Scared of mid-airs

Matt Barrow · #51 May 8th 06, 12:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On 7 May 2006 13:50:55 -0700, "george" wrote:

I wonder how these people feel as they barrel along the road only
inches away from oncoming traffic...

From someone changing the CD, dialing the phone, lighting a smoke,
IM'ing the chick at work, or checking the makeup in the rear view.

At least most pilots are probably taking the operation of the machine
seriously.

Fiddling with the GPS, IM'ing the chick at work, reading a chart....

Never happens :~)

Mike Schumann · #52 May 8th 06, 01:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

This is an example of how incredibly difficult it is to see converging
traffic, even if you know where it is and you are looking for it. If I ever
bought my own plane my top priorities would be to install ADS-B so I can see
all of the traffic around me, and a ballistic recover chut to give me a
second chance in case I hit something that didn't show up (like a glider
without a transponder).

Mike Schumann

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
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"

Jeff · #53 May 8th 06, 05:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?

How easy is it really to see another AC once it get's closer than normal?
I'm thinking if it getæs real close it will be rather obvious, since most
traffic I'm able to spot now is 1-2 nm away, and look really small and
hard to see.

I was recently on a flight from Orlando to Nashville. About 50 minutes into
the flight we did some rather interesting banking (especially to be at 30k
ft). It wasn't the normal course correction stuff, it was full power
banking to the left at 30deg. After we leveled off I saw what looked like a
Citation shoot down our right wing in the opposite direction at no more than
1/2 a mile (which, in my understanding, would be much closer that Class A
seperation allows for). We landed with no troubles and nothing was ever
said.

So, I guess that doesn't help your fears, but know that even the big boys do
it sometimes.

jf

B A R R Y · #54 May 8th 06, 12:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

Matt Barrow wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message

At least most pilots are probably taking the operation of the machine
seriously.

Fiddling with the GPS, IM'ing the chick at work, reading a chart....

Never happens :~)

Is the airplane 1/10 of a second and 8 feet from a head-on?

Larry Dighera

On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:00:56 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

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

I respect yours as well. ....

I take it you don't like his choice of the word "protect."

given the definition of the word protect: ...
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.

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

Then we are in basic agreement, despite our differing
opinions on the use of the word "protect."

I think we agree, that decreasing the density of air traffic reduces
the probability of a MAC, but it is the fallacy of implying such a
reduced probability in any way provides protection or shielding, or
guarantees indemnification from a MAC that I am attempting to correct.
It does not.

I'm comfortable
with using the word for decreasing risk in both ways - 1) by
adding something that shields against the hazard (TCAS),

Of course, TCAS (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System) doesn't
'shield' against a MAC anymore than night vision goggles 'shield'
against incoming enemy fire. TCAS is only capable of alerting, not
shielding, in my humble opinion.

If TCAS were actually able to provide a _shield_ against a MAC, this
wouldn't have occurred:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkir...es_Flight_2937

or
2) by removing some portion of the hazard (decreasing
traffic density by moving it away from VORs or flying
farther from congested airports.

Removing a portion of the hazard is not protecting or shielding.

Again, decreasing traffic density surely decreases the probability of
a MAC in those areas in which reduced traffic density occurs, but
decreasing traffic density in no way 'shields' nor 'protects' against
a MAC. To think otherwise is an invitation to disaster.

To my thinking, the words 'protect' and 'shield' imply some physical
barrier to impact. Of course, reducing the probability of a MAC
provides no such barrier.

We're just reflecting the two ends of the discussion of the
phrase "big sky theory."

I don't think so.

On the one hand that phrase can be
used as a justification for not vigilantly scanning.

That is my point.

For an airman reading this newsgroup to see that his fellows rely upon
the 'big sky theory' for separation and "protection" from a MAC does
us all harm to the extent that it fosters erroneous thinking and less
safe aircraft operation, and in the eyes of the public reading this
worldwide forum who may infer that pilots trust in the 'big sky
theory' for air safety. Competent, prudent pilots don't.

I agree that's bad. On the other hand that phrase refers to a
valid method of improving safety by decreasing traffic
density.

Personally, I have not seen the phrase 'big sky theory' used to refer
to any _method_ of improving air safety; I have only seen it used as
faith in the delusion, that a lack of _perceived_ air traffic density
can be used as an excuse to relax vigilance. (Perhaps you are able to
provide a citation that supports your assertion of such a _method_?)

Take, for instance, the pilot who finds himself out in the desert,
away from Victor airways, navaids, and ground congestion. He may
think he has the sky to himself; he doesn't see any air traffic
around, nor signs of civilization, so he relaxes his traffic scan.
Then this happens:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

These MACs occurred as a result of reliance on the 'big sky theory' of
air traffic separation; obviously the 'big sky theory' of air traffic
separation doesn't work. The 'big sky theory' of air traffic
separation only serves to insidiously entrap airmen with a false sense
of security.

Our current air traffic system funnels traffic
along designated airways from VOR to VOR to the final
airport. That method inherently increases traffic density
and does increase MAC risk.

I absolutely agree with your statement above.

Unfortunately, there is little alternative to the resulting increased
traffic density caused by defining airspace sectors.

Mike Schumann · #56 May 8th 06, 05:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

Does the glider pilot need to be IFR certified to fly in the wave box?

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:

On all the definitions of various air classes I've seen, all have stated
"prohibited for VFR" on the class A airspace.
Are you sure about this?
What's the source?

Personal experience. FL300 in a glider above Minden, NV, after
coordination with ATC and opening of their "wave box". Radio contact
required, too.

A "wave box" is glider pilot slang for a volume of Class A
airspace over a defined ground area that is subject to a
prearranged written waiver of some of the applicable IFR
rules. The waiver typically allows operations by VFR
equipped aircraft (no instrument rating required, no gyro
instruments required, etc.) but imposes other specific
requirements, such as: they must be radio equipped, must
continuously monitor a specific frequency and exit the "box"
within a period of time after ATC makes a phone call to a
defined telephone number, must be familiar with the rules of
the waiver that apply, etc.

The wave box remains Class A, and the operations are
technically still IFR, despite the waiver. The aircraft are
still under ATC control and other IFR flights are provided
separation services (by exclusion from the wave box). The
area is under the control of the "military desk" at ATC.
The guy sitting at the military desk opens and closes the
wave box for glider pilots and handles other prearranged and
defined block airspace assignments when the military wants
to play in the Class A airspace. If ATC wants the airspace
back, they call the defined phone number, which the waiver
mandates to be manned, the person at the phone calls the
gliders by radio, and since they are required to monitor and
be aware of their obligations, they then have a defined
period of time (typically 15 minutes) to descend.

The separation services and ATC control make this IFR flight
despite the waiver of many IFR rules, but it's about as
close to VFR flight in Class A as you can get.

--
Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.

(first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

Larry Dighera · May 8th 06, 05:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student

On Mon, 08 May 2006 11:59:03 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
::

I consider the "Big Sky Theory" to be shorthand for the
statement that decreased traffic density decreases MAC risk.
There are lots of examples of the practical implementation
of that theory. Two that come to mind a

Gene Whitt has some nice comments about choosing less-common
altitudes below 3000 AGL during cruise or avoiding flying
directly over the local reporting point because the even
altitudes and directly over the reporting point are more
heavily trafficked.

I presume that is contained somewhere he http://tinyurl.com/f5ck6

http://www.whittsflying.com/Page3.42...t.htm#Avoiding
Other Aircraft

There's lots of good advice and information there.

Thanks for making me aware of Mr. Whitt's contributions:
http://www.whittsflying.com

The FAA has discussed this issue in several contexts,
including: GPS direct routing, increased vigilance at VOR
station passage, increased incidence of MACs near airports
and the implementation of WAAS systems.

I wasn't able to locate links specific to those FAA references.

Ron Lee · #58 May 8th 06, 06:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting

While flying this morning two aircraft were pointed out to me by
direction only. I don't recall hearing an altitude. Never saw
either. After scanning close to my altitude I gave up. A Lear jet
5-8 miles from me was not seen until it was on final. Several days
ago I picked up a Cessna 2-3 miles out 15-30 seconds before ATC
advised me of it. This is in an area of 50 mile plus visibility.

Ron Lee

Ol Shy & Bashful · May 10th 06, 05:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student

I read several of the posts regarding the fear of mid-airs. If it is
that much concern, perhaps its best if the original poster just stayed
home and died in bed.
Has anyone else here noticed how many near disasters take place on a
very regular basis with cars hurtling at each other at a closing speed
of 120mph with nothing more than perhaps 3 feet separation and only a
white line to delineate the separation?
Fear of mid-airs? Come give me a break! sheeesh

Larry Dighera · May 10th 06, 06:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV	John Doe	Aviation Marketplace	1	January 19th 06 08:58 PM
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated	D. Strang	Military Aviation	0	April 7th 04 10:36 PM
Scared and trigger-happy	John Galt	Military Aviation	5	January 31st 04 12:11 AM