jollyroger
Pre-Flight
Sounds like the car alarm syndrome. Controller alarms go off so often they get ignored.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/13_0..._194217-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/13_0..._194217-1.html
The NTSB found 11 crashes in which pilots did not get "safety alerts" even though the alarms were going off in the tower or center.
.............
That's funny???
I've never read that emoticon to be smiling...oh, but now I see it is labeled ROFL. Well, not what I meant.That's funny???
I've never read that emoticon to be smiling...oh, but now I see it is labeled ROFL. Well, not what I meant.
Frankly? Rolling on the floor in pain (as in "this sucks", etc etc)What did you read it to be? It's a smiley face laying down laughing rolling back and forth..
I'm afraid I may be beginning to understand your politics but I'll leave that to the "Spin Zone."Frankly? Rolling on the floor in pain (as in "this sucks", etc etc)
Ha ha...but really that thing looks more like it is grimacing than smiling or laughing...I'm afraid I may be beginning to understand your politics but I'll leave that to the "Spin Zone."
Approaches under VFR are up to the pilot to insure there is separation between himself and those ahead or adjacent to his position. Standard right-of-way applies. The controller can only advise of traffic. It's up to the pilot to maintain visual separation. Parallel runways are a non-issue as long as the rules are followed.I'm not surprised they ignore the warnings, seeing as how they have parallel runways at KSEE and often have two planes coming in on final at the same time.
It does look like it is having colic. maybe we should use this one.Ha ha...but really that thing looks more like it is grimacing than smiling or laughing...
According to one witness in the NTSB report... One aircraft was traveling East while the other was traveling Southwest at the time of impact. One was under IFR while the other was under VFR. But, VMC prevailed with exceptional visibility.
I believe the controllers got complacent with a faulty system. But, it still falls on the pilots in the end.
According to one witness in the NTSB report... One aircraft was traveling East while the other was traveling Southwest at the time of impact. One was under IFR while the other was under VFR. But, VMC prevailed with exceptional visibility. Even when under an IFR plan, the pilot is still responsible for visual separation when conditions permit. So, both pilots had a requirement to see and avoid.
I believe the controllers got complacent with a faulty system. But, it still falls on the pilots in the end.
I was going to say who was at the wrong altitude but after reading the NTSB report neither were at cruise. Both pilots should have been looking out the window and the controller should have advised of the traffic. Three people weren't doing their job.
While I agree that when conditions permit, the pilot must see and avoid, but doesn't the controller have a responsibility to the IFR pilot for separation services from all other aircraft?
As already said, nope.While I agree that when conditions permit, the pilot must see and avoid, but doesn't the controller have a responsibility to the IFR pilot for separation services from all other aircraft? The controller, sitting in his/her radar room, has no real knowledge of the weather conditions, nor should that matter to him/her. His/her responsibility is to his/her airspace and the IFR operators within it. If his/her workload permits, he/she can provide services to the requesting VFR operators as well.
The closest official aviation weather information was an unedited surface weather observation for Gillespie Field. At 1647, the following conditions were reported: ceiling, 20.000 feet broken; visibility, 25 statute miles; wind from 260 degrees at 8 knots; temperature, 73 degrees Fahrenheit; dew point, not reported; and altimeter, 29.93 inches of mercury.
Under these rules, the controllers were only guilty of complacency with a faulty system.5-5-8. See and Avoid
a. Pilot. When meteorological conditions permit, regardless of type of flight plan or whether or not under control of a radar facility, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, terrain, or obstacles.
b. Controller.
1. Provides radar traffic information to radar identified aircraft operating outside positive control airspace on a workload permitting basis.
2. Issues safety alerts to aircraft under their control if aware the aircraft is at an altitude believed to place the aircraft in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft.
As already said, nope.
Per the NTSB report:
Per Aeronautical Information Manual:
Under these rules, the controllers were only guilty of complacency with a faulty system.
NO.
ATC's job is to separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft. All other services are on an "if-able" basis.
Theoretically, a VFR aircraft will be obeying VFR weather mins, and a VFR and an IFR aircraft will be able to see and avoid each other. It is NOT the job of ATC to separate them.
As I said before, I understand VFR see and avoid procedures, and certainly these two did not do it very well. Yes, theoretically speaking, VFR aircraft are obeying minimums. But I have personally seen on multiple occasions VFR aircraft that are pointed out to me by the controllers that are dancing in and out of clouds. If the controllers are not responsible for me being separated from these yahoos, what is to keep them from bringing me down?
I think see and avoid accidents are all too often blamed on incompetent pilots. Who here honesty hasn't missed seeing an airplane after a traffic call? Who here honestly hasn't had a near miss with an airplane they totally didn't see until the last second?
Sure - legally it is our responsibility, and we should ALWAYS be looking for other aircraft. All that responsibility does really is make it obvious whose fault the accident is. In reality, we all miss traffic, despite our best efforts to "see and be seen."
Don't assume the pilots were executing poor technique because they failed to see each other.
I think see and avoid accidents are all too often blamed on incompetent pilots. Who here honesty hasn't missed seeing an airplane after a traffic call? Who here honestly hasn't had a near miss with an airplane they totally didn't see until the last second?
Sure - legally it is our responsibility, and we should ALWAYS be looking for other aircraft. All that responsibility does really is make it obvious whose fault the accident is. In reality, we all miss traffic, despite our best efforts to "see and be seen."
Don't assume the pilots were executing poor technique because they failed to see each other.
... But I have personally seen on multiple occasions VFR aircraft that are pointed out to me by the controllers that are dancing in and out of clouds.
...
After seeing a few VFR aircraft violating the rules, I may have to rethink flying in IMC.
NZ pilots are a bunch of freaking cowboys.
Chris