'd hold course. I realize there isn't anything in the AIM
about this specifically, but it couldn't have hurt!

I don't know how close he was, but by the time we passed behind him, I'd
*GUESS* we might have been within half a mile (at the closest point and when
he was heading away from me).

I never felt ANY reason for over-concern. I spotted him first, pointed him
out and my CFI perked up when he stopped moving across the windscreen
(probably 1 mile out or so).

And yes. the "formation" was hyperbole....or exaggeration...

jf

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

B A R R Y wrote in
:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


You don't fly,


My personal fave is "Bankruptcy Boi."

Funny how he never wants to talk about that..


bertie


He started to last week in rec.travel.air and, as one would suspect,
managed to make a total ass of himself there. He tried to show how the
stock market was nothing but gambling and that stock had no intrinsic
value. After someone ripped him a new one, he shut up on that topic. But,
at one point in his attempt to justify his stand, he implied that he had
been wiped out in the dot.com bust.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:01:08 GMT, Travis Marlatte wrote:

Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?

On channel 19.

Breaker, Breaker... ya got yer ears on? Thar's a Smokey on yer six.

--
Dallas

In article .com,
says...

I'm not saying VORs don't have a place anymore. I'm just surprised to
hear primary students flying around solely by reference to them. It
seems rather quaint, with so many students training in glass cockpits


I think the "typical" training environment today (for basic PPL) is a 152/172
with the same panel they had 20 years ago, albeit with an add-on G430 which may
or may not be certified WAAS (little importance for the PPL student). The
instructors will turn off the GPS 90% of the time.


--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jeff wrote:
-snippage-


Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?



What I was about to do was key the mic and say something along the lines of
"Piper doing maneuvers 10 miles NW of Shelbyille, 51F is a C172 at your 2
o'clock (or whever we were)....." And then maybe explain that we'd pass
behind him if he'd hold course. I realize there isn't anything in the AIM
about this specifically, but it couldn't have hurt!


No one has answered the guy's comment yet ...

Jeff, you can't contact the other plane. You might get lucky and be on
the same frequency as the other guy but there is no air-to-air channel
for such things that people have to listen to by regulation or even by
standardly accepted good practice. So you can talk all you want into the
mic odds are, you'll only annoy the local CTAFs! :-)

There are channels for use (half step above the CTAF freq, ie: 122.75,
122.85) for air-to-air but an arrangement has to be made ahead of time
between the pilots to be there. Which is not the case here.
I don't know how close he was, but by the time we passed behind him, I'd
*GUESS* we might have been within half a mile (at the closest point and when
he was heading away from me).


Until you've seen a few of them, they always seem to raise some concern.
My first CFI said, if they fill up the whole window you should take
evasive action.

KC