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
  #71  
Old August 20th 03, 06:07 AM
Gene Seibel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Works quite well on a 90 degree convergence.


\. Then it was like a light bulb went on and
I realized that the best course of action was to head straight for the
point in the sky where he is.


This is the NASCAR version of crash avoidance. Head for where the spinning
car is now because he probably will have moved by the time you get there.

I guess this will work OK for aircraft provided you are not converging close
to head-on.

Ads
  #72  
Old August 20th 03, 09:00 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter Duniho wrote:


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".


Good points (both about McNicoll and radar identified ;-) Having said that it
seems that the air traffic procedures folks are primarily fooling themselves
(so, what's new? ;-) when they don't consider an unknown secondary target
returning Mode C data to be sufficiently radar identified for merging target
safety action. Good thing TCAS isn't so strict about what it tags.


  #73  
Old August 20th 03, 12:11 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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".


McNicoll did say that, in his usual succinct manner.


  #74  
Old August 20th 03, 12:22 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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 =---
  #75  
Old August 20th 03, 03:08 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


Actually, it is you that is fooling yourself, when you imagine you know
something about air traffic procedures. The situation described in this
thread called for a traffic advisory and a safety alert, not merging target
procedures.


That's the policy created by a bunch of inward thinking idiots at FAA
Headquarters (ATP). That doesn't mean that application of merging target
procedures before it gets to a traffic advisory, then safety alert, whouldn't
be more prudent.


  #76  
Old August 20th 03, 03:52 PM
Maule Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Heck, you don't even know if his Mode C was correct.

On 2 occassions , in that same general vicinity, my Mode C was showing the
wrong altitude by about 6,000 feet! Why? Transponder problem? I guess so,
but it only happened one other time in one other place and hasn't happened
again.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

We don't know that the VFR guy was in IMC, we don't know that he broke any
rules.




  #77  
Old August 20th 03, 04:03 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Maule Driver" wrote in message
om...

Heck, you don't even know if his Mode C was correct.


Yes, as I stated in an earlier message.



On 2 occassions , in that same general vicinity, my Mode C was showing the
wrong altitude by about 6,000 feet! Why? Transponder problem? I guess

so,
but it only happened one other time in one other place and hasn't happened
again.


A couple of years ago we had a guy flying through GRB approach airspace that
always had bad Mode C. But it was only bad with GRB approach, no other
facility had a problem with it. He had it checked at an avionics shop and
they found nothing wrong.


  #78  
Old August 20th 03, 04:59 PM
Stan Gosnell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John R. Copeland" wrote in
:

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---


We're getting a few aircraft with the Goodyear system, & I love it. I see
aircraft flying out over the Gulf that I would never see at all if I didn't
see them come up on there. But we sometimes still can't see them, even on
a clear day. It depends a lot on the paint scheme and the position of the
sun. A white and blue helicopter over water is very difficult to see.

--
Regards,

Stan

  #79  
Old August 20th 03, 05:07 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message ...

We're getting a few aircraft with the Goodyear system, & I love it.


BFG = Goodrich. Wrong tire company.


  #80  
Old August 20th 03, 07:36 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy Smith" wrote in message ...
Peter Duniho wrote:
I guess that's a matter of debate. A faulty Mode C readout could cause a
TCAS unit to cause an accident, rather than avoid one.


The problem is that we're working with 50 year old technology here.
The idea that we can't reliably transmit one 24-bit message every 5
seconds is absurd.

TCAS was known to be a crock when it was proposed. It was a political
rather than a technical solution.
..



 




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 07:34 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.