Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:42 AM - Re: SL-30 Installation (A. Dennis Savarese)
2. 11:04 AM - unicom, er, CTAF, position reports etc. (Jerry Painter)
3. 11:59 AM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (Yak Pilot)
4. 12:22 PM - Re: SL-30 Installation (Yak Pilot)
5. 12:22 PM - Re: SL-30 Installation (Yak Pilot)
6. 01:58 PM - Re: unicom, er, CTAF, position reports etc. (Mark Davis)
7. 07:48 PM - Overhead Approaches (Jeff Linebaugh)
8. 08:07 PM - Why Lead is so damn important! (Sarah Tobin)
9. 08:44 PM - Re: Overhead Approaches (Roger Kemp M.D.)
10. 09:00 PM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (cjpilot710@aol.com)
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: SL-30 Installation |
Scott,
If you still have the Russian intercom volume control panel installed, make
sure the toggle switches in both cockpits are down. If one of the toggle
switches (intercom volume and radio volume) are in different positions,
front and rear, it reverses the control. It took me FOREVER to figure that
one out. Before I did, the rear volume control was controlling the front
volume and vice versa.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "shinden33" <shinden33@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:20 AM
Subject: Yak-List: SL-30 Installation
>
> Update - squelch problem fixed. There's another issue. Both the SL-30
> and
> the original Russian Radio are installed completely independent of one
> another. The only place they connect is the headset jack. For some
> reason,
> the volume controls on the Russian radio and intercom now working in
> reverse! The radio still transmits and receives just fine. I do not
> pretend to be an electronics guy and my avionics installer is scratching
> his
> head. Anyone have any ideas what would cause this to happen?
>
> Scott
> N8252
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of shinden33
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:47 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: SL-30 Installation
>
>
> All,
>
> I just had an SL-30 installed which is breaking squelch on certain
> frequencies. It may be a myriad of things, including antenna location but
> I
> was wondering if anyone knows of any Yak specific gotchas with this
> installation?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Scott
> N8252
>
>
>
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: | unicom, er, CTAF, position reports etc. |
The home drome, Arlington Muni (KAWO), is an uncontrolled field. Until
about a year or so ago it was a nice sleepy little place where most of th
e
time you could enjoy the flying without a continuous babble massaging you
r
ear drums. I've been flying model airplanes, airplanes and gliders here
for
more than forty years and have always loved the relative tranquility,
variety and creativity I think the lack of traffic or authoritarian prese
nce
fosters. We even have a lot of formation activity here--not a problem, a
dds
to the variety and interest--though I've never understood why some folks
like to yank the power to zip off a little low-inertia airplane in the
middle of a low-speed, steep, descending 360, 2-G, 1.4 Vso stall turn. B
ut
what do I know? I'm just a dumb civilian trying to learn the ropes. See
you next weekend at ARS for continuing education I'm sure.
Last week I was flying with a student when some guy in a 182 started
blathering away at and about someone else in a Mooney (purely coincidenta
l,
I'm sure) who wasn't making radio calls in the pattern to the satisfactio
n
of the 182 driver. Nasty. Then the 182 guy announced he was going to la
nd
against the flow, i.e., on 34 while everyone else was landing 16. OK, if
that's what you want, it is an "uncontrolled" field, after all. Then he
decides he's not going to land on the pavement, he'll take the grass. OK
,
even better. Only the grass he wanted to land on wasn't the grass runway
(east of, parallel to and adjacent to 34), a nice smooth patch, it was ju
st
grass," on the west side of 34, probably pretty rough, with a crossing
taxiway to make it interesting.
Anyway, I bring this up only because the 182 guy so busily bad-mouthing t
he
Mooney guy apparently believed it was his prerogative (and is) to make an
approach against the flow to a non-existent runway. Superior airmanship
sometimes has its rewards, I guess. Hey, its an uncontrolled field, have
at
it. Finally, when it was pointed out that he might be in for a little
rougher rollout than probably expected, the frequency was blessedly
liberated from his ongoing diatribe about the Mooney guy and he decided t
o
go around and try again . . .
Rule #1: Shut up and fly, open your eyes and stop complaining about the
other guy. It takes two to have an argument or a mid-air. Discretion
really is the better part of valor. And, unfortunately, sometimes there a
re
stupid and ignorant folks out and about. Occasionally I are wun. Maybe
ewe
R 2?
What happened about a year ago to disrupt the KAWO tranquility? An operat
ion
called Silver State Helicopters moved in. I have nothing against
helicopters. I just don't like them (just kidding).
If you've ever been to the Seattle area you may have noticed that
occasionally our skies are a pleasant and relaxing shade of grey and dry
skin is seldom a problem for Seattle-area women, or anyone else hereabout
s.
In fact, grey occasionally permeates everything, maybe even most of the
time--including Silver State's Robinsons, painted a nice dark hue. Yes,
they have little low-wattage strobes to differentiate them from the
raindrops on the glass and they recently decided to paint one rotor blade
white, which helps a little, after many, many complaints that they were
invisible and their continuous radio chatter didn't make them any easier
to
see. They are really good at it testing the observation skills of us
fixed-wing types--which is probably good training for all.
Why don't I like them? They not only go against the flow with regularity
,
like the 182 guy, they insist on hover-taxiing the full length of active
runways while fixed-wings are approaching to land or waiting to take off,
hover-taxiing, landing and taking-off on taxiways in the face of oncoming
fixed-wing traffic, making left traffic instead of right like everyone el
se,
crossing active runways despite landing or taking-off traffic etc. It is
an
uncontrolled field. To say nothing of hovering right next to fixed-wings
at
the gas pump or on the ramp. Oh, well. I once had a dust devil pick me
and
my Pawnee right up off the ground (and a glider, too--wrecked it) while I
was stationary, waiting for a tow hookup, so I've got no complaints. So
it
goes.
But they are really good about making position calls. Lots of them. Until
Silver State showed up I never paid any attention to KAWO's taxiway ID's
(my
bad), but thanks to their non-stop announcements I now know the names of
all
of them. Thank you, Silver State. Another little quirk (to me) is they s
eem
to spend all of their training time in the pattern, round and round,
auto-rotation "emergency" approaches to a low hover over a runway or taxi
way
every time. I don't know anything about helicopters, but I'd never seen
helicopters routinely (continuously, actually) fly a rectangular pattern
followed by a hover and go at a runway or taxiway until they showed up. I
always thought the great thing about helicopters was you didn't need an
airport. My education continues.
Last weekend I was towing gliders and while re-entering the pattern after
a
tow I was chastised by one of the chopper types for failing to make a
position call (actually, I had made the call, he apparently wasn't listen
ing
or was busy transmitting at the same time I was). No problem--I'm all in
favor of position reports, sorry you missed it, though I've never seen a
microphone that could substitute for open eyeballs.
Unfortuntely, the frequency has become thoroughly saturated with position
reports. I like position reports. I like even better to look out for an
d
see traffic, whether they're talking or not. I even like enroute, approa
ch,
tower and ground controllers, though I like quiet frequencies even better
=2E
I even like NORDO's. Better yet. Sometimes I are one. However, I'm sure
I
m not alone in noting that I've had numerous seriously close calls while
under the "control" and protection of ATC in "controlled" airspace, on th
e
ground, on the runway, in the air. Likewise while enduring non-stop
position reports. So it goes.
But when it gets to the point that people freely clutter an already jamme
d
frequency griping about imagined failures to comply with non-existent rul
es
and think non-stop chatter and complaining is a superior substitute for o
pen
eyes and flying accordingly, with discretion and harmony, something is am
iss
Leave the road rage on the highway.
Rule #2: See Rule #1. Education continueth apace.
Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
425-876-0865
FlyWBA.com
PS
Ernie, I hope you find your A&P. Have you called SAR? Or did you get
violated?
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: SNF Near Misses |
#2 and #3 went around because lead did. Had they not..... there would have not
been a close call.
This was a formation factor.
Did Lead make a radio call when he went around? Was that call just for himself
or for the whole flight?
When the whole flight went around, did they make radio calls or not? (Normally,
they would not, and we KNOW #2 did not as he was essentially NORDO)
This is again a formation issue.
When the Mooney took off, could he have possibly have heard Leads radio call
announcing his go-around and then with him clearly in sight, continued his take-off
not knowing at all that 2 more aircraft were also going to go around?
Was the go-around briefed?
This appears to be more of a formation flight issue. It was JUST AS LEGAL for
that Mooney driver to not transmit as it was for the formation flight to come
in as they did. Each issue added to the fire.
Fact: Everyone was fat dumb and happy with cloth ear" pilots flying "spam cans"
at Zephyrhills all day long. Then two formation flights showed up. Soon after
that things went to crap.
Clearly, it was the cloth ear pilots and spam cans fault, and had very little
to do with the arrival of the formation flights? Sorry, I have to disagree
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
Scorch <greshell@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
It seems to me that one of the near misses being discussed here (Zephyrhillshas)
has less to do with formation flying and more to do with operating at an uncontrolled
airfield without being up on the unicom frequency. It is very easy to
say that the formation led to this happening but I beg to disagree. The 2 aircraft
were off frequency for different reasons, #2, a mistake, and the mooney
- who knows, but without the common frequency you've already got a recipe for
disaster. If 4 aircraft had entered the circuit in close proximity as singletons
(as some are suggesting as a solution), I dare say the same thing could and
would have happened.
Having said that I am an advocate of making the formation fit the local conditions.
So, when you make calls - especially at uncontrolled airfields, you call
'joining deadside' not 'initial' and then 'crosswind' not 'on the break'. And
if you have to extend through initial before breaking to allow for other traffic
then so be it. Just as is the golden rule with leading formations, you've got
to be predictable and I think in the case of 'mixing it up' with other aircraft
you have to be predictable to aircraft outside the formation as well. This
comes down to letting them know in plain language so they can understand what
you are doing. Your formation should not be so inflexible that you cannot allow
for other traffic. I know it doesn't look as good but what about splitting
to 2 pairs in trail for the circuit entry? - gives all wingmen a bettter chance
of seeing what's going on in the circuit, and if you have to do something radical
its alot easier as a pair than a 4. There's
a!
lways, of course, the random factor of some cloth ear doing something really dumb.
Sounds like it would be pretty difficult allow for what the Mooney did apart
from having your head on a stick, as the guys in question obviously did.
My 10c worth
Greg
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=109774#109774
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: SL-30 Installation |
Two large noise generators with M-14 engines.
1. Inspect the shield ground at the mag P leads. The shield oftentimes gets
broken there and needs to be repaired.
2. Look for good shield ground at the tach generator cannon plug. Russian
wires and solder tend to break. If one of the three wires breaks, the tach will
go backwards or have other weird behavior. If the shield has a problem, that
tach generator will develop so much noise it is amazing.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
shinden33 <shinden33@earthlink.net> wrote:
All,
I just had an SL-30 installed which is breaking squelch on certain
frequencies. It may be a myriad of things, including antenna location but I
was wondering if anyone knows of any Yak specific gotchas with this
installation?
Thanks in advance
Scott
N8252
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Installation |
Two large noise generators with M-14 engines.
1. Inspect the shield ground at the mag P leads. The shield oftentimes gets
broken there and needs to be repaired.
2. Look for good shield ground at the tach generator cannon plug. Russian
wires and solder tend to break. If one of the three wires breaks, the tach will
go backwards or have other weird behavior. If the shield has a problem, that
tach generator will develop so much noise it is amazing.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
shinden33 <shinden33@earthlink.net> wrote:
All,
I just had an SL-30 installed which is breaking squelch on certain
frequencies. It may be a myriad of things, including antenna location but I
was wondering if anyone knows of any Yak specific gotchas with this
installation?
Thanks in advance
Scott
N8252
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: unicom, er, CTAF, position reports etc. |
At uncontrolled fields the CURRENT dynamics, not the "normal" rules
should dictate your entry procedures, whether single ship or mass
formation. If no one else is around, then go for it....dealer's choice.
But, when it's congested, particularly anything out of the ordinary
like skydivers, balloons or sailplanes then it just makes sense to make
yourself as predictable as possible and that means standard patterns at
standard altitudes with "typical" distances abeam the runway downwind
and final lengths and radio calls when appropriate. The average private
pilot is looking for traffic where he's headed in the pattern, not for
non standard entries such as pop-up breaks, particularly multi ship
where he's going to have tunnel vision on the lead he sees first and
will never see dash 2, 3, or 4. In the mean time, y'all come out to SW
Kansas or SE Colorado. I haven't done a "standard" entry for years at
home field! Talk about "uncontrolled" airspace!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Painter
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Yak-List: unicom, er, CTAF, position reports etc.
The home drome, Arlington Muni (KAWO), is an uncontrolled field.
Until about a year or so ago it was a nice sleepy little place where
most of the time you could enjoy the flying without a continuous babble
massaging your ear drums. I've been flying model airplanes, airplanes
and gliders here for more than forty years and have always loved the
relative tranquility, variety and creativity I think the lack of traffic
or authoritarian presence fosters. We even have a lot of formation
activity here--not a problem, adds to the variety and interest--though
I've never understood why some folks like to yank the power to zip off a
little low-inertia airplane in the middle of a low-speed, steep,
descending 360, 2-G, 1.4 Vso stall turn. But what do I know? I'm just
a dumb civilian trying to learn the ropes. See you next weekend at ARS
for continuing education I'm sure.
Last week I was flying with a student when some guy in a 182
started blathering away at and about someone else in a Mooney (purely
coincidental, I'm sure) who wasn't making radio calls in the pattern to
the satisfaction of the 182 driver. Nasty. Then the 182 guy announced
he was going to land against the flow, i.e., on 34 while everyone else
was landing 16. OK, if that's what you want, it is an "uncontrolled"
field, after all. Then he decides he's not going to land on the
pavement, he'll take the grass. OK, even better. Only the grass he
wanted to land on wasn't the grass runway (east of, parallel to and
adjacent to 34), a nice smooth patch, it was just "grass," on the west
side of 34, probably pretty rough, with a crossing taxiway to make it
interesting.
Anyway, I bring this up only because the 182 guy so busily
bad-mouthing the Mooney guy apparently believed it was his prerogative
(and is) to make an approach against the flow to a non-existent runway.
Superior airmanship sometimes has its rewards, I guess. Hey, its an
uncontrolled field, have at it. Finally, when it was pointed out that
he might be in for a little rougher rollout than probably expected, the
frequency was blessedly liberated from his ongoing diatribe about the
Mooney guy and he decided to go around and try again . . .
Rule #1: Shut up and fly, open your eyes and stop complaining
about the other guy. It takes two to have an argument or a mid-air.
Discretion really is the better part of valor. And, unfortunately,
sometimes there are stupid and ignorant folks out and about.
Occasionally I are wun. Maybe ewe R 2?
What happened about a year ago to disrupt the KAWO tranquility?
An operation called Silver State Helicopters moved in. I have nothing
against helicopters. I just don't like them (just kidding).
If you've ever been to the Seattle area you may have noticed
that occasionally our skies are a pleasant and relaxing shade of grey
and dry skin is seldom a problem for Seattle-area women, or anyone else
hereabouts. In fact, grey occasionally permeates everything, maybe even
most of the time--including Silver State's Robinsons, painted a nice
dark hue. Yes, they have little low-wattage strobes to differentiate
them from the raindrops on the glass and they recently decided to paint
one rotor blade white, which helps a little, after many, many complaints
that they were invisible and their continuous radio chatter didn't make
them any easier to see. They are really good at it testing the
observation skills of us fixed-wing types--which is probably good
training for all.
Why don't I like them? They not only go against the flow with
regularity, like the 182 guy, they insist on hover-taxiing the full
length of active runways while fixed-wings are approaching to land or
waiting to take off, hover-taxiing, landing and taking-off on taxiways
in the face of oncoming fixed-wing traffic, making left traffic instead
of right like everyone else, crossing active runways despite landing or
taking-off traffic etc. It is an uncontrolled field. To say nothing of
hovering right next to fixed-wings at the gas pump or on the ramp. Oh,
well. I once had a dust devil pick me and my Pawnee right up off the
ground (and a glider, too--wrecked it) while I was stationary, waiting
for a tow hookup, so I've got no complaints. So it goes.
But they are really good about making position calls. Lots of
them. Until Silver State showed up I never paid any attention to KAWO's
taxiway ID's (my bad), but thanks to their non-stop announcements I now
know the names of all of them. Thank you, Silver State. Another little
quirk (to me) is they seem to spend all of their training time in the
pattern, round and round, auto-rotation "emergency" approaches to a low
hover over a runway or taxiway every time. I don't know anything about
helicopters, but I'd never seen helicopters routinely (continuously,
actually) fly a rectangular pattern followed by a hover and go at a
runway or taxiway until they showed up. I always thought the great thing
about helicopters was you didn't need an airport. My education
continues.
Last weekend I was towing gliders and while re-entering the
pattern after a tow I was chastised by one of the chopper types for
failing to make a position call (actually, I had made the call, he
apparently wasn't listening or was busy transmitting at the same time I
was). No problem--I'm all in favor of position reports, sorry you
missed it, though I've never seen a microphone that could substitute for
open eyeballs.
Unfortuntely, the frequency has become thoroughly saturated with
position reports. I like position reports. I like even better to look
out for and see traffic, whether they're talking or not. I even like
enroute, approach, tower and ground controllers, though I like quiet
frequencies even better. I even like NORDO's. Better yet. Sometimes I
are one. However, I'm sure I'm not alone in noting that I've had
numerous seriously close calls while under the "control" and protection
of ATC in "controlled" airspace, on the ground, on the runway, in the
air. Likewise while enduring non-stop position reports. So it goes.
But when it gets to the point that people freely clutter an
already jammed frequency griping about imagined failures to comply with
non-existent rules and think non-stop chatter and complaining is a
superior substitute for open eyes and flying accordingly, with
discretion and harmony, something is amiss. Leave the road rage on the
highway.
Rule #2: See Rule #1. Education continueth apace.
Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
425-876-0865
FlyWBA.com
PS
Ernie, I hope you find your A&P. Have you called SAR? Or did
you get violated?
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 |
|
| Subject: | Overhead Approaches |
Attached is a letter from the CAF concerning Overhead Approaches. It may be
old, and a little hard to read, but still applicable. It contains a letter
of memorandum from the FAA concerning the legality of overhead approaches,
and their interpretation of low approaches.
Bottom line: Overhead approaches are not illegal. It is up to the pilot
to determine if they are safe in a particular situation or location. The
pattern information contained in the AIM is recommended, not regulatory.
It is best to use clear language to describe your actions to others that may
be in the pattern so that the uninitiated can safely anticipate what you
are going to do
Jeff Linebaugh
jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net
F1 Rocket #33 N240KT
Memphis, TN.
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: | Why Lead is so damn important! |
In 1982, there was disaster for the Thunderbirds, occurring during pre-season training
on January 18. While practicing the 4 plane diamond loop, the formation
impacted the ground at high speed, instantly killing all four pilots: Major
Norm Lowry, leader, Captain Willie Mays, Captain Pete Peterson and Captain Mark
Melancon. The cause of the crash was officially listed by the USAF as the result
of a mechanical problem with the #1 aircraft's control stick actuator. Despite
the fact that the accident investigative board had not uncovered any evidence
to support this theory, there was heavy pressure from the pilots' families
and top Air Force officials to arrive at this conclusion.[citation needed]
During formation flight, the wing and slot pilots visually cue off of the #1 lead
aircraft, completely disregarding their positions in relation to the ground.
In this accident, this is the root cause for all four aircraft impacting the
terrain, not just the lead jet with the problem.
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
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: | Overhead Approaches |
Linedogg,
That was the exact document that I was referring to. I just have not gotten
it scanned yet. To busy trying to fly the 50 I guess. Atleast that is my
excuse and sticking to it!
Anyway, at the top it is addressed from the national airshow director to the
FSDO's, regional airshow coordinators, ect. The argument used by some of the
EAA chapter members saw the addressee's and claimed this was only for
airshows. No matter that it was pointed out that there is a specific FAR
that covers the overhead pattern to these guys. They only want to use the
pattern recommended in the AIM. I did not help that our good friends at AOPA
came out with their guidelines for airport entry to an uncontrolled airport.
That pamplet has been freely distributed among the pilots on our airfield
and frequently quoted.
Now I just wait until the pattern is clear or has lightened up before
pressing in. If pressed for time, then I just enter the downwind only to
generally be frustrated by the bug smasher on 3 mile base-final turn!
Bottomline, use of the overhead pattern is not an illegal pattern entry. But
we can be "dead right" and still be dead. I am for using the overhead entry
because it personally gives me more time to scan the sky ahead hopefully
finding that guy on the 5 mile 45 degree pattern entry calling downwind to
umptyump uncontrolled air field. Who knows, he maybe a "heavy driver"
reverting to old habits! :>))
As the ol' Lindogg says, "fly safe out there." We all have to share the
airspace so prudence is the better part of valor. As much as we want to do
that cool overhead entry always be prepared to breakout and re-enter. Set
your Joker and Bingo fuels so you have some playtime in the pattern to allow
the uneducated or arrogant to get out of your way.
Doc
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Linebaugh
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:47 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Overhead Approaches
Attached is a letter from the CAF concerning Overhead Approaches. It may be
old, and a little hard to read, but still applicable. It contains a letter
of memorandum from the FAA concerning the legality of overhead approaches,
and their interpretation of low approaches.
Bottom line: Overhead approaches are not "illegal". It is up to the pilot
to determine if they are safe in a particular situation or location. The
pattern information contained in the AIM is "recommended", not regulatory.
It is best to use clear language to describe your actions to others that may
be in the pattern so that the "uninitiated" can safely anticipate what you
are going to do.
Jeff Linebaugh
jefflinebaugh@earthlink.net
F1 Rocket #33 N240KT
Memphis, TN.
Message 10
| 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: SNF Near Misses |
In a message dated 4/29/2007 3:01:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
yakplt@yahoo.com writes:
I think a little common sense is needed here.
#2 and #3 went around because lead did.
No. #2 & #3 went around because the Cessna was still on the runway.
Had they not..... there would have not been a close call.
There would not have been a close call if the Mooney had not taken off.
>From the approach end of runway 4 (the run up area) the entire length of 36 is
in view.
This was a formation factor.
This not formation factor.
Did Lead make a radio call when he went around?
Yes made the call for himself. I didn't hear #2 because he was NORDO. I
made a call also.
Was that call just for himself or for the whole flight?
See above. Don't forget we at this point we are separate aircraft.
When the whole flight went around, did they make radio calls or not?
(Normally, they would not, and we KNOW #2 did not as he was essentially NORDO)
This is again a formation issue.
When the Mooney took off, could he have possibly have heard Leads radio call
announcing his go-around and then with him clearly in sight, continued his
take-off not knowing at all that 2 more aircraft were also going to go around?
Was the go-around briefed?
Go-around are SOPs. Do you brief the go around for each pattern you fly,
each time you fly?
This appears to be more of a formation flight issue. It was JUST AS LEGAL
for that Mooney driver to not transmit as it was for the formation flight to
come in as they did. Each issue added to the fire.
So being "legal" is excuse for recklessness? You'll please remember, we
had broke into the down wind behind the Cessna. We were no different than
three other aircraft (Piper, Cessna, Mooney) in the down wind at that point.
Lead and I made calls 'base to final, 3 greens and pressure'.
Fact: Everyone was fat dumb and happy with cloth ear" pilots flying "spam
cans" at Zephyrhills all day long. Then two formation flights showed up. Soon
after that things went to crap.
You don't know that. There were 20 Yaks and CJs up there. None of the
other flights had any problems other than ours and one other. The rest of the
so
called "spam-cans" were operating pretty much SOP. Departure out of there
was not a problem at all.
Clearly, it was the cloth ear pilots and spam cans fault, and had very
little to do with the arrival of the formation flights? Sorry, I have to disagree
It seem to me you have an issue with formation flying. Like us 'civilians'
shouldn't be allowed to do it? But that's our privilege (not our right).
The fact that we go out and train and practice and take a flight check put us
up one notch above the guy who don't. It not a matter of "playing fighter
pilot". But a lot of ex fighter jocks, like the comrade ship of the group.
99% of the time we go into non-controlled airports with no problem at all.
This particular day, we ran into a Cessna pilot with poor skills. There was
no need to confront him on the ground. He had to have seen the aircraft
going around over him. The Mooney pilot is another story. Using or not using
a
radio may have been "legal" but to not visually clear and check traffic is
reckless operation.
Mediocrity thy name is Spam Can. If it seem us warbird types decry Cessna,
Piper, or Mooney pilots as possible Piraeus, let's look at the numbers. Let
us assume that in every pilot group, 10% are really "du fuses". With over
30,000 Pipers, Cessna, or Mooney aircraft hopping around that means there maybe
3,000 jerks airborne. If the warbird group has (guessing 1,000 aircraft
flying) that means 100 pilots. If we run into a piss poor pilot guess what type
of aircraft he will most likely be flying? It's just numbers and common
sense. No need to get bent out of shape.
At the chance of sounding arrogant, our formation went the way it should
have. If #2 had not been NORDO, he would have caught my first call on the
Mooney and never came near him. If the Cessna had cleared the runway in a normal
expeditious manner, we would not have had to go around. If the Mooney had
been listening up on the frequency and visually checked the area, he would not
have taken off when he did.
To blame this whole thing on the fact we were flying formation to began
with? BS.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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! --
|