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
  #61  
Old August 20th 03, 02:16 AM
Capt. Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Snowbird wrote in message There's also the vis. factor. If it's hazy and
you're flying towards the sun, you can't see a durn thing even if there
isn't a cloud out
there. OTOH, a plane flying perp. or away from the sun can legitimately
see 3+ miles


Last weekend, I flew up to North Carolina at 16,500'. I try to put one of
the local flight instructors in the seat when I can. It was a hazy summer
day, but the co-pilot of the day had no problem maintaining straight and
level, staying out of the clouds, and spotting landmarks. However, the TCAD
(traffic collision avoidance thing) would show an occassional target being
within 3 miles of us and we couldn't see them for nothing.

D.


Ads
  #62  
Old August 20th 03, 02:30 AM
John R. Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, my old TCADs used to do that for me in eastern Kansas, too.
(Or maybe it was in western Missouri, I'm not too sure.)
I've not noticed it since I upgraded to a 9900BX last year, though.
---JRC---

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message =
...
=20
However, the TCAD
(traffic collision avoidance thing) would show an occassional target =

being
within 3 miles of us and we couldn't see them for nothing.
=20
D.
=20

  #63  
Old August 20th 03, 02:33 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Merging target procedures apply to radar identified aircraft.


"5-1-8 Merging Target Procedures
a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging
target procedures to all radar identified:


What McNicoll is trying to say in his oh-so-charming way is that "radar
identified" has a very specific meaning, and the VFR traffic wasn't radar
identified. Being visible on the radar scope is not in and of itself
sufficient for being "radar identified".

Pete


  #64  
Old August 20th 03, 02:53 AM
Teacherjh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Yet in high speed driving school (i.e., Bondurant) they teach you to swerve
BEHIND a car coming across your path. Most drivers will just slam on the
brakes. In fact, in most every situation the vast majority of drivers will
just slam on the brakes rather than maneuver out of the way. It's the
hardest habit the driving instructors have to break (pardon the pun).


IF the other driver slams on his brakes, doesn't that adversely influence the
success of the reccomended (turn behind traffic) maneuver?

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
  #65  
Old August 20th 03, 03:27 AM
Barry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I hope you tracked the intruder to his destination.

No I didn't. My supervisor and I had a very short discussion about
doing so and then decided we could prove nothing. Could have
been bad mode C, no way to prove he was not VMC, the Baron
never saw him etc etc.


In what situations would you decide to track the traffic? I'm curious
because one very clear night I didn't feel like bothering with Phila.
Approach and just overflew the Philadelphia Class B VFR at 7500 enroute to
Atlantic City. When I called ACY Approach, they told me that Phila. wanted
to talk to me. I called after landing, and Phila. said they showed me below
7000 for part of the time, thus in their Class B without a clearance. I
assured them I was at 7500 the whole time, and agreed to get the Mode C
checked (it was due the next month anyway). Is ATC more likely to pursue a
possible Class B violation than a rogue IMC?

Barry



  #66  
Old August 20th 03, 04:10 AM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Barry" wrote in message
...
I hope you tracked the intruder to his destination.


No I didn't. My supervisor and I had a very short discussion about
doing so and then decided we could prove nothing. Could have
been bad mode C, no way to prove he was not VMC, the Baron
never saw him etc etc.


In what situations would you decide to track the traffic? I'm curious
because one very clear night I didn't feel like bothering with Phila.
Approach and just overflew the Philadelphia Class B VFR at 7500 enroute to
Atlantic City. When I called ACY Approach, they told me that Phila.

wanted
to talk to me. I called after landing, and Phila. said they showed me

below
7000 for part of the time, thus in their Class B without a clearance. I
assured them I was at 7500 the whole time, and agreed to get the Mode C
checked (it was due the next month anyway). Is ATC more likely to pursue

a
possible Class B violation than a rogue IMC?


These days I have to be careful about what I say on the net. Like you point
out, we have the ability to track you. We do track suspected airspace
violators, especially Class B. We don't do the enforcement end so I don't
know what the burden of proof is other than an actual visual sighting etc
but I'd say yes, we are far more likely to pursue a probable Class B
violator than a probable rogue IMC. After all, the Class B (or A or C or D)
is actually there all of the time and always monitored, whereas something
like weather conditions at a given point in time and space is rather
fleeting and subjective.


That "bad Mode C" angle is a factor too. We get guys from time to time
showing up in Class A airspace indicating FL255 or so, VFR. We are usually
pretty sure they are actually down in the weeds with bad Mode C, but we have
no safe way to tell and so treat them as intruders while they display they
are in the flight levels. However, we don't track them unless they appear
to fly hundreds of miles at the same displayed altitude. There is an old
war story that goes around ZTL (and probably other Centers) about a Sun and
Fun weekend where ZTL tracked a VFR aircraft that flew from somewhere north
of the Ohio River all the way down to Florida, indicating FL275. An air
carrier over Alma Georgia got a visual on it and reported it as a P-51, so
ZJX tagged up the target and ATC followed it all the way into Lakeland.
However, allegedly FSDO couldn't ever prove an enforcement because the pilot
claimed that he had been VFR at 17,500 the whole time. Dunno if this story
is fact or fiction. Several ZTL old timers swore they were involved when I
heard it here, but I have since heard a similar story (same theme) about an
Oshkosh-bound P-47 as I was enjoying a cold malted beverage with some Kansas
City Center guys. You know war stories.

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 =---
  #67  
Old August 20th 03, 04:19 AM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Capt. Doug" wrote in message
...
Chip Jones wrote in message Good point, D. I've actually seen a

talking
Jackass work an ATC sector down here, now that you mention it. :-)

Seems to happen everytime I request direct to OKK from JOHNN. :-)


LOL! IIU is about it for directs to Chicagoland from Florida way...


D. (pilots vs. controllers- what a softball game that would be!)


Well, at least your monkies could swing a bat. Our Jackasses probably would
have a little trouble with the pitching, too... and it would always be the
pilots's fault. :-)

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 =---
  #69  
Old August 20th 03, 05:34 AM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Barry wrote:

In what situations would you decide to track the traffic? I'm curious
because one very clear night I didn't feel like bothering with Phila.
Approach and just overflew the Philadelphia Class B VFR at 7500 enroute to
Atlantic City. When I called ACY Approach, they told me that Phila. wanted
to talk to me. I called after landing, and Phila. said they showed me below
7000 for part of the time, thus in their Class B without a clearance. I
assured them I was at 7500 the whole time, and agreed to get the Mode C
checked (it was due the next month anyway). Is ATC more likely to pursue a
possible Class B violation than a rogue IMC?


Yes. In most cases ATC does not know an aircraft is illegally IFR
because we don't know what the weather is. I have seen ZLC call a
couple times because they watched traffic for over a thousand miles.
One was a Malibu that busted LAX's class B and landed here at BIL.
Another aircraft busted Denver's class B and came here. Both times we
gave them a phone number supplied by ZLC. Don't know what happened
after that.

  #70  
Old August 20th 03, 05:53 AM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Yet in high speed driving school (i.e., Bondurant) they teach you to

swerve
BEHIND a car coming across your path. Most drivers will just slam on the
brakes. In fact, in most every situation the vast majority of drivers will
just slam on the brakes rather than maneuver out of the way. It's the
hardest habit the driving instructors have to break (pardon the pun).


IF the other driver slams on his brakes, doesn't that adversely influence

the
success of the reccomended (turn behind traffic) maneuver?


Only if he can stop in one car length. In the unlikely event he could, at
worst you sideswipe him(her, more likely :~ ) rather than T-bone them.





 




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 07:51 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.