Message-ID: <36260878.4BBE@ibm.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:36:40 -0500
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: NO WIND NO RULES-SCARES ME (long)
References: <36212A74.77502E73@theramp.net> <mUaU1.531$ur3.2001041@news.rdc1.tx.home.com> <36215320.2840@ibm.net> <83xU1.968$ur3.2718731@news.rdc1.tx.home.com> <6vu8kb$pv1$1@newshost.ihighway.net> <3622D84C.461@ibm.net> <7003o6$irm$1@newshost.ihighway.net> <362409EE.F6C3F414@ameritech.net> <702gkh$cov$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36252BFE.DAF60157@ameritech.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.72.212.111
X-Trace: 15 Oct 1998 16:58:51 GMT, 166.72.212.111
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 146
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!166.72.212.111
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:35527

Dave Stadt wrote:
 
> Actually it wasn't meant to be cute but to prevent folks from 
> blindly following controller instructions.

Good point, Dave.  In fact, the closest I've come to a midair (to
date, knock wood) was in training at a (radar) controlled airport, 
where I started to blithly obey a controller instruction to turn final
and land in front of a Mooney coming in straight and hot.  My CFI
took over (one of only two times during training he touched the
controls without my request), threw in full power, did a climbing
360 then told tower what we were doing and why.  Otherwise I would
have blindly become a Mooney spinner ornament.  I'm sure the 
controller would have been very sorry, but we would have been very
dead.  Never hand your head over to ATC.

My newsserver is missing a couple of articles on this thread,
but this is evidently a response to Hilton asserting that the
largest number of midair collision accidents occur near non-
towered airports in VFR conditions:

> > In article <362409EE.F6C3F414@ameritech.net>,
> >   dhstadt@ameritech.net wrote:
> > > Do the accident statistics back this?

With all respect, I don't think that's the right question. 
Assuming for the moment that accident statistics DO back this
(I'm curious now, so I might look into this myself, but it doesn't
seem unlikely to me--I mean, statistically, accidents seem most
likely to occur where there is the largest concentration of airplanes
with the least help locating and separating them ie near non-towered
airports): it doesn't address the point I was trying to raise.

In article <6vu8kb$pv1$1@newshost.ihighway.net>, Hilton said:
"Another name for non-towered airport is uncontrolled airport; 
 i.e out of control airport."

and suggested that in response:

3.  ASSUME there is a bozo up there delibrately trying to sneek up on
     you and kill you.
4.  ASSUME every other pilot is an absolute jerk.
5.  ASSUME every other pilot is about to make a stupid mistake.

IMO, this is not a mindset likely to promote the highest standard
of safety.

*Even if it is true that the largest number of midair collisions
occur near non-towered airports in VFR conditions*, that does not
support the contention that non-towered airports are "out of control
airports".  It does not show that these accidents occurred because
the pilots involved were out-of-control (ie not following standard
procedures); it does not show that adopting a mindset which assumes
other pilots are jerks making stupid mistakes and trying to sneak
up and kill you would PREVENT such accidents or improve safety.

That's my point.  In order to address these issues, it is not 
sufficient to know where the largest number of midairs occur.

It would be necessary to know *why* they occur, what the pilots
involved in them are doing--are they, in fact, making mistakes
and acting like jerks, or making radio calls and following 
a standard pattern and recommended pattern entry procedures?  
If they aren't, is it clear that either would have prevented the
accident?

To me, the assumption that other pilots are jerks making stupid
mistakes and trying to kill you is in a sense, disclaiming personal
responsibility for the problem (note: I'm not saying that's Hilton's
intent).  It is saying "the problem is THEM--all those other pilots."
It is saying the problem is intrinsic to these out-of-control 
airports, and (aside from increased vigilence) it doesn't address 
what changes in procedure WE might follow in order to make such
accidents less likely to occur.  I mean, if the problem is that the
other guy doesn't play by the rules, there's not too much we *can*
do other than watch like hawks, right?

I think a more safety-minded attitude is to say "ok, what factors
or practices were involved, which I might alter"?

Example:
There's a nice searchable NTSB report database at
        http://nasdac.faa.gov/asp/fw_ntsb.asp

The very first report which turns up on a search for "midair
collision" involves two airplanes approaching a controlled airport.
Both were in contact with the tower, which had pointed one aircraft
out to the other.  Apparently they did not have each other in sight,
nevertheless both aircraft chose to continue their approach to the
airport without querying the controller regarding the other aircraft's
position or maneuvering until the other aircraft was sighted. Boom.

The third report which turns up on the same search involves one
airplane approaching a non-towered airport, while another is
taking off intending to turn downwind.  Both aircraft were making
radio calls and announcing their intentions, but evidently did not
have each other in sight and did not query each other regarding
their exact positions.  The aircraft entering downwind hit the 
aircraft turning downwind.

The NTSB report for the latter comments that the AIM recommends a
45 degree entry to downwind rather than the straight-onto-downwind
approach the accident aircraft chose, but IMO that's not the real
cause of the accident.  I think both of these accidents (towered
and non-towered) have EXACTLY THE SAME CAUSE, and it involved both
pilots.

Both accidents involve pilots who KNEW there was another aircraft in
the vicinity of where they were headed, and who chose to proceed 
anyway without either having the aircraft in sight or making a
position query.  In the former (towered) accident, it seems a
clear case of pilots "handing over their head" to ATC and trusting
the controller to separate them.  In the latter case, it sounds
as if one of the pilots was "handing over his head" to the approaching
aircraft, who reported entering a "long 2 mile downwind" when he
was evidently much closer to the airport than he perceived (the
accident was 1/4 mile away).  

In my personal opinion, neither accident could be prevented by
assuming the area is full of jerks trying to kill me or considering
non-towered airports as out-of-control airports. BOTH accidents
could have been prevented by adopting a simple, personal rule not
to proceed into the reported flight path of another aircraft without
either having that aircraft in sight and positively identified, or
possibly having a positive position report (ie not "two miles away" 
but "over the radio tower SE of the airport" or from ATC "I have
you both in sight, he's 1/2 mile ahead of you at your 2 oclock").

Was the second accident, in fact, caused by pilot's familiarity
with ATC separation at towered airports, and willingness to continue
operations without other aircraft in sight, counting on radar
separation?  I don't know.  But maybe the next time one of 
us accepts an ATC instruction which places us in the reported 
vicinity of another aircraft without having that aircraft in sight
(and I think many of us have, or will, at some point), we ought to 
go look in a mirror and chant "I'm an absolute jerk who made a stupid
mistake and is trying to kill me and others".

This has gotten very rambling, but I hope the point I am trying 
to raise is clearer now; maybe it promotes safety more to consider
"OK, what procedures could *I* follow to make problems at non-towered
airports less likely" than consider the airports as out-of-control
and the skies around them populated by jerks trying to kill you.

Snowbird

