Accident report on the midair at Tenino

In article ,
"John Harlow" wrote:


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.

The shame is thinking radar services will save you. Two weeks ago,
while getting traffic advisories from approach, I was climbing to
altitude. I had relaxed a little since I was above 3500' (the real kill
zone here is 2000 and below) and was enjoying the scenery. I looked low
on the left side to find that my 206 now appeared to be a biplane since
there was a wing sticking out on the left below me. It took a
nanosecond to realize what I was looking at...we were same direction and
the other airplane was within 10 feet of me. I broke hard up and right
expecting to feel/hear a collision. Once clear I rolled back and check
to find the other traffic continuing as if nothing had happened. I was
talking to approach, I have a permanently assigned code, the other
aircraft was a Katana so I'm sure he is Mode C equipped as well.
Approach never said a thing.

I fly skydivers. We have a letter of agreement with Approach that
assigns our airplanes specific transponder codes. The usual call is
I'll give them a call at 2000' or so and report on and altitude climbing
to. The service I get depends greatly on the controller. Some simply
acknowledge radar contact and that's the last I hear until I give the 1
minute warning for jumpers away. Others call traffic as if I am the
only airplane they are working....one guy even reports the jumpers once
they open...didn't realize approach radar was that good. Twice last
weekend before I had reported on the frequency the controller came on
and said "81Z you on?", I replied and he called closing traffic for
me...one of which would have been a little close for comfort (this
particular controller is one of two that are friggin' awesome!!).

Point is, the service you get depends greatly on the individual
controller. I've flown all over the country into small airports as well
as Class B areas. I usually use radar services if able, but certainly
don't depend on them and in some cases find it easier to do without.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article , John Harlow wrote:
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.

If I understand right, there is a fair bit of non-flat terrain in the
area the accident occurred. Flight following might simply be impossible.
For example, where I fly gliders, there's a small mountain between us
and the nearest radar facility (our equivalent of flight following is
Radar Information Service). It's only a 2000' mountain, but in the area
I'm towing gliders, you can't even get any radio contact until nearly
3000' MSL let alone radar service. Therefore I don't even bother to try,
instead I remain on the local gliding frequency.

Flight following is fine, but even in small countries often there are
regions where terrain/lack of radar facilities make it impossible.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

John...

I SOMEWHAT agree with you... I CHOOSE to use flight following the
majority of the time when I get airborne, especially anything that is
more than local touch and go pattern work... and I agree that radar
services are a wonderful aid: They have alerted me to 2 POTENTIAL Near
Mid Air situations well before I could have seen the aircraft in
question (merging targets, same altitude, I requested suggested vectors
in both situations). BUT, VFR radar services are on a time and workload
permitting basis. Just because they(ATC)are talking to me doesnt mean
they will call ALL pertinent traffic. There have been many times that
I've seen traffic they(ATC)later called or didnt call at all.

I do believe the use of Radar Services is under-taught and
under-utilized. I can attest to my primary flying partner not doing it
out of laziness but out of discomfort: He just doesnt feel comfortable
with ATC. He flys solely out of uncontrolled strips, and got his ticket
10 years ago, sat out for 8 years, then has just recently returned to
flying. He's a passable pilot but he's intimidated by ATC. Hardly lazy.

My first instructor introduced me to flight following on my first flight
with him. He was just a private pilot, and future brother-in-law at the
time when we took a long XC to visit kin and so it was something I
became very comfortable and proficient with as we did
"pre-instructional" flying.

I agree that many instructors dont seem to emphasize flight following. I
have taken many a newly minted PP or even other students along for
"flying junkie jaunts" and my use of radar services has been their first
exposure to the service. Its a wonderful tool, but I would have to agree
with others: "mandatory" is just an opinion, and one has to be careful
not to become overly dependent on an "as able" service to provide
separation for them.

Blue Skies,
Dave


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 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?

The facts are that: 1) you can't always get FF when you need it most
and 2) as many posters have pointed out, airplanes are very difficult
to see, especially behind you.

I fly in Chicago and have often used FF when available. But the most
common scenario is that the FF is abruptly terminated when I get close
to the Class C veil, which is when I most need it with a reliever
airport every 5 miles. This has been a major motivation for me to get
my IFR rating, which I use rain or shine. Even at that, I see maybe
half of the conflicts called to me.

"PaulH" wrote in message
om...

I fly in Chicago and have often used FF when available. But the most
common scenario is that the FF is abruptly terminated when I get close
to the Class C veil, which is when I most need it with a reliever
airport every 5 miles.


I believe you mean "Mode C veil", there is no "Class C veil".

speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ), while over
deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife), she was like "a plane just off
below us, he is climbing, he is right under us and climbing", she was getting
all excited now, I was like, where is he, she goes right below us, so I make a
hard turn and ask her if he was going to hit us and she was like no, I just
thought you wanted to know that he was down there, he is gone now.
I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.

the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up right under
us.

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?

Jeff wrote:

speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ), while over
deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife)...she was getting
all excited...so I make a hard turn and ask her if he was going to hit us, and
she was like no, I just thought you wanted to know that he was down there,
he is gone now.
I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.

the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up right under
us.

Maybe that's why "TCAS units" need to talk to one another, and why
specific training, plus experience, is required to deal properly
with their warnings.



Jack

Jack wrote in
gy.com:

Jeff wrote:

speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ),
while over deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife)...she was
getting all excited...so I make a hard turn and ask her if he was
going to hit us, and
she was like no, I just thought you wanted to know that he was down
there, he is gone now.
I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now
on.

the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up
right under us.

Maybe that's why "TCAS units" need to talk to one another, and why
specific training, plus experience, is required to deal properly
with their warnings.

Me and my TCAS constantly have trouble communicating. I am thinking of
trading her in for a newer model, but am concerned that this may be just
too expensive to be worthwhile. Also I am somewhat concerned that I might
permanently damage the two dependent systems that we have.

Judah wrote:

Me and my TCAS constantly have trouble communicating.

Me and mine have no trouble communicating. The problem is to get her to stop. :-)

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ),
while over
deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife), she was like "a plane
just off
below us, he is climbing, he is right under us and climbing", she was
getting
all excited now, I was like, where is he, she goes right below us, so I
make a
hard turn and ask her if he was going to hit us and she was like no, I
just
thought you wanted to know that he was down there, he is gone now.
I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.

the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up right
under
us.


Nothing worse than getting reports that are no help and just increase your
anxiety level.

lying in the South Midlands near Oxford UK, I was about to call up RAF Brize
Norton for the lowest level service, Flight Information. The controller was
telling another pilot first to contact somewhere else as he was too busy
(the other pilot said that he was told by the other place to contact BN
because they were too busy) and that he only had secondary radar so and
traffic without a transponder was not on his screen.

As we had no transponder decided that I would not add to the work load but
it was very busy today as we all crammed in under class A airspace with a
base at FL45 dropping to 2500ft within 15 miles.

you lucky sods!

sg