Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lessons Learned' started by Lndwarrior, Aug 13, 2017.
If they wiz on my windscreen it is not legal.
If they're that close, you're probably in the tail low slot position and busy holding it by staring at lead's belly beacon.
I may be wrong but I thought cooter was a fighter pilot...if I'm right it would make your comment very funny. Maybe I am wrong. If so, that's just situation normal.
2000-3000 feet above you? Or was that lateral and decreasing?
As I have said, none of the traffic avoidance maneuvers that we've mentioned are incorrect. Each one serves a purpose depending on the situation that one encounters. In the scenario of the OP, I do second the notion that he did the correct procedure. I'm just speaking of opinion and the way I was taught back in primary training. An opinion is just an opinion.
I'll just jump in with one last thing. When it comes to safety, all opinions are not equal. If you're just out buzzing around and you see another Cessna 5 miles out headed your way, what you're saying may be ok. But the FAA teaches collision avoidance and you are mixing it up with a completely different maneuver. Collision avoidance means getting away from an imminent threat, as in the situation the OP describes. All the talk about positive loading and passenger comfort don't apply. Closure rates are very deceptive until its almost too late. There have been multiple times that I've maneuvered preemptively, thinking I was overdoing it until the other plane passed uncomfortably close by. Your attitude is wrong concerning collision avoidance because you have it mixed up in your head with something totally different. I pointed out that Airline training separates those two, which should be an indication it should at least be considered. I'm not your CFI, but if I were, I would go out and demonstrate exactly how they are different so that you didn't make the wrong choice, which it sounds like you may be primed to do.
Sounds scary as hell whatever it is. I don't want one.
Nah, I caught it. I was commenting on the separation they had to provide the airliner no matter what you did or where you wandered.
No, not scary. I found it fun; but then I can be strange.
It is just a rapid descent, with the goal to maximize vertical and/or lateral separation.
Do this with a CFI, and discuss when to use the techniques. I was taught two approaches:
1. Push nose over, like the OP did, and accelerate to Vne. If you want to maximize lateral distance, keep some power in. If you want to maximize vertical distance, power to idle.
2. Bank, push over and power to idle, I was taught up to 45 degrees. Once bank is established, pull back to tighten the turn, add rudder to push nose down and slip to add more drag until approach Vne. Wings level, then nose up to come out.
Again discuss with a CFI and know when to use them before you attempt it. The second one is definitely an aggressive maneuver, but is useful if you need to change direction and/or get vertical separation. Note: it does not provide lateral separation. As such it really is rather limited in usage.
I originally asked the question because the OP said he went 60 degrees. No statement on direction (pitch/roll); which started this tangent.
I was taught the bank and pitch for vfe for an emergency descent and do "whatever it takes" collision avoidance, probably PUSH!!
I was responding to the comment in his original post: "No, I don't have ADSB capability now. Yes, I will be adding it as soon as possible."
Even if he adds it, it's not going to stop the need to look outside and maneuver for other aircraft. Did you go look at the reg and think about it?
It clearly shows not only the places where ADS-B will be required, but that there will still be plenty of aircraft exempt from using it in many of those places.
This thread amuses me.
Hopefully we'll see more ADS-R to fill some of the gaps, but that will still lead to feelings of false safety since we won't know where areas of no radar coverage (or shadows) exist.