Quick question about an incident which happend today

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I do not agree that the NASA ASRS form will do you any good
whatsoever. First of all, you have already been notified of a possible
violation. Secondly, what are you going to say on it? That you heard
a rumor that somebody else might have violated airspace somewhere?
Of course, it will not hurt anything, either.

You need to get a good aviation attorney in on this as soon as possible
and don't say another word to the feds until you do.


Notified of a possible violation? He talked to a ****ed-off approach
controller at the request of Danbury tower. The controller can't make any
connection between the unidentified target on his scope and the guy he spoke
with on the phone. The controller isn't going to go anywhere with this
because there's nowhere for him to go with it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

C J Campbell wrote:


"Victor" wrote in message
m...
File a Nasa report.

Probably too late for that -- besides, what is he reporting? He is not
reporting a safety problem with his own flight; he did not bust the
airspace.

I think an error by ATC constitutes a potential safety issue.

- Andrew

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAZyuhsJzG+JC8BsgRAnn+AJ9t6opVem28uyerRW22Al 9ZlzDnGACeN2yk
UcZLu0PaOEjPBBVNc+Hs2lk=
=EMWT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Notified of a possible violation? He talked to a ****ed-off approach
controller at the request of Danbury tower. The controller can't make any
connection between the unidentified target on his scope and the guy he
spoke
with on the phone. The controller isn't going to go anywhere with this
because there's nowhere for him to go with it.

I think it would be a good idea to do what's necessary to preserve the RADAR
"recording". It should have both aicraft, showing that there are (at
least) two.

- Andrew

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAZyxTsJzG+JC8BsgRAmn7AJ4qMWmBE1hDrQCaqWGMrc zBsldu8QCdFqOv
euLd2Uo8H4aSsxvFHJ18yVU=
=3cku
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Chris,
Chris here. You have nothing to worry about. Even if this controller was
hellbent on somehow busting you, his supervisor and above would tell
him to chill out and they'll take care of it. They'd then forget about it
as
they cant prove it was you. We have these kind of call-ins all the time,
often the caller admits he's the mode-c intruder we'd been tracking, or
he was squawking a discreet code and blasted through airspace he
shouldnt have, and admits to it. I've yet to see an action taken against
such a pilot who's called in.
Flight following would've taken care of
this problem though, because it'd then be on the controllers back to
make sure HPN tower knows NYC Apch is about to run someone
through their Class D, VFR or not. Maybe that's where this started,
HPN yells at NYC Apch asking if he's working that guy. Well, he's
not and gets offended that HPN, a lowly tower, would assume such
a thing - then the buck gets passed on to you, you get the picture.
If this goes any further, demand to talk directly to the operations
manager at NYC Apch about harrassment without proof.
Chris

Thanks to all who replied. There is not going to be any action taken on this
case. Everything turned out ok when I talked to a supervisor he was very
nice and understanding listen to my story and believed it was just a mistake
on their part told me don't take it personal and just forget they ever had
me call.

Thanks Again to everyone on their views
Chris

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Oh, and most importantly, never, never, never talk to atc unless you are
absolutely forced to do so... I haven't looked at the sectional for your
area so you may have had to talk woth them the entire way, but in the
future
always plan your flying so that you only use atc to get into or out of
controlled airspace, and then immediately cancel and go back to squawking
1200... They are NOT your friend...
denny

LOL, tell that to the lost Cessna pilot I spent 30 minutes finding,
orienting and talking down yesterday right in the middle of the real ATC
stuff I was doing. We had three Centers and two Tracons trying to find this
guy at one point, all because he didn't avail himself of his taxpayer-funded
ATC system for flight following. His CFI was probably an "Us versus Them"
guy like you.

Chip, ZTL

Andrew Gideon wrote:



I think it would be a good idea to do what's necessary to preserve the RADAR
"recording". It should have both aicraft, showing that there are (at
least) two.



TRACON radar is not recorded.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message


They are NOT your friend...

Well, they've certainly been very helpful to me, but you're right. That
doesn't make them my "friend", does it?

Now, after I meet a few of the very helpful controllers who I've talked to
over the relatively few years I've been flying (and the especially helpful
one at Norfolk) and thank them properly, *then* they'd be friends, right?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Newps wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:


I think it would be a good idea to do what's necessary to preserve the RADAR
"recording". It should have both aicraft, showing that there are (at
least) two.

TRACON radar is not recorded.

Which TRACON are you talking about? No matter where or how the data is being
recorded, the data is being recorded, at least for a short term.

Consider this accident report, that concerned a flight from Caldwell enroute to
Vineyard Haven in July, 1999. The FAA had no trouble replaying the radar data for
this flight through the metro New York City airspace, even at only 1,300 feet near
Caldwell.

"According to radar data, at 2040:59, a target transmitting a visual flight rules
(VFR) code was observed about 1 mile southwest of CDW at an altitude of 1,300
feet. The target proceeded to the northeast, on a course of about 55 degrees,
remaining below 2,000 feet. The target was at 1,400 feet when it reached the
Hudson River. When the target was about 8 miles northwest of the Westchester
County Airport (HPN), White Plains, New York, it turned north over the river and
began to climb. After proceeding north about 6 miles, the target turned eastward
to a course of about 100 degrees. The target continued to climb and reached 5,500
feet about 6 miles northeast of HPN. When the target's course was plotted on a New
York VFR navigational map, the extended course line crossed the island of Martha's
Vineyard.

The target continued eastward at 5,500 feet, passing just north of Bridgeport,
Connecticut, and crossed the shoreline between Bridgeport and New Haven,
Connecticut. The target ground track continued on the 100-degree course, just
south and parallel to the Connecticut and Rhode Island coastlines. After passing
Point Judith, Rhode Island, the target continued over the Rhode Island Sound."

Billy wrote:

Newps wrote:


Andrew Gideon wrote:


I think it would be a good idea to do what's necessary to preserve the RADAR
"recording". It should have both aicraft, showing that there are (at
least) two.

TRACON radar is not recorded.


Which TRACON are you talking about?

All of 'em.


No matter where or how the data is being
recorded, the data is being recorded, at least for a short term.

No, it's not. We only record the comm radios and they are preserved for
45 days.



Consider this accident report, that concerned a flight from Caldwell enroute to
Vineyard Haven in July, 1999. The FAA had no trouble replaying the radar data for
this flight through the metro New York City airspace, even at only 1,300 feet near
Caldwell.

Sure, they got those from NY Center. Centers record their radar. Not
sure how long that data is kept.