Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:08 AM - Re: Closure RatesClosure Rates (Steve Glasgow)
2. 06:27 AM - Re: Fly above 8000 ft ? (Bill Boyd)
3. 06:27 AM - Re: Closure Rates (linn Walters)
4. 06:27 AM - Re: Fly above 8000 ft ? (Richard Reynolds)
5. 06:38 AM - Loose bolts (George Inman 204 287 8334)
6. 07:41 AM - Re: Closure Rates (Kevin Horton)
7. 01:03 PM - Flight Oxygen (John Fasching)
8. 08:19 PM - Re: Closure Rates (mr.gsun@gmail.com)
9. 08:41 PM - Re: Closure Rates (David Leonard)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Closure RatesClosure Rates |
Scott, your question "which is best" implies a known quantity of which you
have determined by a guess. One thing that is not a guess is every one of
the planes that go above 10,000' will come back down at some time.
As pointed out by the controller, positive control of both aircraft on a
collision course is very helpful. Flight Following may or may not help.
Those that use Flight Following are well aware that you are on the bottom of
the totem pole, and many times are told Flight Following is canceled swank
1200. Also there are many areas where it is not available.
Over my many years or airline flying, I can't tell you how may times I have
been vectored away from slower aircraft above 10,000' who were not in
positive control. The guy we were vectored around never even knew he had
created a problem because he was VFR, not looking or did not see us.
Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. The skies
are very crowded and there are more and more light jets in the air every
day.
But as my original posts stated, "Additionally, many Jets and other faster
planes regularly fly between 10,000 and 17,500 without positive control or
VFR". Note: I said, "without positive control or VFR". These are the ones
I am primarily concerned about.
Again as stated in my previous post, "I'm not telling anyone how to fly
their airplane or suggesting flying above
10,000 is unsafe. I'm just pointing out some facts that might be food for
thought."
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
willfly@carolina.rr.com
704-362-0005 Home
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fly above 8000 ft ? |
Hope this thread increases sales (and use) of pulse ox units; they're
certainly not perfect, but they are far superior to doing without them.
Fly safe!
Bill B.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Tom Gummo <T.gummo@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> You can, and I feel should, avail yourself of the altitude chamber
>> training that the FAA provides.
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/aerospace_physiology/
>>
>
>
> What a great idea.
>
> As an ex-military pilot, I had to go to this training every three years.
>
> One of the things they would do, have you take off your mask at 8000 feet
> (best I can remember) and they would reduce the lighting a little and after
> a couple of minutes, they would have you put your mask back on and you would
> think that they turned the lights back on. You could see OK but with oxygen
> you could tell the difference. You can see better and think better with
> oxygen! PERIOD.
>
> Feeling OK is not a good indicator that everything is OK.
>
> Worst case, at 25,000 or so, you have to take off your mask, so that you
> can experience your hypoxia symptoms. I hate making a fool of myself so I
> very quickly put my mask back on and lied about my symptoms (my feet did get
> cold). Someone would always try to be macho and show how long they could
> function (we would be required to do a simple task - like just write your
> name.). After a very minutes, the instructor would ask how he/she was
> doing and lots of times the response would just be a smile. Then the
> instructor would say, you are going to die if you don't put your mask on.
> More smiles, Sitting there and kept writing their name. Soon the
> instructor would insist that they put on their mask. More smiles. Finally,
> the instructor would just put the mask on their face and allow a couple of
> gulps of 100% oxygen.
>
> You could see the LIGHT come on in their eyes. When asked why they didn't
> put their mask on. They would say something like, "I didn't feel bad or I
> thought I was doing OK"
> They would pass around the paper he/she was writing on and you could see
> that they were NOT OK. The first several signatures would look OK but soon
> all they were doing was junk. They were not functioning besides not
> thinking clearly.
>
> The only difference between flying at 12,000 and 25,000 without oxygen is
> TIME. The longer you are at 12,000 the closer your thinking and functions
> looks like you are at 25,000. Of course, there are a million factors which
> speed or slow your personal progress.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
> Wild Weasel #1573
> USAF Major Retired
> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Closure Rates |
I don't fly that high ...... yet ......... so my question is ...... is
the problem due to 'vfr' traffic not holding to the odd/even +500
enroute or is the system mucked up by climbing/descending aircraft .....
of all types????
Other than filing a VFR flight plan, what else can we do???
Linn
Steve Glasgow wrote:
>
> Scott, your question "which is best" implies a known quantity of which
> you have determined by a guess. One thing that is not a guess is
> every one of the planes that go above 10,000' will come back down at
> some time.
>
> As pointed out by the controller, positive control of both aircraft on
> a collision course is very helpful. Flight Following may or may not
> help. Those that use Flight Following are well aware that you are on
> the bottom of the totem pole, and many times are told Flight Following
> is canceled swank 1200. Also there are many areas where it is not
> available.
>
> Over my many years or airline flying, I can't tell you how may times I
> have been vectored away from slower aircraft above 10,000' who were
> not in positive control. The guy we were vectored around never even
> knew he had created a problem because he was VFR, not looking or did
> not see us.
>
> Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. The
> skies are very crowded and there are more and more light jets in the
> air every day.
>
> But as my original posts stated, "Additionally, many Jets and other
> faster planes regularly fly between 10,000 and 17,500 without positive
> control or VFR". Note: I said, "without positive control or VFR".
> These are the ones I am primarily concerned about.
>
> Again as stated in my previous post, "I'm not telling anyone how to
> fly their airplane or suggesting flying above
> 10,000 is unsafe. I'm just pointing out some facts that might be food
> for thought."
>
> Steve Glasgow-Cappy
> willfly@carolina.rr.com
> 704-362-0005 Home
>
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fly above 8000 ft ? |
I do not remember were I heard it or read it.
The 12,500 ft rule was established in the late 30' using young,
physical fit, healthy flyers.
Most of us have passed the young and physically fit criteria.
I am a flat lander, elevation 14 ft, and use O2 above 8000 ft and
above 5000 ft at night.
Richard Reynolds
Norfolk, VA
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
**
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/ms27151palnuts.php>
I noticed one guy had -MS27151 PAL NUTS - ON TOP of the regular
nuts on his crank case bolts.
I do not know if this works,but may be worth a try for those who
have had loose engine bolts.
--
George H. Inman
ghinman@mts.net
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Closure Rates |
Well, an IFR aircraft on autopilot could easily be 150 ft high or low
from the nominal altitude, once you consider normally seen static system
position errors, altimeter errors, autopilot altitude hold tolerances,
and differences in altimeter settings from region to region. If the
aircraft is not on autopilot, you can add another 100 ft to that, for
plus or minus 250 ft.
If we have an amateur-built aircraft, the vast majority have completely
unknown static system position errors, as most builders don't take the
time to learn how to determine them. I've seen reports from several RV
builders who report static system position errors of more than 100 ft.
For VFR traffic not using flight following, they may very well be using
a different altimeter setting than the IFR traffic.
Even if the IFR and VFR traffic are making reasonable efforts to fly the
correct altitudes, they could easily be less than 200 ft apart in
altitude, maybe even closer.
Thing you can do:
1. Use flight following. This ensures you are using the same altimeter
setting as the IFR traffic. It also helps cue to where to look for some
traffic.
2. Determine the static system position error of your aircraft. If it
is large, either make some mods to reduce it, or at least deliberately
fly an indicated altitude so as to be at the correct real altitude. For
example, if you determine that your altimeter will be reading 100 ft too
low due to static system position error, you could deliberately fly 8400
ft indicated, instead of 8500 ft, to account for this static system
position error. Of course there is no way to correct the altitudes
reported by the transponder for static system position error, so the
best approach is to make mods to the static system to reduce the error.
How to determine static system position error:
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/rvlinks/ssec.html
Kevin Horton
linn Walters wrote:
>
> I don't fly that high ...... yet ......... so my question is ...... is
> the problem due to 'vfr' traffic not holding to the odd/even +500
> enroute or is the system mucked up by climbing/descending aircraft
> ..... of all types????
>
> Other than filing a VFR flight plan, what else can we do???
> Linn
>
>
> Steve Glasgow wrote:
>>
>> Scott, your question "which is best" implies a known quantity of
>> which you have determined by a guess. One thing that is not a guess
>> is every one of the planes that go above 10,000' will come back down
>> at some time.
>>
>> As pointed out by the controller, positive control of both aircraft
>> on a collision course is very helpful. Flight Following may or may
>> not help. Those that use Flight Following are well aware that you are
>> on the bottom of the totem pole, and many times are told Flight
>> Following is canceled swank 1200. Also there are many areas where it
>> is not available.
>>
>> Over my many years or airline flying, I can't tell you how may times
>> I have been vectored away from slower aircraft above 10,000' who were
>> not in positive control. The guy we were vectored around never even
>> knew he had created a problem because he was VFR, not looking or did
>> not see us.
>>
>> Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. The
>> skies are very crowded and there are more and more light jets in the
>> air every day.
>>
>> But as my original posts stated, "Additionally, many Jets and other
>> faster planes regularly fly between 10,000 and 17,500 without
>> positive control or VFR". Note: I said, "without positive control or
>> VFR". These are the ones I am primarily concerned about.
>>
>> Again as stated in my previous post, "I'm not telling anyone how to
>> fly their airplane or suggesting flying above
>> 10,000 is unsafe. I'm just pointing out some facts that might be
>> food for thought."
>>
>> Steve Glasgow-Cappy
>> willfly@carolina.rr.com
>> 704-362-0005 Home
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Flight Test Phase)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks to all for the suggestions regarding high altitude flight and
oxygen.
For what its worth I do have oxygen in the plane and normally use it for
any sustained flights and have used it for testing the airplane as high
as 17.600 feet.
thanks again
John
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Closure Rates |
Just out of curiosity... Is it a real problem? I mean are there near
misses out there? Has a C-17 wiped out any RV's? Anybody hear of any bent
metal lately? I don't want to downplay the issue but just gauge my worry
factor. I fly my -7 up and down the left coast and have never seen another
aircraft at all when I'm at 12,500 (or 11,500 depending on whether I'm going
N or S). I guess I need to look harder and or thank my stars.
do not archive
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:25 AM, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> I don't fly that high ...... yet ......... so my question is ...... is the
> problem due to 'vfr' traffic not holding to the odd/even +500 enroute or is
> the system mucked up by climbing/descending aircraft ..... of all types????
>
> Other than filing a VFR flight plan, what else can we do???
> Linn
>
>
> Steve Glasgow wrote:
>
>>
>> Scott, your question "which is best" implies a known quantity of which you
>> have determined by a guess. One thing that is not a guess is every one of
>> the planes that go above 10,000' will come back down at some time.
>>
>> As pointed out by the controller, positive control of both aircraft on a
>> collision course is very helpful. Flight Following may or may not help.
>> Those that use Flight Following are well aware that you are on the bottom of
>> the totem pole, and many times are told Flight Following is canceled swank
>> 1200. Also there are many areas where it is not available.
>>
>> Over my many years or airline flying, I can't tell you how may times I
>> have been vectored away from slower aircraft above 10,000' who were not in
>> positive control. The guy we were vectored around never even knew he had
>> created a problem because he was VFR, not looking or did not see us.
>>
>> Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. The skies
>> are very crowded and there are more and more light jets in the air every
>> day.
>>
>> But as my original posts stated, "Additionally, many Jets and other faster
>> planes regularly fly between 10,000 and 17,500 without positive control or
>> VFR". Note: I said, "without positive control or VFR". These are the ones
>> I am primarily concerned about.
>>
>> Again as stated in my previous post, "I'm not telling anyone how to fly
>> their airplane or suggesting flying above
>> 10,000 is unsafe. I'm just pointing out some facts that might be food for
>> thought."
>>
>> Steve Glasgow-Cappy
>> willfly@carolina.rr.com
>> 704-362-0005 Home
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Closure Rates |
Mr. Gsun,
I am with you on this one. The skys are WAY less crowded above 10'k and all
the big iron have TCAS to keep themselves away from us bug smashers. Only
the rare minority of aircraft spend any time between 12k and 30k. That IS
the safest place to avoid collision bar none! There are probably a few
collisions I dont know about, but collisions between aircraft above 10k are
so rare you could count them on one hand. I only know of 2. Two airliners
over Europe where the controller was messed up, and a lear hitting a sail
plane (without a transponder) on approach to Reno. Compare that to the
Hundreds of collisions below 10k. IMHO - that is by far the safest place to
avoid a collision... Above 10k!
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.ne
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM, <mr.gsun@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity... Is it a real problem? I mean are there near
> misses out there? Has a C-17 wiped out any RV's? Anybody hear of any bent
> metal lately? I don't want to downplay the issue but just gauge my worry
> factor. I fly my -7 up and down the left coast and have never seen another
> aircraft at all when I'm at 12,500 (or 11,500 depending on whether I'm going
> N or S). I guess I need to look harder and or thank my stars.
>
> do not archive
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:25 AM, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't fly that high ...... yet ......... so my question is ...... is the
>> problem due to 'vfr' traffic not holding to the odd/even +500 enroute or is
>> the system mucked up by climbing/descending aircraft ..... of all types????
>>
>> Other than filing a VFR flight plan, what else can we do???
>> Linn
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve Glasgow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Scott, your question "which is best" implies a known quantity of which
>>> you have determined by a guess. One thing that is not a guess is every one
>>> of the planes that go above 10,000' will come back down at some time.
>>>
>>> As pointed out by the controller, positive control of both aircraft on a
>>> collision course is very helpful. Flight Following may or may not help.
>>> Those that use Flight Following are well aware that you are on the bottom of
>>> the totem pole, and many times are told Flight Following is canceled swank
>>> 1200. Also there are many areas where it is not available.
>>>
>>> Over my many years or airline flying, I can't tell you how may times I
>>> have been vectored away from slower aircraft above 10,000' who were not in
>>> positive control. The guy we were vectored around never even knew he had
>>> created a problem because he was VFR, not looking or did not see us.
>>>
>>> Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. The
>>> skies are very crowded and there are more and more light jets in the air
>>> every day.
>>>
>>> But as my original posts stated, "Additionally, many Jets and other
>>> faster planes regularly fly between 10,000 and 17,500 without positive
>>> control or VFR". Note: I said, "without positive control or VFR". These
>>> are the ones I am primarily concerned about.
>>>
>>> Again as stated in my previous post, "I'm not telling anyone how to fly
>>> their airplane or suggesting flying above
>>> 10,000 is unsafe. I'm just pointing out some facts that might be food
>>> for thought."
>>>
>>> Steve Glasgow-Cappy
>>> willfly@carolina.rr.com
>>> 704-362-0005 Home
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
t
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|