Some years ago I was a visitor on the Flight Deck of a C130
travelling Amberley for Canberra on a Sunday afternoon. The
planned level was FL240 however an initial clearance was not
available due to an unserviceable transponder. The flight crew
reached a decision to depart OCTA/under the steps while the
engineer tried to get the transponder on line.
The departure track took us strait over Warrick Qld. Due to crew
communications I was unable to but in and point out until about
10nm from Warrick travelling at about 220 Kts indicated - this
information turned their thoughts and eyes outside the cockpit
while making radio calls on the appropriate frequencies.
>From where I sat I did not consider this poor airmanship, it was an
example of a busy crew doing something that had not been pre-planned,
however it did leave me wondering how these guys would cope in a single
pilot IFR situation.
SDF
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter
Creswick
Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:44 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Airmanship not numbers
And sometimes vital.
There was an incident midweek at Camden, many, many moons ago, when a
flight of Navy A-4's were inbound over Razorback from Nowra, overheading
Camdan, on their way to do a practice run down the harbour for Navy Day,
which was on the following sunday.
There happened to be a Blanik at their level as they came in.
Frantic wing rocking by Blanik (full stick both sides - twice - about 30
degree bank reversals) resulted in the A-4's jinking left. Could have
been messy.
Ian McPhee wrote:
> Not quite relivant to the 200ft but what happened to the old days of
> rocking the wings when you see somebody nearby. I have done it in
> gliders but usually no response - recently a RAAF C130 was tracking
> south coastal 1000ft prob on Brisbane freq 119.5 and I was correctly
> on multicom 126.7 - We were close enough that it did matter - I rocked
> my wings and back it came from the C130 as it slowly rocked from side
> to side - my student was most impressed and not a word was said but we
> both knew we saw each other!!. Thats good Airmanship by the RAAF
> Ian McPhee
> Box 657
> Byron Bay NSW 2481 Australia
> Tel +61(0)2 66847642 mob +61(0)428847642
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.mrsoaring.com
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Borgelt"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:17 AM
> Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Airmanship not numbers
>
>
>> At 06:32 PM 21/06/05 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>> Why are we getting so focused on 200'?
>>
>> Because people asked the question "how close is too close?" and I
>> pointed
>> out what is apparently a little known "rule".
>>
>> 200 feet at least provides a guide - you want to miss the other guy
>> by at
>> least that much. Of course popping up in front of or crossing 200
>> feet in
>> front as you enter will upset someone. I've always taken the 200 feet as
>> the desired minimum when established in a thermal. I know someone who
>> had
>> two mid airs(both were just touches) which might have been avoided by
>> more
>> sensible seperation. You want more seperation when relative speeds
>> are high
>>
>>
>> How many glider midair collisions
>>
>>> have there been from people misjudging how close they were?
>>
>>
>> See above and a few more at least I can think of in Oz in the last 15
>> years. Plus the near misses. And see below.
>>
>>
>> I would imagine
>>
>>> that in most midair collisions, at least one pilot didn't see the other
>>> aircraft, therefore being at least 200' away from the other glider
>>> was a
>>> moot point.
>>
>>
>> ???. If at least one pilot saw the other and a collision or near
>> collision
>> developing he is required to take evasive action - no matter who had
>> "right
>> of way" or thought he did.
>>
>> Even from the perspective of the pilot who could see the
>>
>>> approaching glider, waiting until 200' to initiate avoiding action
>>> could be
>>> too late.
>>
>>
>> Please spare us, who would do that if they saw a close call/collision
>> was
>> imminent?
>> You take evasive action as soon as you see that the other guy is
>> going to
>> come within 200 feet of you. He might be half a kilometer away at the
>> time.
>> Increase that distance for certain rego's. You'll learn them quickly.
>>
>>>
>>> I believe that lookout and recognition of collision potential are
>>> far more
>>> important.
>>
>>
>> So if you see someone coming a miss distance of 50 feet is OK?
>> Knowing what
>> you want the miss margin to be is important.
>> Again 200 feet is a good guide to a reasonable MINIMUM.
>>
>>
>> If you are going to hit another aircraft, it will be stationary
>>
>>> in the canopy - you won't hit another aircraft if the relative line
>>> of sight
>>> is moving. Therefore if you see an aircraft that is stationary in the
>>> windscreen at any distance you need to initiate avoiding action.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely and dangerously WRONG. What you describe is a special case
>> where
>> both aircraft are flying in straight lines at constant speed.(mostly
>> true
>> for power planes) There are other cases like being in formation (in a
>> thermal or not) where this is also true. It is NOT TRUE more
>> generally when
>> at least one aircraft is accelerating. Circling is acceleration into the
>> center of the circle.
>>
>> I encourage everyone to draw this:
>>
>> If you approach a thermal at a tangent such that you and a glider in it
>> will arrive at the tangent point simultaneously, the glider in the
>> thermal
>> has never been stationary in your field of view nor you in his, yet you
>> collide! I've never seen this described in any gliding publication. This
>> appears to be what happened in one fatal mid air in Oz.
>>
>> See Chip Garner's description of the collision between his LS4 and a
>> Navy
>> A7 about 12 years ago in California. The jet was on a curved flight path
>> and Chip didn't think a collision was developing until it happened.
>> The LS4
>> lost 4 feet of one wingtip and the A7 recovered to base but the engine
>> didn't like the aileron hinges.
>>
>> Mike
>> Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
>> phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
>> fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
>> cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
>> Int'l + 61 429 355784
>> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> To check or change subscription details, visit:
>> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.10/25 - Release Date: 6/21/2005
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> [email protected]
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
--
Peter Creswick
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Land Line 02 9718 4841
Mobile/SMS 0401 758 025
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
