Accident report on the midair at Tenino

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
Even our little C140 could
keep the tail up at low airspeed with two fat buggers in the cabin (who
are behind the main wheels), so the tail will generate a reasonable
amount of lift.

I was looking at the tail of a friend's 170 last night. It's got a huge
elevator surface. By the way, he's just sold his 140.

Paul

C J Campbell wrote:
Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
control radar
services at the time of the collision."

What a shame.

I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?

Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?


I like to fly low, and that is often below radar coverage, so sometimes flight
following is not an option.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

John Harlow wrote:

Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get
flight following as someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what
I consider mandatory) flying aid?

Wow. That's quite an indictment. I don't question your choice of
requesting flight following and I highly recommend the practice for cross
country flights (especially over less populated areas). However, I don't
see a particular problem with heading to airport, holding up a wet finger
and "going thattaway" just for the fun of it.

The shame here is that neither pilot did an effective job of "see and
avoid".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:48:12 -0400, "John Harlow"
wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:
Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
control radar
services at the time of the collision."

What a shame.

I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?


I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.

My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
flight following, etc.).

I think there are a lot of pilots out there who climb to cruise
altitude, never "clearing" the airspace in front of them with gentle
5-10 degree turns one way & then the other. Same thing with
descending from cruise altitude. They just lower the nose and drive
straight to the intended airport.

I also think there are a lot of pilots out there who cruise along to
their destination, never lifting (or lowering, for you bottom wingers)
a wing & then the other while scanning the entire viewable horizon
looking for other traffic.

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

Of course, this mid-air could also have been avoided if at least
one pilot had been getting advisories. But always remember
that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
aircraft were in contact with ATC.

Bela P. Havasreti

I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.

Thank you. In my opinion it is a safety feature as important as a weather
briefing.

My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
flight following, etc.).

My personal opinion is habitual use of ATC is not being adequately taught
these days. My instructors would announce us leaving the pattern then
essentially turn the radio off. With panicky government regulations, moron
pilots busting TFRs and increased air traffic, the need to communicate grows
every day. It is not a *substitute* for "see and avoid"; rather a
complement.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
wrote:


I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

Not necessarily true. There have been times when I have been on with
ATC, had TCAS and there was another pilot sitting in the front seat
when traffic was called out to us and TCAS telling us about the
traffic as well. We never did see the plane despite both of us
looking in the direction where the traffic was and our MFD showing us
exactly where he was. So just by looking outside, does not prevent all
accidents.


Scott D

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:07:19 -0600, SD c o f l y i n g @ p c i s y s
d o t n e t wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
wrote:


I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

Not necessarily true. There have been times when I have been on with
ATC, had TCAS and there was another pilot sitting in the front seat
when traffic was called out to us and TCAS telling us about the
traffic as well. We never did see the plane despite both of us
looking in the direction where the traffic was and our MFD showing us
exactly where he was. So just by looking outside, does not prevent all
accidents.


Scott D

Point taken... but if you have TCAS on board, were talking to ATC and
had your eyeballs peeled looking out the windows, and were still
struck by another aircraft, your number was simply up! 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
was way too late.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:05:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
was way too late.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

You're right George.... but on that note, I actually do regularly
lift either wing and look as far back as I can (I own a 170) in an
attempt at keeping people from running me down.

I admit my "vigilance" is a fairly recent thing (I was part of the
recovery crew on the C-210 / C-170 mid-air).

Another thought I had on this flight following thing is... how many
times have you been receiving advisories, only to have the
controller point out traffice to you, your (x) o-clock, so many
miles, raw return indicates

Bela P. Havasreti