Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:01 AM - Re: unicom, er, CTAF, position reports etc. (Craig Payne)
2. 04:40 AM - Re:Points of logic by Mark and Jill (Cliff Umscheid)
3. 06:18 AM - FW: Fly In Posters-08A May 5th (Roger Kemp M.D.)
4. 07:49 AM - Baklan 5 radio replacement (Jill Gernetzke)
5. 08:23 AM - Yak-50 / MT props (Richard Goode)
6. 10:45 AM - Re: Overhead Approaches (A. Dennis Savarese)
7. 03:44 PM - thoughts from the peeping Smash (Sarah Tobin)
8. 04:16 PM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
9. 05:35 PM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (cjpilot710@aol.com)
10. 06:53 PM - Dissertations (Joe Enzminger)
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: unicom, er, CTAF, position reports etc. |
Jerry,
There is a Silver State helicopter op here at Lakeland as well. Consolidation in
the training industry I guess. We have a tower here and at any given time there
may be a many as four R-22's in the pattern named Silver State 1 through 4.
Obviously students as tower has to bust their chops every time they bust a restriction,
miss calls, or overfly aircraft taxiing.
During the runup to Sun n Fun, I monitored tower while working in my hanger. Amazing
the number of folks that weren't sure what their position was from the airport
or the difference between Right and Left parallel runways. Throw in "Right
downwind for 9R" or "Left downwind for 9L" and they are lost.
There were 2 fatals from the same crash. 2 Ohio folks stall/spun a newly completed
Wheeler Express on base-to-final turn. Also a 1937 Monocoupe pancaked into
the runway from 20 feet. Pilot was OK but there went another piece of history.
Throw in a rash of ground loops to round out the event. As always, the incident
level went up at nearby airports.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
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:Points of logic by Mark and Jill |
I have followed the thread of pattern conflict and formation procedure .
Let me offer an observation. The submissions by Mark and Jill are good
examples of pure and good unbiased logic --free of snobbery, free of
the arrogance born of a superiority complex and a "we-they'"
perspective. These submissions are refreshing in an otherwise field of
snobbery to the point of arrogance. The goals of RPA are lofty and well
designed to promote pilot proficiency, good operating procedure and
safety. Some vociferous luminaries within the organization, however,
appear to have evolved to the point of a presumption of command ownership
of the national airspace. There must be room in their culture to
acknowledge the rightful entitlement of others to use the airspace on an
equal standing., even if faced with a less than stellar performance by
a bone headed, low time , Cessna 152 driver. By all means, continue the
pursuit of training toward the point of excellence but keep a measure of
tolerence and a sharp eye out for the unexpected actions of those of
lesser judgement and experience.
Pappy Goolsby has publicly stated that I am"lder than dirt",
perhaps in the eyes of some, but I'd have to be this old to possess a
license which requires two pages to list all the type ratings and over
40,000 hours (by the grace of God) without hurting anyone or bending any
tin. If we
are to evolve at all, let's shed the blinders of self rightious
superiority . The next time you hear good callouts from a spam can
driver, go up to him when he's tying down and compliment him on his
procedure. He'll appreciate it, you'll feel good and you will have
created a very attentive joint user of the airspace from that point on.
Cliff Umscheid, YAK 50
.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:00:34 -0700 Jill Gernetzke <jill@m-14p.com>
writes:
>
> Group,
>
> I have been reading the discussion on the near misses this morning.
>
> First off, I am not military. I am not a high time pilot either.
> My
> first solo flight was into Bradley Sky Ranch in North Pole, AK - a
>
> gravel airstrip, uncontrolled field. As I was landing my Aeronca
> Chief
> with no radios or lights, there was another aircraft landing the
> other
> way. Having no option for a go around, I chopped power, landed and
>
> pulled the airplane off into the weeds. When I worked out at Gesoco
> in
> Swanton, we had a group of ultra-lighters known as the "Fright
> Boys".
> One had to ALWAYS be on alert. Every field I flew off of in Florida
>
> was uncontrolled: Kay Larkin, Eagle's Nest, Flagler. I can assure
> you
> that "spammers" do not know what you guys are talking about. My
> follow
> up is "Why should they???". I may piss some people off here, but I
> see
> a level of arrogance in thinking that "civilians" or "Spammers" must
>
> tow the line when you are in town. I am trying to play devil's
> advocate, here. If a group of you travel to Shakhty, Russia, go to
> the
> outdoor market and ask for a fresh loaf of rye bread in English,
> should
> that little old lady with the babushka on her head be expected to
> understand you? As with any good relationship, clear communication
> is
> the key. These "spammers" right or wrong were probably doing what
> they
> always do at that airport. I think a bit of prudence could go a
> long
> way. I think Mark has made some very good points.
>
> The other night we had a deputy speaking to a citizen's group. He
> made
> the comment about "you civilians". Carl quickly asked him what
> branch
> of the military the sheriff's department belonged to. The deputy's
>
> response is that was they way they were trained to think. Joe
> Citizen
> does not see it that way and he is correct. I don't think you are
> doing anyone a service by looking down your noses at "spammers".
> Remember, you were there once and probably did some pretty dumb
> things.
>
> In conclusion, I would like to ask what would have been the probable
>
> legal outcome had there been a midair in either situation? Who
> would
> have been at fault? How much liability does the group and
> individuals
> have in this situation? Is there any legal counsel with RPA that
> would like to offer up an opinion?
>
>
> Jill
> M-14P, Incorporated
> 4905 Flightline Drive
> Kingman, AZ 86401 -7417
> (928)-681-4400
> Fax(928)681-4404
> www.m-14p.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | FW: Fly In Posters-08A May 5th |
For the YAK/CJ drivers in the southeast, attached is the flyer for
Wetumpka's fly-in on 5 May 07. Details are also posted under the airshow tab
on the RPA website.
Doc
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: | Baklan 5 radio replacement |
Group,
I would like to know the good, bad and ugly from Yak 52 owners that
have replaced their Baklan 5 radios. I personally encourage people to
keep the Russian radio, as it is a very good unit.
I have some customers right now that own a 52 and want to know what
their radio options are in converting to a U.S. unit. Any input is
greatly appreciated. I am particularly interested in the time and
hassle to convert over and ultimately a comparison on performance.
Thank you.
Jill Gernetzke
M-14P, Incorporated
4905 Flightline Drive
Kingman, AZ 86401 -7417
(928)-681-4400
Fax(928)681-4404
www.m-14p.com
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: | Yak-50 / MT props |
Yak-50 / MT props.
The first and simple, answer is that the 260cm prop is fine for 50s.
Certainly it is longer than the 2-blade prop - 4 inches ground clearance
to be precise - but there is a lot of clearance, particularly if you
always land AND take-off in the 3-point attitude.
We have fitted these props to many 50s with never a problem.
However, for 18T / 52 my personal view is that you would be unwise to go
to a 260, although I know a couple of people who have. Probably ok
operating off tarmac with smooth landings.
Selling MT props, I am obviously biased, but they do significantly add
to performance; smoothness, purely apart from the subjective issue of
looks.
Also the fact that virtually ALL the competitors at European and World
Aerobatic Championships use MT props must say something.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
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: Overhead Approaches |
I completely agree with Doc and Jeff. When you DO get challenged about
your overhead approach, ask the person challenging you if they have ever
crossed mid-field into the downwind at an uncontrolled field. Then ask,
why is that any more acceptable (or more safe) than the overhead break
into the downwind? Maybe because from the mid-field crossing into the
downwind you only make a 90 degree turn? I don't think so! The subject
will switch very quickly to, "Well, maybe so, but what does "on a 2 mile
initial" mean? Then it will turn to "This is not a military field and
you shouldn't be making military type approaches." Ask "why not?" The
answers you will get are everything from soup to nuts. The bottom line
is those who fly standard, rectangular patterns regardless of whether
their downwind is 2 miles from the airport, don't want you flying any
so-called "non-standard" approach.
Doc and I along with the other Yak's flying in and out of our airfield
have been dealing with this for well over 2 years. We have taken the
initiative to try and educate (hasn't done a whole lot of good) and to
do everything possible to deconflict in every possible way, both in the
air AND on the ground, with those that refuse to accept the fact that
what we do is not against FAA regulations. Some of these so-called
"fellow aviators" have even put anonomous phone calls (read-no balls)
into our FSDO and complained about the Yaks doing this and the Yaks
doing that. It's the visability that we don't want within the FSDO.
Maybe the next time we enter the airport area in a 3 or 4 ship, we'll be
at 500' above pattern altitude with our standard 5 second break and THEN
take the flight away from the airport to enter a normal 45 degree entry
into the downwind, in trail. I can hear it now.... "The Yaks are
taking up the entire traffic pattern and we had to do 360's just to get
in on the 45 to downwind."
IMHO, one thing we must always be cognizant of is the fact that we are
the exception and not the rule and we have to be ready and willing to
"knock it off" if the situation has even the slightest potential for
danger. God forbid if one of use is involved in scraping paint (or
worse) with a Cessna, Piper, Beech etc. at an uncontrolled field.
The visibility because of our type of aircraft will reek havoc on our
community. Every one of us is an ambassador for our type of aircraft
AND our friends who fly them. None of our egos, and we all have them,
should be too big to say, "knock it off". Better to do that and to fly
again another day.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: 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
To: Yak-List@Matronics. Com
Subject: Yak-List: =ashBack] 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 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: | thoughts from the peeping Smash |
I have been reading all of the back n forth on the near miss issue and rather than
get defensive or place blame, I think everyone needs to look in the mirror
for a second and think about the last time they were affected by a similar situation,
either of your own doing, or someone elses. My guess is that it was
probably in the last year, if you fly with any frequency.
I think about coming into the pattern, like being a motorcycle driver. Even
if you wear protective gear, run with your lights on during the day, have loud
pipes, been through a motorcycle safety course, etc. Some dumn A$$ can still
run into you with his pickup and kill you, cuz he isn't paying attention and
doesn't see you. Lost an 20 year old A1C last night due to this very scenario.
My point is, expect stupidity, and then you won't be surprised when a dude
doesn't follow SOP. Defensive flying guys....
Smash
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
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: SNF Near Misses |
Excuse me, but I have to reply yet once again on this topic. It seems
this whole thing is degenerating into a contest of "he said" "she said",
and that is not the place I wanted to end up with this conversation.
I admit that I can easily be enticed into a verbal argument, because
there is a part of me that loves a good debate, just for the heck of it.
On the other hand, such arguments are best left off-line and not in
front of the whole world for them to either get bored with, or in the
worst case, angry with. This topic is moving in a bad direction, so I
am going to make a strong effort to not respond further after this last
message. The points have been made, both pro and con. Readers can come
up with their own conclusions to this issue. Many have understood the
general points I have been trying to make. Others have viewed what I
have said as some sort of personal attack and have responded
accordingly.
Pappy, I do not have an issue with you. I respect your many hours of
flight time and experience. I also am not trying to cast personal
dispersions towards you or anyone else. Further, I have talked to some
of the people that were there, besides hearing your own personal
account. I have a HUGE respect for you personally and your piloting
abilities in general.
That said, I draw the line when you start putting words in my mouth.
Comments like this one: "It seem to me you have an issue with formation
flying. Like us 'civilians' shouldn't be allowed to do it?"
Sir, that comment is purely unfounded and is very aggressive. I have
stated since day one that I support formation flying. I have never said
one word against formation flying in general or specifically. What I
have said is that I find fault with the attitude from SOME formation
pilots that the formation flight must be continued at all costs. That
there never is a logical reason to knock it off. I also find fault with
anyone who points to other peoples mistakes without first listing their
own. My response, that you currently are objecting to, was written
with that fact in mind, nothing else.
I agree with you 100% that being legal is not an excuse for being
reckless. And like loyalty, that is a phase that is pointed at both
ends. There is no question that the Mooney driver should have called on
the radio and should not have been part of a new mid-air. It is also
clear that your flight made a large number of errors as well, as you
have clearly pointed out in one of your postings. Thank you.
Further, I do not approve of the term "cloth ear" or "Spam Can" being
used to describe other pilots that the writer has never even met
personally. Especially when used by supposedly professional trained
pilots that are speaking in public and Sir, that includes you as well as
the next guy. If my viewpoint in that regards angers you, I am sorry.
I simply do not believe in using "labels" towards fellow pilots. Maybe
it is ok for anyone to joke in private. We all should keep in mind that
a lot of people read this list and not all of them are RPA members.
Pappy you said this: " 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."
I strongly disagree, and do in fact feel that it is worth getting "bent
out of shape" about. I see danger in "warbird types" breaking themselves
apart from the pilot population at large, and think that the fact that
they are fortunate enough to fly an aircraft of this nature makes them
something special. The same goes for formation pilots. The same goes
for aerobatic pilots. I believe that the "US" and "THEM" viewpoint is
something to be avoided, and that it leads to an unhealthy and possibly
unsafe attitude. To wit: Arrogance, thy name is warbird driver". You
are special when others define you that way, not when you define
yourself.
Pappy, you went on to say: "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."
You're putting words into my mouth again. I DID NOT BLAME THIS WHOLE
THING ON YOUR FORMATION FLIGHT.
And "if" a cow had balls, she'd be a bull.
What I did say, and I will say again, is that your formation flight was
part of the problem and that it might have been worthwhile to consider
"KNOCKING IT OFF" as one of MANY recommendations for how to keep it from
happening again.
THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL. My response postings have been made to folks
that I felt just could not accept the above as a viable option as well
as everything else, along with folks that tended to blame it all on the
Mooney, or referred to that pour soul as a "Spam Can", etc. etc.
Above all, the one thing that you said that really caught my attention,
and I ADMIT that I am taking it out of context, was simply this
(emphasis mine): "AT THE CHANCE OF SOUNDING ARROGANT, OUR FORMATION WENT
THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE".
No further comment.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 23:57
Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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 AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
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: SNF Near Misses |
In a message dated 4/30/2007 7:18:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mark.bitterlich@navy.mil writes:
I hate e-mail discussion. The written word (at least for me) never can
convey the personal intent nor one's personal integrity. It is to easy to pick
the unmeant or hurtful meaning, if the reader feels under attack. Those that
can write without the reader misunderstanding are in the annuals of time as
such. Not me though and I should know better. End of discussion for me. I'm
going to go play with my grand kids.
Jim "Pappy' Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Excuse me, but I have to reply yet once again on this topic. It seems
this whole thing is degenerating into a contest of "he said" "she said",
and that is not the place I wanted to end up with this conversation.
I admit that I can easily be enticed into a verbal argument, because
there is a part of me that loves a good debate, just for the heck of it.
On the other hand, such arguments are best left off-line and not in
front of the whole world for them to either get bored with, or in the
worst case, angry with. This topic is moving in a bad direction, so I
am going to make a strong effort to not respond further after this last
message. The points have been made, both pro and con. Readers can come
up with their own conclusions to this issue. Many have understood the
general points I have been trying to make. Others have viewed what I
have said as some sort of personal attack and have responded
accordingly.
Pappy, I do not have an issue with you. I respect your many hours of
flight time and experience. I also am not trying to cast personal
dispersions towards you or anyone else. Further, I have talked to some
of the people that were there, besides hearing your own personal
account. I have a HUGE respect for you personally and your piloting
abilities in general.
That said, I draw the line when you start putting words in my mouth.
Comments like this one: "It seem to me you have an issue with formation
flying. Like us 'civilians' shouldn't be allowed to do it?"
Sir, that comment is purely unfounded and is very aggressive. I have
stated since day one that I support formation flying. I have never said
one word against formation flying in general or specifically. What I
have said is that I find fault with the attitude from SOME formation
pilots that the formation flight must be continued at all costs. That
there never is a logical reason to knock it off. I also find fault with
anyone who points to other peoples mistakes without first listing their
own. My response, that you currently are objecting to, was written
with that fact in mind, nothing else.
I agree with you 100% that being legal is not an excuse for being
reckless. And like loyalty, that is a phase that is pointed at both
ends. There is no question that the Mooney driver should have called on
the radio and should not have been part of a new mid-air. It is also
clear that your flight made a large number of errors as well, as you
have clearly pointed out in one of your postings. Thank you.
Further, I do not approve of the term "cloth ear" or "Spam Can" being
used to describe other pilots that the writer has never even met
personally. Especially when used by supposedly professional trained
pilots that are speaking in public and Sir, that includes you as well as
the next guy. If my viewpoint in that regards angers you, I am sorry.
I simply do not believe in using "labels" towards fellow pilots. Maybe
it is ok for anyone to joke in private. We all should keep in mind that
a lot of people read this list and not all of them are RPA members.
Pappy you said this: " 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."
I strongly disagree, and do in fact feel that it is worth getting "bent
out of shape" about. I see danger in "warbird types" breaking themselves
apart from the pilot population at large, and think that the fact that
they are fortunate enough to fly an aircraft of this nature makes them
something special. The same goes for formation pilots. The same goes
for aerobatic pilots. I believe that the "US" and "THEM" viewpoint is
something to be avoided, and that it leads to an unhealthy and possibly
unsafe attitude. To wit: Arrogance, thy name is warbird driver". You
are special when others define you that way, not when you define
yourself.
Pappy, you went on to say: "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."
You're putting words into my mouth again. I DID NOT BLAME THIS WHOLE
THING ON YOUR FORMATION FLIGHT.
And "if" a cow had balls, she'd be a bull.
What I did say, and I will say again, is that your formation flight was
part of the problem and that it might have been worthwhile to consider
"KNOCKING IT OFF" as one of MANY recommendations for how to keep it from
happening again.
THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL. My response postings have been made to folks
that I felt just could not accept the above as a viable option as well
as everything else, along with folks that tended to blame it all on the
Mooney, or referred to that pour soul as a "Spam Can", etc. etc.
Above all, the one thing that you said that really caught my attention,
and I ADMIT that I am taking it out of context, was simply this
(emphasis mine): "AT THE CHANCE OF SOUNDING ARROGANT, OUR FORMATION WENT
THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE".
No further comment.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 23:57
Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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 AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
I am always amazed at the fact that I used to hate writing English papers in high
school but yet I have no problem writing 2000 words on the topic of the day
when flying is concerned. I didn't get very good grades in English, though,
so take what you read next with a grain of salt.
I operate out of an uncontrolled field with a very active contingent of formation
pilots. There are three reasons why I'd like to chime in on the topic of formation
flying and the average General Aviation Pilot. First, I have been in
the aformentioned situation (formation conflict with another aircraft) many times,
as recently as last week. Second, our group recently had an incident (on
the taxiway thank God), that serves to remind us that what we do is very dangerous
and that even a moment's inattention regardless of past experience combined
with the slightest unexpected circumstance can at the very least damage an
airplane and at the worst kill people. And third, until a few years ago I was
a typical General Aviation pilot, and, yes, I did swear a few times at those
formation jerks barreling into the pattern in non-standard ways.
>From the standpoint of making the two viewpoints merge a little bit, the solution
is education. It wasn't until I started formation flying that I came to realize
just how hard it is to safely manuever a 4-ship formation into the pattern
at an uncontrolled field is, and with that perspective I was a bit more willing
to yield the right of way when I heard or saw one coming in. When I am
leading a formation I'm also a bit more defensive and willing to adapt when bringing
a flight into the field. If there is an airplane that I can't positively
communicate with and ascertain intentions from, I simply fly to avoid. It
does suck to know you are burning four times more fuel than the other guy, but
that's the best way to handle things while you're in the air. If I happen to
get a chance to talk about it on the ground (which doesn't happen as much as
it should), I think the best way to handle it would be to introduce yourself,
explain what happened and what you would have liked to have seen go another way,
and offer to take them up on an orientation flight so they can see what it's
like. We are a pretty hard group to break into (you have to own a really cool
airplane or two), so a little reaching out on our part is probably a good idea.
The "spam canners", etc. are all a part of life. Everyone has to start somewhere
and you can't assume that they are as smart or as good as you are (or necessarily
should be). It would be great to have overhead approaches and terminology
be part of the basic PPL Practical Test Standards, but for the average 40
hour new pilot just keeping the basics in his or her head and the airplane upright
at the same time is a lot to handle, and although many of us might not remember
being that green, I'm confident we all were at one time or another. I'm
a relatively low time pilot, but I hope to have thousands and thousands of hours
someday. However, everyone needs to remember that while experience counts,
it can also lead you to do things that a less seasoned pilot might consider
foolhardy. There are lots of airplane crashes with high-time pilots at the controls,
and what we do in our airplanes certainly increases the risk. The premiere
formation demo team in the world - a team that practices every day leading
up to the show season and has nothing but experienced professional aviators
flying in a sanitized environment - lost a great pilot doing what most of us
would consider fairly routine in our formation flying - a rejoin.
Perhaps an effort on the FAST signatories' part to try to educate the GA public
about how to handle flying in the same airspace as a formation would be a good
idea. It would be interesting to see if one of the major GA magazines would
run an article about how our operations work so that at least we can get the
word out. I know that at our own field we are starting to grow to the point where
we are going to have to figure out how to play nice with the other folks
or we are going to lose our ability to do what we want when the tower comes.
We're going to have to do that locally, why not try to figure out how to do it
nationally as well?
Drat - only 743 words. Back to work.
Joe Enzminger
T-34 Association FAST Administrator
CJ-6 N700YK (with new paint)
T-34 N520HT (without....)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=110139#110139
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! --
|