flying dog

It would seem I have opened a can of worms here, and am more being told what REALLY HAPPENED by people who seem to know better than me. From a very early post here is something I wrote: "Seperation now told to be about 600m horizontal 400m vertical" There are two words there no one seems to understand: Told - I was given this information from someone else. NOTHING MORE will be said to whom this is/was. ABOUT - an approximation. This was a projection made from all known data available. So, again: If anyone has inforation which is MORE ACCURATE than that which I have presented: Put it here NOW.

The report is in. I am simply updating the facts here as I get more/new ones. I shall (again) state: It is not really my concern. I am mearly reporting it here with the intention of educating people with a story of what happened to me and what I have learnt.

The information in this post is given on a time line. I stated what I knew. Then as more information came to hand from people, I posted/updated what was known. I can only repeat what information is given to me. If it is right, good. If it is wrong, well, so be it. However, I do not speculate on what happened. The mode - be it C or D - is petty. After the fact, I asked Sydney if there was another plane and they said they didn't see any. That was THEN. This is NOW. Initial inestigation gave me sepeartion data - though not reliable. Further invesigation revealed that there was a plane there but with their transponder turned OFF - or not sending clear data. Subsequently they were not a good paint on the screen. This all seems Deja Vous from the pervious posts. I am not going to elaborate from where I am getting this data. It is beyond the scope of the quesiton and my "concern". Suffice to say I trust it and believe it to be accurate. If you have BETTER information, place it on the table. Until then, to me it is irrifutable.

Who here has heard of the game which is called Chineese Whispers? It is where someone starts a story and passes it on. As it is passed from person to person each of them embelishes it with their own "spin" of the story. So by the end it hardly resembles what was first said. Ok, final update from me on what happened: I was talking to Sydney about another plane at my 3-4 O'clock. My position was identified. After that and while monitoring the other plane, another (third) plane flew infront of me. All I saw was a flash. A "Blink and you miss it" moment. I again spoke with Sydney and they said they didn't see anything. What was happening: This "third plane" was "visible" to them, but only as a paint. The plane's transponder was NOT in mode D, and the paint was coming and going from the screen. So: I fully understand why they said they didn't see any plane, and I am not upset with them. If the plane is not sending the data, how can I expect the person sitting looking at a screen to know any better. None of this SUPPOSED talking with Sydney, cleared to Camden, and so on. There isn't really any more to say from this end.

There are more holes in that than Swiss cheese. Read next post.

So anyway, is it the Yanks have different ground signals than we do? Coz her "Move forward" signal is not what I was told it should look like.

Dunno. I'll be at Wanaka.

You may like the enthusiasum she displays. Sorry if it is stuttery.

With the bagging I am getting, I don't think so. Sheesh, it would seem I am at fault. NO I AM AN RAA PILOT. How am I supposed to know all these GA/CPL terms and how they apply to me when flying? (Hands in the air. I give up.)

Yes, LOOK OUT! However, this nearly typifies a big problem. I was LOOKING OUT at this other plane who was also NOT ON FREQUENCY. This is part 1 of a chain of events which nearly lead to a collision. I can't do the maths just now, but me at 110 kts and them at probably more at 90 degrees to me, the closing velocity would be high. 400, 600, right angle triangle.... That would be just over 600 metres seperation. (Thinking of the 4,5,6 rightangle triangle. If you make it 4,6, the other 6 wouldn't be much bigger) At those speeds it wouldn't be that long a time frame to cover. As stated: I'm still alive. This is a lesson for others.

Merve, And others, Irrispective of all the legal stuff, this is my "concern": 1 - I was in G airspace. So it is "free for all" below 5,000 feet. 2 - Above that there are levels at which we should fly. I say should, because I don't want to preach the rules. 3 - I was on 124.55 and had discussed my position, heading and altitude with Centre/Radar. It was "common knowledge" for anyone on that frequency. The other plane at my 3 O'Clock should also have heard my asking and MAYBE piped up and informed me they were not going to get too close. 4 - This "other plane" SHOULD have heard me talking to Centre/Radar and heard my position and realised there was a possible conflict/collision and either: Held their altitude, announced their position so I could avoid them, or descended a bit quicket to pass below me. From what happened they did NONE of these. NONE! They were (probably) on a different frequency, had the radio turned off, or "playing silly buggers" and just doing what they wanted. That is THEIR BUSINESS. However, because of factors controlled by them, I was put in a dangerous situation. I want other people to know of this to learn by it.

I was confirming my position because I saw another plane near by and they asked me to skwark ID so they could see me and look for the other plane. I don't expect anything from them. I appreciate where their obligations lie/lye/(how ever it is spelt). I had a transponder and it was on ALT. Though it is both our responsibilities to keep an eye out for each other, from the events which happened: They were not listening to 124.55. The information supplied here is to help ALL people understand what happened and hopfully learn how to avoid it. Thanks, no I won't include the -ish in the report. However, here I am being as honest and open as possible.

When above 5000: I thought it was East Odds + 500 West Evens + 500 It is stange I was talking to Radar and confirming my position - Squark ident (etc) - and they didn't say, "Hey, we see a plane at your 9 O'clock at 6,500 on a converging course. The other plane (at the 3 O'Clock) was BELOW me which was kind of nice. No worries for me anyway, I'm still here. But after said incident I asked Radar and they weren't interested. Ok, I can understand that, but what IS interesting is no one else came back and said, "Sorry! That was us. Hope you are ok." I'm now submitting an incident form.

Slight update: Details: Jab 230 - 1 POB 25 Feb 2012 09:30-ish 10 NM south of YKAT Flying north (340) from Oaks to Katoomba (en-route) 6,500-ish Watching another plane on right below but on "Converging course". Scanning: them, front window. Cycling. Looked out front window: Green blur. Twin engine low wing heading EAST! Probably descending. Seperation now told to be about 600m horizontal 400m vertical. Other plane flew to Camdem. Underpants colour: Take a guess. Na. but it was an eye opener.

So is anyone else from here going?

You wonder how they could keep straight faces. Though you can see them nearly lose it a couple of times. Yeah, those were the days!

Ok, a bit of a story from me with "Which runway", radio calls, and "NOT doing what others are doing". Years ago I was flying at Cobden. Main runway 18/36 and there was a fly in. I had taken off and flown down and done an early morning flight along the coast. Dropped in to Warnembool (Spelling?) to get some fuel and the wind was not on any strip. I flew back to Cobden and the wind was 270 at about 30kts. I was in a Jab LSA. All the planes were using 18. It was not going to be nice but I could handle it at a push. Then someone said there was an East/West runway at the Northern end - though it was grass and SHORT! Also there were power lines near the threashold. I decided to use that instead and so made the call. Extended downwind to allow the couple of planes on final to land and the other planes to open a whole for me to land. I turned base then final. Frantically scanning for the power lines - luckily they had the big plastic balls on the, so they weren't too hard to find. The wind gusting didn't help or make it easy, so flaps were kept in. I cleared the power lines and started to descend more, ready for the runway, but then saw a fence between this paddock and the actual runway. A slight pull back on the stick facilitated a slight jump/bump/climb over the fence and the plane landed without a problem, and somewhat quickly because of the head wind. A few of the people had come up to watch this "silly person" use the other runway. They were quite impressed, though, with my landing and how I had actually gone against the others and used the "better" runway.

J170, Gee that is crittical. These things happened. The facts are gethered and presented to us. The other fact is that until something happens "we" don't know of the hidden dangers. Thus they are "hidden" dangers. Our intelligence is only limited to what we know. We can't know everything. Yes it is sad that people die because of these crashes but as is said in the episodes: This helps educate future people/pilots of the problems and helps them understand how to avoid making the same mistake/s.

Well, I guess "hourses for courses" I don't see anything wrong with them. Although they sometimes "drill down on petty things" I think it is more that they are actually showing the REAL things which happened. Like a VERY specific thing which a passenger does/says/etc. As the shows are constructed from real life events, if someone did something and it was "recorded" I think in some ways it is an honour for/to that person who was involved. It also shows you the "Traps" to watch out for when flying and not making the same mistake as was done in that episode. Sure we don't fly the big ones, but some mistakes transend to all planes/aircraft.

There is a new series of Air Crash Investigation? There have been 3 episodes shown already. (Pay TV) Tuesday nights 20:30.

Yeah, that is ONE way. The instructions I posted were not the same. Your way you have to read the G/S from the centre GROMIT. My way you read the TAS from the GROMIT - and so the G/S is shown at/on the pencil line. Your way, every time you change heading, you have to slide the wheel so the TAS - which is constant - is on/under the pencil mark. EASY TO MAKE MISTAKES. The way I discribed reduces the need to slide the wheel. These two ways seem to work. Bu&&ered if I know why. No one can tell me. Anyway, back in 1988 (That long ago!) The thing I bought had its instructions written one way, and the instructor was advoating the way you discribed. Talk about confusing! So, really it hasn't helped me. I know both ways work. But I don't know why.

Update to my update:Ok, I tried to scan and OCR the text, it seems it isn't going to happen. Here is an extract from the manual. QUOTE (excuse any spelling mistakes, I am touch typing it in real time) Solution to type 1 wind triangles Given: Wind directio 45 deg Wind speed 20 mph true heading 276 deg true airspeed 130 mph Find: true course ground speed Solution: See fig 1 (yeah ok.) 1 - set wind direction (45 deg) opposite true heading index by rotating compass ring. 2 - move slide so as to place any conveninet whole number under grommet (centre of rotating disc) 3 - Draw a line from the grommet 20 units (10 spaces) placing an arrow at the end of the wind line. (Strange they don't specify the direction - but it it TOWARDS YOU) 4 - Rotate compass ring so that the true deading (276 deg) is opposite the true heading index. 5 - move slide so that the true airspeed (130 mph) is under the grommet 6 - ground speed (144 mph) is read at the end of the wind arrow along the speed circle. 7 - since the wind is fro the right, the drift is left (6 deg). The end of the wind arrow is 6 spaces to the left of the true eading-airspeed line. 8 - Opposite 6 divisions to the left of the true heading index, read true course (270 deg). Now, thinking about it again, it may be right. What I was "reading" was it showed you your course to steer. But obviously it doesn't. Somehow I think I should stop digging (talking) as it would now seem that things are "correct". However, I am still stuck on the other way the school told us to do things which was as confusing as.... And probably didn't help me pass the exams. As I said, I shall shut up now.

Bruce, thanks. I hope it helps me. (But I've been told many MANY times: I'm beyond help!)

I wasn't meaning for them to send you your information back. If the "wrong" person got the renewal notice they couldn't do much with it as when the had to send their piccie (or more so YOUR picture) they couldn't. Unless they are your twin.

Ok, semi-serious question: Every two years we have to re-apply for them. It is painful filling out all the details which were given last time. Why can't they simplify it in that if you have a card and are "re-newing" it, a simple question: Have you become a terrorist in the last two years? Y/N As "they" already have your Name, address, employer, DOB, country of birth, etc etc etc. All that can change is "very little". So if you haven't moved, changed name or anything like that: Why do you need to repeat the information to them which they already have? I know there is the theory that the card is a money raiser for people. I won't go into that. But either way, it would save a lot of paperwork, ink and people's time if there were no changes in the last two years you simply tick NO and submit the photos and required ID photocopies. Oh, and the money. Just wondering.