Scared of mid-airs

On Fri, 5 May 2006 01:32:30 +0200, "Frode Berg"
wrote:

Hi!

I am a PPL, and co owner of an Arrow.

I have just over 250 hours total time, vfr only, and lot's of cross country.

However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been overly alert
towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.

It is an intimidating feeling, especially if you are flying VFR in a
heavily traffic'd airspace. I fly near Chicago, and my head is on a
swivel at all times.

As a reference, ~12 yrs of flying, and I have had one near mid-air.
We were descending from cruise altitude in a Seneca, and a Bonanza was
either in a slow climb or cruising in the opposite direction. The
rate of closure between the two planes was over 300kts.

There was snow on the ground and it was daytime. The brightness of
the snow made it very difficult to pick out the (white) Bonanza.

There were two pilots in the Seneca (and one more in the rear seat)
and none of us saw the Bonanza until the last few seconds. We were
slightly above, so we each grabbed the yoke and cranked back. We
missed by about 20 feet. The other pilot never altered course, so who
knows if he ever saw us.

The next flight for the Seneca was to the avionics shop to get a TCAD
installed. That doesn't guarantee traffic detection, but it does help
with 99% of it.

The real problem with mid-airs and see/avoid theory is that the human
eye is good at detecting changes in motion. When you are on a
collision course with an object, the position of the colliding object
does not change... The object just gets slightly bigger until the
last few seconds, when it gets big in a hurry.

-Nathan

Nathan Young wrote:

The next flight for the Seneca was to the avionics shop to get a TCAD
installed. That doesn't guarantee traffic detection, but it does help
with 99% of it.

Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?

The vast majority of mid airs are near airports. Your device will help
you away from airports, but I wonder how much help it will be near
airports. Also, it helps to be aware of how the IFR approaches interact
with the VFR pattern because sometimes they conflict.

The big sky theory WILL protect you a lot away from airports. Helps
even in close. We've all had close calls though. (I've had 3 and they
were all either in the pattern (2), or on the "normal" approach path 5
miles or so out. The device you have would have helped with the 5 miles
out one.

On 5 May 2006 10:48:34 -0700, "Doug"
wrote in .com::

The big sky theory WILL protect you a lot away from airports.

That notion is absurd. I disagree completely.

The 'big sky theory' is good at lulling pilots into a FALSE feeling of
security.

Any pilot operating within a hundred miles of LAX will soon learn
that.

Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.

On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:40:18 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote in ::

Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?

I do on EVERY flight at an altitude that permits ATC to provide Radar
Traffic Advisory Service.

--

For instance, a pilot who has no fear of a mid-air is an idiot.
A pilot who flies without being constantly aware that he/she is
the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation is misguided.
--Dudley Henriques

Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.

It won't protect you from it -- but the odds of a mid-air collision
happening in many areas are so incredibly small as to be virtually
zero.

Example: If you fly in the mid-levels (4 - 8K feet) over rural Iowa,
your odds of being hit by a meteor are probably greater than your odds
of hitting another aircraft. You could probably fly on autopilot with
your eyes closed for 100 years, and never even come close to a MAC.

Even in the busy airspace around Chicago, the odds are still greatly in
your favor. I read somewhere once (and someone here will have the
exact figure, I'm sure) that if you put EVERY aircraft in America in
the air at once, they would still only occupy a few cubic miles of sky,
with ample air space in between aircraft.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't keep your eyes outside, and that
weird stuff doesn't happen. We were flying over middle-of-no-where
South Dakota once when ATC called out traffic at our altitude (10,500
feet), on a converging course. ATC told the other guy the same thing,
and we gradually merged into a single dot on ATC's radar. In the end,
we were talking to each other on Center frequency, trying to give each
other cues as to our location. ("I'm over that blue water tower at the
intersection -- you see that?")

Nothing worked. ATC eventually gave us different altitudes and
headings -- and we never did see each other. It was very, very
strange.

But, of course, the bottom line: We didn't hit. The "Big Sky" theory
worked again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:40:18 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote in ::

Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?

I do on EVERY flight at an altitude that permits ATC to provide Radar
Traffic Advisory Service.


Same here, hence my asking... G

I've been told by controllers that even they prefer that we ask for
advisories, 'cause that makes one more aircraft talking to them and not
squawking 1200 and flying in the space incommunicato.

I even use them for sightseeing and practice (stalls, steep turns,
etc...) flights. Only once have I been denied due to workload.

You could probably fly on autopilot with
your eyes closed for 100 years, and never even come close to a MAC.

So what's wrong with UAVs?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 05 May 2006 15:09:40 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

The big sky theory WILL protect you a lot away from airports.

That notion is absurd. I disagree completely.

It does not seem absurd to me.

Well, I respect your opinion, Todd. But...

I'm reasonably confident that I'm in more danger of a midair near an
airport than far away from one.

Of course, that's true, as is the fact that you are more likely to
experience a MAC at a lower altitude. These facts are a result of the
degree of air traffic congestion encountered. No argument from me.

It strikes me as absurd to think the opposite.

Agreed.

However, it appears that you have failed to discern my issue with
Doug's assertion. It's not that less congested airspace poses less
probability of a MAC; it's the notion that the 'big sky theory' is
able to _protect_ a flight from a MAC. It is the word 'protect' with
which I take issue, not to mention the lack of validity of the 'big
sky theory' in general.

The 'big sky theory' is good at lulling pilots into a FALSE feeling of
security.

I don't see how a feeling of "insecurity" would help any
pilot.

When one is complacent, he is less likely to be vigilant. When his
level of apprehension is raised, the prudent person increases his
attention to the factors producing his insecurity. But you knew that.

I try to manage the risk. Part of doing that is
keeping the best scan going that I can all the time.
However, like other pilots, I have to occasionally look at
charts. I don't do that near airports (or VORs) because I
think it's safer to do that farther away - where the big sky
theory gives my vigilant scan a boost.

I'm not comfortable with your choice of words above. In any event,
there is NO REAL PROTECTION occurring, only a change in PROBABILITY.

Anyone who fails to understand the difference between 'protection' and
'probability' is sure to encounter more problems than the one who does
understand the difference.

Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.

I take it you don't like his choice of the word "protect."
He modified it with the phrase "a lot," which to me shows he
knows it's not a perfect shield.

You are free to infer what you will, of course. But given the
definition of the word protect:

Main Entryrotect
Pronunciationr*-*tekt
Function:transitive verb
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover more at PRO-,
THATCH
Date:15th century

1 : to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction :
GUARD
2 : to maintain the status or integrity of especially through
financial or legal guarantees: as a : to save from contingent
financial loss b : to foster or shield from infringement or
restriction *salesmen with protected territories*; specifically
: to restrict competition for (as domestic industries) by means of
tariffs or trade controls
synonyms see DEFEND
–protective \-*tek-tiv\ adjective
–protectively adverb
–protectiveness noun

It is clear, there is no shielding, defending nor guaranteeing
occurring as a result of the 'big sky theory'.

While I wouldn't have chosen to use the word "protect," his meaning
seems clear enough - the aircraft density is greater near airports, and
MAC risk increases as density of aircraft increases. Do you
disagree?

If that is what Doug had written, I would not have found his assertion
absurd. However, that is your inference, not what Doug wrote.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.


Easy enough. As an old environmental biology professor once said to me:
"Dilution is the solution to pollution". What are the chances of another
aircraft occupying the exact same airspace at the exact same time as mine?

The odds go way up near natural collecting points such as airports and airways
but go way down out in the middle of nowhere. Certain altitudes are better than
others as well. I find relatively little traffic at 8,000 feet simply because
it's too low for jets to hang around at and higher than most normally aspirated
aircraft bother to climb (at least in this part of the world).

I apply the same theory when I consider whether to worry about getting on a
airliner that may be hijacked. What are the odds that an airliner that *I* am
getting on will be hijacked today? Out of all the airliners flying all day long
from all the places on earth? My airliner?

Only a stupid person totally discounts the possibility. Only a phobic person
focuses on it all the time. I fly VFR with my eyes out as much as possible and
use flight following if I can get it. I do not worry particularly that I might
hit someone.

It's the same thinking I apply in keeping a gun in the car and a fire
extinguisher in my kitchen and garage.

I've only had one near miss and that was on a prearranged formation photo
flight. The other pilot turned into me at the end of the photo portion flight
of the flight, expecting the superior performance of his C-421 to pull him
around my C-210. It did, but only after my standard rate turn to the left
became a maximum effort left turn on my part. My windshield was completely
filled with C-421. Scared the everliving **** out of me....

That is the only near miss since I started flying in 1978.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE