A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Riddle me this, pilots



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old August 24th 03, 06:57 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Yes, the former is achievable; the latter is not.


Nevertheless, the guidelines are written to be as close to possible to the
latter, not the former.


Ads
  #132  
Old August 24th 03, 07:53 PM
Everett M. Greene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote

Procedurally, you are correct -- if the pilot says he's IMC,
ATC handles him accordingly. However, his statement isn't a
"fact" in the legal sense in that it's uncorraborated and in
the situation being discussed, another pilot is "saying" it's
VMC by his actions. Which of the two "facts" is correct?


The pilot not communicating with ATC isn't saying anything.


Actions speak louder than (as loud as) words. If the other
pilot believes it to be VMC, he doesn't have to talk to ATC
and can pass through any altitude desired to or from a VFR
altitude.
  #133  
Old August 24th 03, 10:14 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...

Actions speak louder than (as loud as) words. If the other
pilot believes it to be VMC, he doesn't have to talk to ATC
and can pass through any altitude desired to or from a VFR
altitude.


There's no evidence that the VFR pilot was not in VMC at all times.


  #134  
Old August 25th 03, 03:55 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Noel" wrote in message news:ihatessppaamm-

I haven't had an opportunity to check my TCAS sources. But
I seem to remember the TCAS II unit having some interface
with the Radar Altimeter. Also, I'm pretty sure that a GPWS
(or TAWS) warning/alert/whateveritiscalled takes priority over
an RA.

Note that a radar altimeter isn't normally used above 2500' agl.

I found some TCAS II block diagrams and it is connected to both
the pressure alt and the radar altimeter. There appears to be
a shift in the RA behavior at 1700' AGL which would jive with your
2500' threshold


  #135  
Old August 27th 03, 08:08 PM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chip Jones" wrote in message ...
Part of this "voice" thing for me is always sound like I'm in complete
control (even when I am not). I did try to be clear and concise and I did
emphasize the control suggestion in this scenario but I did not really
change my tone of voice to what I think of as "urgent". I am reevaluating
my technique here- your suggestion certainly has some merit.


Chip, JMO, but I don't think your technique needs reevaluation.

Long ago in days gone by when the kids walked 2 miles to school
through 3 ft tall drifts uphill in both directions, I was an
EMT in a major hospital emergency room. I learned two things
PDQ:
1) in an emergency, if I wanted anyone to do what I said, I
had to cultivate a calm, DEEP tone of voice (as a young
woman, the deep part was more of an issue for me)
2) the experienced hands all knew this and would chide me
"calm down, relax" if I didn't make a point of it, which
was embarassing and all that

I believe there have actually been some studies done which
show that in a crisis situation, humans respond best to a calm
authoritative voice.

FWIW
Sydney
  #136  
Old August 29th 03, 05:27 PM
Tina Marie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Snowbird wrote:
Doesn't this sound like a good title for a thriller?

"The Haunted Controller"


While I don't know of any that actually involve ghosts, the concept of
"Controller spends the rest of his life thinking about people who
died because of something he thinks he did/didn't do" has been done,
well, to death.

"Airport" had one, "Turbulance" had one, and I'm sure there are lots
more...

Tina Marie
--
Life is like an analogy. http://www.tripacerdriver.com
  #137  
Old August 30th 03, 02:20 AM
Mitchell Gossman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Do controllers have a corollary of the PIC command authority, i.e. do
what's right to save lives even if it means breaking 7110? Such as
when you issued vectors to your beer-offering pilot in distress on
top?

Mitch Gossman

"Chip Jones" wrote in message ...
wrote in message ...


I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target

provisions of
the 7110.65?


I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar
identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still
put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still
would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and
all that. :-)

To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue
traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event)
*unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical
minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E),
there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft.
Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or
does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

  #138  
Old August 30th 03, 04:02 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mitchell Gossman" wrote in message
om...

Do controllers have a corollary of the PIC command authority, i.e. do
what's right to save lives even if it means breaking 7110? Such as
when you issued vectors to your beer-offering pilot in distress on
top?


Yes, see subparagraph c. below:


FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision
between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the
flow of traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the
capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as
the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller
workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized
that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of
services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the
aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service
procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the
part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation
permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures and minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic
control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFR's or other applicable
regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement,
FAA directive, or a military document, or:

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling,
fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-8.

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency
has been declared.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10.
FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. Bush Air Home Built 0 May 25th 04 06:18 AM
Any Pitts S-1 pilots in this group? Kai Glaesner Aerobatics 4 April 12th 04 12:10 AM
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot Wings Of Fury Aerobatics 0 February 26th 04 06:59 PM
Pilot's Brains Develop Differently Badwater Bill Home Built 3 August 22nd 03 04:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.