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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:44:03 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote: "Chip Jones" wrote in message ... This kind of turn can be be counter intuitive to the pilots involved. Yup. It was to me until I gave it more thought. Actually, to me it seems quite logical and would have been my initial reflect to turn TOWARDS the conflicting traffic, since the whole purpose of the exercise would be to change the constant bearing of closure.. turning away from it will only slow the rate of bearing, not necessary change the angle (as viewed from overhead both, not as in "clock" positions from the pilot's perspective).. turning towards it will increase the rate briefly until the vector angle is depassed and then it will widen again. Of course if the other traffic does the same thing, then you're going from a constant relative 90 degree closing bearing to a constant relative head-on closing bearing which will also be a bad thing... of course in this particular case the other [unidentified] aircraft was seen to maintain his course. Leland |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Capt. Doug" wrote in message ...
Chip Jones wrote in message The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no contact." While your scenario may be right on the money, let me point out that some pilots will claim to be IMC even when there isn't a cloud in the sky. Their reasoning is that by doing this, it keep the onus of seperation on the controller. Hi Doug, 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. You're flying on instruments; isn't that properly described as "IMC" with no funky legal reasoning behind it? OTOH, a plane flying perp. or away from the sun can legitimately see 3+ miles IIRC the Baron was flying 110, early a.m., perhaps this is possible? Cheers, Sydney |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in
: The only problem about issuing the 180 heading as an instruction instead of a suggestion is that I do not have separation responsibility between an IFR and a VFR in this class of airspace. Because of that, I have to follow the 7110.65's provisions regarding safety alerts and traffic alerts, and the 7110.65 requires me to make a suggestion instead of taking control with an instruction in this case. In fact, the 7110.65 even instructs me to use the phraseolgy "immediately" if I offer a suggested course of action. Hence, if your best course of action was to hold your present heading, and I suggested this to you, I would actually have to key up and say something as ridiculous as "N123, traffic alert [insert appropriate information here], suggest you fly your present heading immediately for traffic!" Silly, ain't it? Any similarity between logic and government regulations is purely coincidental and completely unintended. But if you ever see me heading for another aircraft, please point me somewhere else, whatever phraseology you can come up with that will satisfy 7110.65. If we have a midair, you'll be down there blameless in the FAA's eyes, but I'll come back and haunt you. ;-) -- Regards, Stan |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Snowbird ) wrote:
(Teacherjh) wrote in message news: ... and the N number of that rogue traffic - it wasn't N2504R perchance, was it? How does anyone know? Chip wasn't working it, the Baron didn't see it I believe he was referring to the stolen Cessna 182 thread, where the 182's N number was N2504R. Sort of a funny scenario, having the stolen C182 be involved in this thread, too. -- Peter |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Snowbird" wrote in message om... Jesu! I hate pilots who fly illegal IMC. Making the most charitable interpretation possible, it's possible that the Baron was in spotty IMC and the other pilot climbing through a hole, and that his Mode C was off. Or the visibility was right at three miles and the sun was in the Baron pilot's eyes, etc... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote in message ... [snipped] Note to Chip! Chip, your name rings a bell...didn't you have a rather elaborate ATC website { I could have the wrong person but your sector mention after your name [ZTL] rings a bell ... as well as a secondary website dealing with flight safety [read: crash] investigation issues? Not me. :-) 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 =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 02:26 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 05:59 PM |
Pilot's Brains Develop Differently | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | August 22nd 03 04:48 AM |