Someone needs to learn lesson

Cap'n Jack said:
I'm not understanding your point I'm reading your statements as:
- Is it merely that there are things that are statistically more likely to happen than a mid-air with an IMC scofflaw?
- It's OK to be an IMC scofflaw because one is unlikely to collide with someone?
Click to expand...

The former is my point, not the latter. It is directed at those who insist on over-reacting to the threat of IMC collision with non-participating aircraft, when the statistics bear out that most collisions happen as a result of VFR players not under positive control of any kind aka the Oshkosh/pancake breakfast/fly-in crowd. I'm not condoning nor encouraging the piracy that occurs in IMC. If people wish to dismiss that statement and still interpret my post as an endorsement for IMC piracy, that's certainly their prerogative.

I'm just focusing on the selective outrage of the VFR crowd that's responsible for the big delta in accident rates compared to the pro crowd. Mind you I personally don't have a problem with it; after all I wish to keep recreational aviation accessible, and that means more carnage needs to be acceptable compared to revenue service. Just spare me the hypocrisy of beating on the IMC pirate piñata ad nauseaum when it's the CAVU warriors doing most of the mid-air killing.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The former is my point, not the latter. It is directed at those who insist on over-reacting to the threat of IMC collision with non-participating aircraft, when the statistics bear out that most collisions happen as a result of VFR players not under positive control of any kind aka the Oshkosh/pancake breakfast/fly-in crowd. I'm not condoning nor encouraging the piracy that occurs in IMC. If people wish to dismiss that statement and still interpret my post as an endorsement for IMC piracy, that's certainly their prerogative.

I'm just focusing on the selective outrage of the VFR crowd that's responsible for the big delta in accident rates compared to the pro crowd. Mind you I personally don't have a problem with it; after all I wish to keep recreational aviation accessible, and that means more carnage needs to be acceptable compared to revenue service. Just spare me the hypocrisy of beating on the IMC pirate piñata ad nauseaum when it's the CAVU warriors doing most of the mid-air killing.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Carry on.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The former is my point, not the latter. It is directed at those who insist on over-reacting to the threat of IMC collision with non-participating aircraft, when the statistics bear out that most collisions happen as a result of VFR players not under positive control of any kind aka the Oshkosh/pancake breakfast/fly-in crowd. I'm not condoning nor encouraging the piracy that occurs in IMC. If people wish to dismiss that statement and still interpret my post as an endorsement for IMC piracy, that's certainly their prerogative.

I'm just focusing on the selective outrage of the VFR crowd that's responsible for the big delta in accident rates compared to the pro crowd. Mind you I personally don't have a problem with it; after all I wish to keep recreational aviation accessible, and that means more carnage needs to be acceptable compared to revenue service. Just spare me the hypocrisy of beating on the IMC pirate piñata ad nauseaum when it's the CAVU warriors doing most of the mid-air killing.
Click to expand...

That is about as twisted an argument as I have seen, you are all over the place, I really don't care about that though, but I do love how you immediately correct Jack for what you basically inferred but didn't mean, yet you go off on a tangent about me being selectively outraged which I'm not. My only point to you was to stop calling it a big sky, it isn't a big sky, your statistics don't bear that out and that IMC scofflaw is just as dangerous as the VFR CAVVU guy with his eyes continually in the cockpit.
 
PaulS said:
That is about as twisted an argument as I have seen, you are all over the place, I really don't care about that though, but I do love how you immediately correct Jack for what you basically inferred but didn't mean, yet you go off on a tangent about me being selectively outraged which I'm not. My only point to you was to stop calling it a big sky, it isn't a big sky, your statistics don't bear that out and that IMC scofflaw is just as dangerous as the VFR CAVVU guy with his eyes continually in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Nah, your reading comprehension is just lacking. BTW, the author never infers, only the reader does.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The former is my point, not the latter. It is directed at those who insist on over-reacting to the threat of IMC collision with non-participating aircraft, when the statistics bear out that most collisions happen as a result of VFR players not under positive control of any kind aka the Oshkosh/pancake breakfast/fly-in crowd. I'm not condoning nor encouraging the piracy that occurs in IMC. If people wish to dismiss that statement and still interpret my post as an endorsement for IMC piracy, that's certainly their prerogative.

I'm just focusing on the selective outrage of the VFR crowd that's responsible for the big delta in accident rates compared to the pro crowd. Mind you I personally don't have a problem with it; after all I wish to keep recreational aviation accessible, and that means more carnage needs to be acceptable compared to revenue service. Just spare me the hypocrisy of beating on the IMC pirate piñata ad nauseaum when it's the CAVU warriors doing most of the mid-air killing.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you call this "selective outrage". If law-abiding VFR pilots trade aluminum flying to a pancake breakfast, should the appropriate response be outrage? Personally I would be saddened and want to understand what the links in the accident chain were, but I wouldn't be outraged.

Again, I'm not sure you can draw any valid conclusion from the accident statistics here. IMC piracy, while not uncommon, is FAR less common than obedience of the law. Almost certainly, MOST (and I'd say the vast majority) of traffic in IMC is legally IFR. Between the small sample size and the small physical size of the aircraft compared to the airspace, it's not surprising that midairs between IMC pirates and legal IFRs are uncommon or even vanishingly rare. You can't conclude that the OP has nothing to worry about IF HE KNOWS that an IMC pirate is operating in his airspace and might be out at the same time as he's legally flying IFR.
 
There’s a big difference in how many planes will be in a given general area between a nice vfr day (when everyone in a cub is out) at a fly in airport and a crappy IFR day (when most people don’t even go to the airport unless they have a pressing need) in the clouds away from an airport. The odds of two planes being at the same point in those two scenarios are vastly different. To compare them is silly.
 
PaulS said:
That is about as twisted an argument as I have seen, you are all over the place, I really don't care about that though, but I do love how you immediately correct Jack for what you basically inferred but didn't mean, yet you go off on a tangent about me being selectively outraged which I'm not. My only point to you was to stop calling it a big sky, it isn't a big sky, your statistics don't bear that out and that IMC scofflaw is just as dangerous as the VFR CAVVU guy with his eyes continually in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

How many mid airs have occurred with IFR vs VFR aircraft flying in IMC?
 
PaulS said:
The guy is a jerk and the sky is not as big as most think it is. Just about every other flight sometimes more, I need to make an adjustment in my path for another aircraft or be on the lookout for an aircraft either via FF or my own sight. We really need to be alert for traffic. People like your buddy are the reason why the accident rates are so bad for GA, the problem with his behavior is the odds of him taking an innocent with him when he goes.
Click to expand...
Depends on where you fly. I have flown to all 48 contiguous in my plane(s) and the number of times I've had to avoid/adjust for another I can count on one hand.


Palmpilot said:
Even that would require the top of the fog layer to be no higher than 200 AGL where the floor of class E is 1200 AGL, and where the class E floor is 700 AGL, it wouldn't be possible to do do it without breaking the thousand-feet-above rule, which takes effect as soon as he climbs into the class E.
Click to expand...

Around here the fog layer is generally much thinner than that and the argument could be made that fog != clouds.
 
Velocity173 said:
How many mid airs have occurred with IFR vs VFR aircraft flying in IMC?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, you tell me if you want to know. See my posts above, it still isn't a "big sky" out there, once you add the constraints of altitude, airspace restrictions, limited airports to land in, victor airways, vors, intersections, approaches things aren't that big at all. You guys are fighting real hard to prove that VFR in IMC is a safe thing to do, SMH.
 
PaulS said:
Doesn't matter, you tell me if you want to know. See my posts above, it still isn't a "big sky" out there, once you add the constraints of altitude, airspace restrictions, limited airports to land in, victor airways, vors, intersections, approaches things aren't that big at all. You guys are fighting real hard to prove that VFR in IMC is a safe thing to do, SMH.
Click to expand...

No one is saying it is safe. They are just saying that there are other things to be concerned about besides that. It's like someone in Kansas being worried about getting attacked by a shark when they never go to the ocean.
 
EdFred said:
Depends on where you fly. I have flown to all 48 contiguous in my plane(s) and the number of times I've had to avoid/adjust for another I can count on one hand.




Around here the fog layer is generally much thinner than that and the argument could be made that fog != clouds.
Click to expand...

EdFred, in Massachusetts here, out of Bedford, it's pretty busy here. Last fall we had to turn for a 150 coming straight at us, saw him in plenty of time, but he wasn't on the bug finder. As he was passing us, about abeam to our left wing, he popped up on the traffic screen, for about 15 seconds, then disappeared again. I get turned by FF or need to keep a close watch probably every other flight for traffic here.
 
EdFred said:
No one is saying it is safe. They are just saying that there are other things to be concerned about besides that. It's like someone in Kansas being worried about getting attacked by a shark when they never go to the ocean.
Click to expand...

EdFred, what they are saying is it's a Big Sky out there, it's not true, someone just learning will read that and think they are safe, it's a stupid thing to say. I never said I'm scared, but some one with his head buried inside the cockpit, or flying IMC not talking, those are dumbass things to do, apparently others feel differently.
 
PaulS said:
EdFred, in Massachusetts here, out of Bedford, it's pretty busy here. Last fall we had to turn for a 150 coming straight at us, saw him in plenty of time, but he wasn't on the bug finder. As he was passing us, about abeam to our left wing, he popped up on the traffic screen, for about 15 seconds, then disappeared again. I get turned by FF or need to keep a close watch probably every other flight for traffic here.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely a where you do most of your flying. Coasts are going to be more densely populated with people cars planes and whatever else. Out here in the Midwest I did almost 600 miles on flight following and IFR this weekend and I never even got a traffic call. Well actually I got one but he was five miles and at my three position and passing well behind me.

But it is a big sky when you get away from all the congestion. Just like I can go places around here drive 50 miles and only see one car. It may not be as big of a sky where you are at but for the majority of the country area-wise not population-wise it is.
 
PaulS said:
Doesn't matter, you tell me if you want to know. See my posts above, it still isn't a "big sky" out there, once you add the constraints of altitude, airspace restrictions, limited airports to land in, victor airways, vors, intersections, approaches things aren't that big at all. You guys are fighting real hard to prove that VFR in IMC is a safe thing to do, SMH.
Click to expand...

Passenger safety is one thing due to spatial D but you seem concerned about colliding with such a pilot. That concern is unfounded since almost all midairs occur on nice VFR days. My chances of midair would be far greater going into a fly-in than meeting up with this guy in the soup. I still roll the dice and go to fly-ins on a regular basis.
 
Once again, arguments based on how rare midairs are in general DO NOT APPLY to situations where we know there is a loon out there breaking the law that no one can see and avoid. Yes, the chances of a midair are still low, but not as low as you would think. To apply that argument is a misuse of statistics. It is a little like saying it's not so dangerous to run a red light because most accidents aren't caused that way.
 
bobmrg said:
It happened before ADSB, but a VFR-rated couple using a tablet to wend their way through the Cascades in IMC ran into cumulgranite when Grandma pushed the wrong button and lost the picture...granddaughter survived to tell the tale.

Bob
Click to expand...
Through the magic of the Internet and my leet search skills:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/passenger-of-missing-plane-possibly-found/

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20150714X62513&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA
 
azure said:
Once again, arguments based on how rare midairs are in general DO NOT APPLY to situations where we know there is a loon out there breaking the law that no one can see and avoid. Yes, the chances of a midair are still low, but not as low as you would think. To apply that argument is a misuse of statistics. It is a little like saying it's not so dangerous to run a red light because most accidents aren't caused that way.
Click to expand...

Depends where you are, what time it is, and how the visibility is for cross traffic (or lack of).
 
EdFred said:
Depends where you are, what time it is, and how the visibility is for cross traffic (or lack of).
Click to expand...
Exactly so. Just like in this case, it depends on factors such as how busy the airspace is and whether the guy goes out in low IMC, or just punches through a few clouds in cruise far from any airport. As I said before, we just don't know enough of the details to say for sure whether the OP has anything to worry about.
 
How often do I get vectors or speed changes for traffic / spacing??
I would say several times every leg.
 
azure said:
Once again, arguments based on how rare midairs are in general DO NOT APPLY to situations where we know there is a loon out there breaking the law that no one can see and avoid. Yes, the chances of a midair are still low, but not as low as you would think. To apply that argument is a misuse of statistics. It is a little like saying it's not so dangerous to run a red light because most accidents aren't caused that way.
Click to expand...

And again, no one is saying he isn’t a “loon.” Just one that I’m not particularly worried about when it comes to midairs. Not that I was ever concerned with higher risk areas of GA flying anyway. CFIT or spatial D yes, a midair in IMC? Nope. Even then, without knowing this particular pilot’s experience and approach to flying in IMC, his actions while illegal, might be safer than some rated pilots.
 
I just looked up every mid air collision in the United States last year. It wasn't hard, there were only 4 of them. None of them occurred at pancake breakfasts, I think there has been one in the whole history of Oshkosh. People crash there every year, mostly because they temporarily forget (or never learned in the first place) how to fly an airplane.

Those that concerned about mid air collisions with aircraft would be far better served worrying about something else. All that said, I think this whole thing is a figment in the imagination of a rather successful troll.
 
Velocity173 said:
And again, no one is saying he isn’t a “loon.” Just one that I’m not particularly worried about when it comes to midairs. Not that I was ever concerned with higher risk areas of GA flying anyway. CFIT or spatial D yes, a midair in IMC? Nope. Even then, without knowing this particular pilot’s experience and approach to flying in IMC, his actions while illegal, might be safer than some rated pilots.
Click to expand...
My point is that the probability depends on more than just the statistics for midairs in general. When I go out flying in the soup, just like you a midair is the last thing I worry about, because I trust the system and I know that most VFR pilots obey the regs in that respect. Uncontrolled fields with Class G near the surface, I will be on high alert when breaking out since someone could legally be in the pattern, but in general I'm not worried about IMC scofflaws. That calculus changes, though, if I know someone is doing that and is operating out of the same airport. If the scofflaw was out flying in IFR conditions at the same time I planned to depart, I might even delay until I knew he was back on the ground or out of the area.

And like I said, I'd sure as heck do what I could to arrange an intervention.
 
steingar said:
I just looked up every mid air collision in the United States last year. It wasn't hard, there were only 4 of them. None of them occurred at pancake breakfasts, I think there has been one in the whole history of Oshkosh. People crash there every year, mostly because they temporarily forget (or never learned in the first place) how to fly an airplane.

Those that concerned about mid air collisions with aircraft would be far better served worrying about something else. All that said, I think this whole thing is a figment in the imagination of a rather successful troll.
Click to expand...
I’ll take a different view...
The reason it’s so rare is because people DO worry about it and practice proper safety measures.
 
Kritchlow said:
I’ll take a different view...
The reason it’s so rare is because people DO worry about it and practice proper safety measures.
Click to expand...
image.png
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay, so if nobody took precautions (ie nobody looked out the window, lots of folks flew IMC illegally, etc..) you’re saying there would be only four midairs last year?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that you have a wonderfully optimistic opinion of your fellow pilots.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah definitely a where you do most of your flying. Coasts are going to be more densely populated with people cars planes and whatever else. Out here in the Midwest I did almost 600 miles on flight following and IFR this weekend and I never even got a traffic call. Well actually I got one but he was five miles and at my three position and passing well behind me.

But it is a big sky when you get away from all the congestion. Just like I can go places around here drive 50 miles and only see one car. It may not be as big of a sky where you are at but for the majority of the country area-wise not population-wise it is.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great place to fly.
 
mcdewey said:
Through the magic of the Internet and my leet search skills:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/passenger-of-missing-plane-possibly-found/

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20150714X62513&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA
Click to expand...

Wow. We’ll probably never know, but you have to wonder if the new ‘tablet’ was a contributing factor. That he took the time to tell the briefer he had one kind of makes it sound like maybe that had something to do with his decision to go. Brave girl. That was an emotional read.
 
Is your friend this guy? I love how he's barely looking at the instruments.

 
hindsight2020 said:
Seriously, when was the last time you heard or read of an air pirate colliding with participating IFR traffic?
Click to expand...
Well, since you asked... For me it was when an F-16 on an instrument plan collided with a 150 in South Carolina in 2015. A very recent affair as you can see. Although, it's not quite what you ask about, because conditions were visual, but the closure rate was such that the pilot of the fighter didn't see the trainer. The one before that was in 1987, when a regional airliner collided with a VFR Mooney over Salt Lake City. The conditions were visual again, but the light was marginal and traffic was difficult to see. It was almost 30 years ago. I presume there were more of the same, I just didn't hear of them.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top