|
fordan posted:What do the other 5% use? Even the fuel-injected modern 172 I learned in used magnetos.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
fordan posted:The plane was likely headed toward Myrtle Beach, and was in radio contact with the county airport during its flight, he said TURNS OUT THAT JERK IDIOT NON INTELLIGENT DEGENERATE STATES RIGHTS SUPPORTING PILOT Was doing exactly what he should have and got BLOWED UP by some really terrible, terrible circumstances. I hope Everyone involved can quickly get some peace out of this 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
fordan posted:What do the other 5% use? Even the fuel-injected modern 172 I learned in used magnetos. I was pointing out what in the aircraft had electrical power. Ah, I see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:1) Not all airplanes have electrical systems The sad part is you are both correct. The problem is the reality of what happens in these south east states. I see it EVERY DAY where VFR pilots will pop up off of uncontrolled air fields and not talk to ANYONE. How do I know they aren't talking to anyone? Because planes we ARE talking to said the aircraft isn't talking to anyone. This isn't limited to one air field. We have a cluster of uncontrolled air fields where this is a HUGE problem. Another 100 miles up we have two more this happens constantly. I can't imagine what the hell Savannah and Charleston approach deal with. Oh wait, I do have an idea what CHS APPCH deals with...gently caress heads who think they don't need to do anything safely and fly in to F-16s! I've seen this poo poo for two decades and the FAA NEEDS TO ENFORCE IT FROM HAPPENING. Sorry, not a rant at you Apollo. You have no idea how much smart and safe pilots are appreciated by ATC. It is just guys like the cessna that hit the F-16 that ATC MOURNS over and we end up getting pissed at the FAA for not making it harder for them to do stuff like this (or EASIER to talk to ATC!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:The sad part is you are both correct. The problem is the reality of what happens in these south east states. I see it EVERY DAY where VFR pilots will pop up off of uncontrolled air fields and not talk to ANYONE. How do I know they aren't talking to anyone? Because planes we ARE talking to said the aircraft isn't talking to anyone. If they aren't required to talk to anyone it seems a little unreasonable to me to place the burden of not getting hit by a fighter jet on the pilot of a little Cessna 150.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
You aren't required to file a flight plan if you're flying VFR either, but it takes five minutes and could save your life. Why not do it, even if it's not strictly required?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Because Lockheed Martin is dumb and I'm gonna get flight following in the air to my destination.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:If they aren't required to talk to anyone it seems a little unreasonable to me to place the burden of not getting hit by a fighter jet on the pilot of a little Cessna 150. Not required != best practice. If you're in an area where there's military training flights or just lots of controlled traffic, you loving well talk to ATC to make sure you're not about to get creamed by someone who is, in fact, on a declared/controlled flight path. Unless you're a super-pilot who's got 100% SA and enough reaction speed to juke a 150 out of the way of a fast mover. No one is Naturally Selected fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:Whole point is moot though, since it seems like the Cessna pilot was talking to ATC anyways. The article on the previous page said that the Cessna was in communication with the county airport. That is, the airport from which it departed. I think they're saying that the pilot wasn't talking to ATC but rather was still on the common traffic advisory frequency for the county airport (not CHS). Unless I'm mistaken or you have different information from another article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You aren't required to file a flight plan if you're flying VFR either, but it takes five minutes and could save your life. Why not do it, even if it's not strictly required? My airport is in the DC SFRA so I actually am required to file for VFR :P But I take your point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:The article on the previous page said that the Cessna was in communication with the county airport. That is, the airport from which it departed. I think they're saying that the pilot wasn't talking to ATC but rather was still on the common traffic advisory frequency for the county airport (not CHS). Unless I'm mistaken or you have different information from another article. ....  No, that's what I meant. Misinterpreted from memory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
I actually filed and activated my very first VFR flight plan a couple weeks ago. I've been a controller for 6 years and a pilot for 5. It was cool talking to flight service through a nearby navigation aid. Though, when calling to close my plan (I made my passenger promise to remind me) one of the flight service reps gave me a lecture about using my 3rd party app to file instead of LockMart's new web interface. I thought the pushback was a little weird. Sorry guy, I like my phone app.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:Sorry, not a rant at you Apollo. You have no idea how much smart and safe pilots are appreciated by ATC. It is just guys like the cessna that hit the F-16 that ATC MOURNS over and we end up getting pissed at the FAA for not making it harder for them to do stuff like this (or EASIER to talk to ATC!). So the mid-air is obviously the Cessna's fault because he wasn't talking to ATC? The F-16 didn't have a responsibility to see & avoid as well, which is understandably difficult at the speeds they tend to fly but does have radar that should be pretty good at locating primary returns with or without a transponder? If the Cessna turns out to have had a transponder that was turned off than the pilot is either a dumbass for having it and choosing to leave it off or he made a fatal mistake. Don't know if we've seen any info on its status or the altitude of the impact vs where ATC radar coverage starts in that area; I haven't seen any yet. But regardless, he wasn't IFR and he wasn't in controlled airspace so he's not required to talk to ATC, especially if he was still participating in the CTAF from his departure airport. And even IFR aircraft have the responsibility to see & avoid outside of IMC. There are lots of things that aviate legally and generally aren't talking to ATC and may not even have transponders. Hot air balloons, gliders, ultralights, powered parachutes, old airplanes without electrical systems, etc. Sounds like you want to ground them all. The Ferret King posted:I actually filed and activated my very first VFR flight plan a couple weeks ago. I've been a controller for 6 years and a pilot for 5. Lockmart's been pushing and promoting their (admittedly nice) improvements to their flight service website. Sounds like someone took it a bit overboard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
It wasn't so bad or anything. It just took what I though would be a 2 minute phone call and made it a 5 minute phone call. What you said above is true. And I expect we're going to see a shared responsibility between both pilots AND ATC over this accident. Transponder or not, that Cessna was likely observable on ATC radar, and if traffic calls/alerts weren't issued, the FAA/DOD/Military (what kind of controllers do they staff there?) could very easily assume some responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
I work some very congested airspace and the primary returns can easily get lost in the mix.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
I posted this in the wrong thread. Reposting here I usually love to stir the pot and make everyone angry, but in this case I just can't do it. You have an ATC doing his job vectoring an F16 around on a practice approach. Lord knows if he could see that Cessna or not. If he had a primary return.... If he looked like some flock of birds..... Bless his heart. Never would that guy intentionally run an F16 into anything. Then you have an f16 pilot doing his approach probably for currency. Did he have his fighter jet radar turned on? Is the signature of a Cessna big enough even for an f16 to see it? Then you have a Cessna pilot just off of the airport making local traffic calls. Probably not even able to get the approach control in a non staticky radio until he got to his altitude. Maybe he was even staying on CTAF long enough to tell some other county traffic his position. The only egregious thing about this whole scenario is that it happened. I see no gross negligence from anyone here. Nobody wanted any of this to happen, so it's just a tragedy. In my opinion, We don't need more rules or to fight to place blame on someone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
kmcormick9 posted:I work some very congested airspace and the primary returns can easily get lost in the mix. Yup. We get random weak primaries all over the place, especially within T75 airspace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
fordan posted:So the mid-air is obviously the Cessna's fault because he wasn't talking to ATC? The F-16 didn't have a responsibility to see & avoid as well, which is understandably difficult at the speeds they tend to fly but does have radar that should be pretty good at locating primary returns with or without a transponder? OK, I can see why you wonder if I think it is the cessna's fault. I will assume he was doing everything within his legal rights. With that said, I put the largest amount of blame on the fact that...he was doing everything within his legal rights. With the rules in place right now, it is just playing the waiting game for this exact situation to happen. Why wouldn't the pilot trust the rules put in place to have his maximum safety in mind? The system failed and that is why this happened. The pilots and controllers, everyone involved, could have done above and beyond their requirements. This is just murphy's law. Any experienced controller will tell you everything can and will happen. It is just time. Every controller I know is nodding their head right now going "yup, not surprised" or "yeah seen it a few times". The rules need to change and these guys in these planes need to have better access to be able to even talk to ATC. Lives are on the line. Going by the "big sky small plane" concept is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
From a Canadian perspective, it seems like y'all have much more crowded airspace, many more uncontrolled airports, and comparatively fewer requirements to be in contact with ATC. I mean, my entire city and the outlying areas thereof (where the main GA airport is) is pretty much all class-C airspace, and we're not that large of a city at all by American standards (just over a million people).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:OK, I can see why you wonder if I think it is the cessna's fault. I will assume he was doing everything within his legal rights. With that said, I put the largest amount of blame on the fact that...he was doing everything within his legal rights. With the rules in place right now, it is just playing the waiting game for this exact situation to happen. Why wouldn't the pilot trust the rules put in place to have his maximum safety in mind? The system failed and that is why this happened. The pilots and controllers, everyone involved, could have done above and beyond their requirements. This is just murphy's law. Any experienced controller will tell you everything can and will happen. It is just time. Every controller I know is nodding their head right now going "yup, not surprised" or "yeah seen it a few times". On the other hand, while tragic, this is really really rare. When a car crashes on the interstate and two people die, that's called Thursday morning. No one goes around saying we need to overhaul traffic laws. You're never going to make aviation 100% safe. It's already safer than driving in many parts of the country. Just my opinion anyway. I understand if others feel differently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Anyone here active in the union? There's talk of nominating me for area rep for next year since our current rep isn't exactly popular and of the few people in my area still in the union, no one else seems to want to stand up and do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:On the other hand, while tragic, this is really really rare. When a car crashes on the interstate and two people die, that's called Thursday morning. No one goes around saying we need to overhaul traffic laws. You're never going to make aviation 100% safe. It's already safer than driving in many parts of the country. Oh I absolutely agree. This is EXTREMELY rare. It is just, as a controller, we see the potential of this going on daily. Multiple times. And we all think "man, if X happened it would definitely be a bad thing". Well, X happened. fknlo posted:Anyone here active in the union? There's talk of nominating me for area rep for next year since our current rep isn't exactly popular and of the few people in my area still in the union, no one else seems to want to stand up and do it. Pretty much a thankless job. You can't make everyone happy, no matter how much of the right thing you do. Just keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:Pretty much a thankless job. You can't make everyone happy, no matter how much of the right thing you do. Just keep that in mind. Yeah, I get that. Our current rep has only made himself and like one other person in the area happy, so it would be hard for me to do worse. I'd hope anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
ATC Related: My girlfriend is a zookeeper, and is enamored of the idea of me transferring to ZJX, where she could hypothetically become a goatkeeper of some sort. I was tasked with providing photographic evidence of said creatures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Been reading about your F16 vs C172 and it gives me another question. Do US airports that are registered/known not automatically get an Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) (basically a circle of automatic CAT D style airspace centred on the field) a la UK. I fly for fun from an uncontrolled field but it still has an ATZ therefore ATC vector around it and give bags of vertical separation. It also means a primary return seen there becomes steer clear to ATC. https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/DAP_ATZEstablishmentAndDimensions.pdf http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1123&pagetype=90
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
hjp766 posted:Do US airports that are registered/known not automatically get an Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) (basically a circle of automatic CAT D style airspace centred on the field) a la UK. In the U.S., class D airspace is used around smaller airports with an active control tower (or class C or class B for bigger airports). Many/most uncontrolled airports (including ones with towers that are closed for the night) are class E airspace in a circle around the airport down to 700 ft AGL and class G below that. Some are G up to 1200 ft AGL in the busier airspace in the east or 14,500 out west.  Here's a shot of the sectional showing the Air Force base the jet was flying to which has class C airspace, Berkeley County where the Cessna was departing from. The magenta ring with a gradient indicates class E down to 700 ft inside and the pink line is the direct route to Myrtle Beach which was supposedly the Cessna's destination.  From reading other forums, it appears that F-16 pilots often have their onboard radar set to reject targets going 75mph or slower to help avoid automotive ground traffic from appearing and the accident was between 2000 and 3000 feet. Having a hard time imagining a Cessna 150 with two adult men climbing at any kind of rapid rate, so I tend to suspect there should have been something on ATC radar. So no transponder or inop transponder seems somewhat likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
The kind of airport the accident Cessna flew out of has no such mandatory 'steer clear' airspace established. The Class E ring around it merely dictates the cloud clearance and visibility requirements for VFR aircraft operating in that airspace (1,000 ft above, 500ft below, 3SM visibility). It's to protect for IFR operations. However, it leaves very little room to notice an airplane coming out of clouds and reacting to it, assuming the aircraft was operating right up to the minimum distances (not saying I think the accident aircraft was).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:ATC Related: Dude, I had no clue that baby goats are as unbelievably adorable as they are until I got here. There used to be a rooster with them that would chase you down the fence. Not sure what happened to it. Also, why ZJX? Wait, are you here right now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Fordan and Ferret thanks for the answers and the linked chart... you mention that those fields have instrument approaches (I'm guessing ILS)  In the image above you see the GA "Oh God" warning on UK charts showing where the instrument approach lies in uncontrolled airspace (the chevron thing). Guessing it does not exist in the US but in your opinions would it help to have it marked clearly on Radar/Charts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:Dude, I had no clue that baby goats are as unbelievably adorable as they are until I got here. There used to be a rooster with them that would chase you down the fence. Not sure what happened to it. Also, why ZJX? No, I stole that from your NATCA local's Facebook page. Baby goats are tiny balls of energy and destruction with legs and an appetite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
hjp766 posted:Fordan and Ferret That long, skinny chevron symbol (feather looking sorta thing) is present on US Low Altitude IFR charts for SOME localizers, and usually only localizers. Maybe it could have helped, hard to say.. The airport the F16 was flying into also had a ton of GPS, VOR, and TACAN approaches. So depicting a single localizer may not have helped. I checked the low altitude chart for CHS (F16 destination airport). There is no localizer icon depicted even though that field has several. Also it has 18 instrument approaches, so charting them all on VFR maps would be pretty cluttered. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Also I want to say I thought I heard in the reporting that the F-16 was being vectored to an approach. So he wouldn't have been flying on a line that'd be on a VFR chart anyways. I think the depiction of localizers on the IFR charts is related to when there's a fix defined by intersection of the localizer and a VOR radial. May be off base here. In any case a VFR pilot probably won't be looking at an IFR chart. The arrivals and departure paths of aircraft in and out of class B airports/airspace is shown on the Terminal Area Chart though; here's an example around NYC.  You can see the lightweight arrowheads and jumbo jet with altitude ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:No, I stole that from your NATCA local's Facebook page. Baby goats are tiny balls of energy and destruction with legs and an appetite. Our NATCA shirt is green with a goat on the back. Yep. If any of you guys come to ZJX before Aug 7 let me know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:Our NATCA shirt is green with a goat on the back. Yep. Ours has a spider on it because of the time someone got "bit by a brown recluse" and one of our areas went ATC zero while they tried to hunt it down  In other news, This Major Kong article was posted in the Aeronautical Insanity thread. It had this little quote in it: quote:The only way to prevent something like this would be to require all General Aviation aircraft to be equipped with transponders and to be in contact with air traffic control at all times. Can you imagine the impact on the system if something like that was ever implemented? I don't see it happening unless some student in a C172 brings down an A380 or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can you imagine the impact on the system if something like that was ever implemented? I don't see it happening unless some student in a C172 brings down an A380 or something along those lines. Again. I could maybe see up-ing transponder requirements to give class C airports a transponder veil for their outer areas out 20nm, but that won't happen pre-2020 with the ADS-B rollout happening and there already being concern about there being enough avionics shops and ADS-B gear made to cover the GA fleet that needs to upgrade by the deadline. Honestly I think we have sufficient protection for the most part: busy class-B airports have the 30nm veil in which transponders must be used (or a waiver from ATC sought) and most large aircraft more than 30nm out will probably be up around 10k feet and higher where transponders are also required. Most of your aircraft without transponders are usually going to be low and slow and airliners/cargo tends to be high and fast at least outside of protected airspace. It's the military that likes/needs to go low and fast, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
There's an international ATC bid out right now in Australia. Tower or Approach rated controllers only, they aren't hiring for the centers at this time. Four year term, no guarantee of a permanent offer. Looks like you wouldn't get started until 2017 too, unfortunately. I think I'm gonna apply for the hell of it though. http://careers.airservicesaustralia.com/caw/en/job/494936/experienced-air-traffic-controller-international Zochness fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Zochness posted:There's an international ATC bid out right now in Australia. Tower or Approach rated controllers only, they aren't hiring for the centers at this time. Four year term, no guarantee of a permanent offer. Looks like you wouldn't get started until 2017 too, unfortunately. I think I'm gonna apply for the hell of it though. When I was at the FAA academy I heard that at one point Australia was basically poaching fresh graduates to go to Australia. I'd have done that in a heartbeat. I'd also definitely consider that if it were available to center controllers. The 4 year bid with no guarantee of a permanent offer would have me a little leary though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Zochness posted:There's an international ATC bid out right now in Australia. Tower or Approach rated controllers only, they aren't hiring for the centers at this time. Four year term, no guarantee of a permanent offer. Looks like you wouldn't get started until 2017 too, unfortunately. I think I'm gonna apply for the hell of it though. Oh sweet jesus I am in. So going to apply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
I would jump all over that if I were certified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I would jump all over that if I were certified. Apply anyways! What is the worst? They say yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:12
|
|