Mid air in South NJ
- Thread starter blodnatt117
- Start date
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Bellanca tail dragger or a 17-30? Both are great before anyone says anything, I was just curious if they had any of those old Bellanca's doing banner tow.
I was wrong, Steve's nickname is Trip. You'll have to ask him how he got it.
Its refreshing to see you know something/someone, as I thought you were just a one liner...
n57flyguy
Well-Known Member
8GCBC "Scout" so yes a Bellanca taildragger.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
Flying vfr between mmu and ewr falls into one of those "it may be legal but it's a really bad idea" categorys. Inside of mmu the 121 guys are at 2000ft or less, and normally running checklists etc. we don't see other planes as well when we are task saturated. Often we are looking at the meadowlands trying to spot the 76 that we have to land behind.
Legal? Of course. Safe? Sure if done prudently. Smart place to blunder through? Nope.... Most of the issues I've had seem to be doing photo missions or something..erradic course and altitude changes, watching the traffic on 78 etc.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
It's not the act itself that prompted the comment; trust me, I have enough to say in discussions about the legality of flying through MOAs and Alert Areas, so I completely understand the line of thought. It was more the way in which it was presented that made me laugh and prompted the sarcastic remark.
Seriously? How about trying some basic 'task prioritization' on for 'smart'.
Here's a hint: checking twelve is more important than "running checklists". It floors me that, in a 2-pilot cockpit, anyone can rationalize a situation where they can't have at least one of them always clearing for traffic. Even more of an acute task if the airspace is as busy as you say.
Seriously? How about trying some basic 'task prioritization' on for 'smart'.
Here's a hint: checking twelve is more important than "running checklists". It floors me that, in a 2-pilot cockpit, anyone can rationalize a situation where they can't have at least one of them always clearing for traffic. Even more of an acute task if the airspace is as busy as you say.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Dude, have you had the O2 mask strapped a little tight or something lately?
There are experienced guys in a certain environment and you're basically pantsing them about the cockpit.
Believe it or not, most of us actually know what we're talking about. If we say it's a "task saturated" environment, it is. I totally agree with TucknTruck, that there are times coming into land, where both pilots are busy. We can watch for traffic, but we're busy making the airplane safe to land.
THIS is where the lack of experience in a certain environment shows, and you are no exception. When you reel off the dangers of trucking through a MOA (even though it's LEGAL but not SAFE - much like TucknTruck's 'for instance') I don't question that. I've never sat in a military plane, so I don't know when you see us and when you don't. But could you imagine if I said, YOU should be watching and I can't understand how YOU can be SO busy that YOU can't clear traffic? Pretty obtuse. Like your statement is.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Are you seriously going to argue that there is ANY internal cockpit task that is a higher priority than avoiding hitting other traffic?
YES, that INCLUDES all the other types of flying I do. That's why they invented a thing called "HOTAS" for fighters...so they could continue to look outside while performing mission tasks. That's also part of the whole reason why there are two pilots on larger, complex airplanes -- so they can handle complex system tasks AND ensure that basic aircraft control and other tasks can be accomplished.
I'm going to be the first one to eat crow "once I get some experience" and I learn that, apparently, there ARE more important things to do than not hit the ground, anything attached to it, or anything else flying around. I'll even say it in public so you can all point and laugh at my idiotic, simplistic views on airmanship.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
FWIW, I realize that my post came off harsh and it makes me look like a dick. Noted, and not my intent...but there isn't anyone who flies an airplane who is so specialized or so experienced or so [insert adjective here] that they can forget their primary responsibilities as airmen.
Every time this type of thing gets posted on JC, and I comment on it, I always get the same reply...that these people know what they're doing, that they DO understand their basic responsibilities, task prioritization, etc, etc.
If that's the case, then why are pilots repeatedly failing to demonstrate this in what they post? What am I supposed to take away from a pilot who posts that sometimes he's part of crews that are so "task saturated" by running checklists that he can't devote as much time to clearing in congested airspace? How is one NOT supposed to construe this verbiage to indicate task misprioritization? Since I can only read what people post, and don't fly with most posters on JC, that's my only insight into their beliefs as aviators and individuals.
True, it's different talking about it in a forum thread than it is actually executing it in flight, but our behaviors outside the cockpit are generally indicative of our behaviors in it, too.
So, my apologies for being the forum • on topics like this - seriously (no sarcasm intended). It's something, though, that I believe in strongly and fear others may also believe in, but not always demonstrate -- hence why I latch on to things like this when posted. That's my flaw, I suppose.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
I never said we don't look out side, just that we don't do it as well. It's nice when you don't have to BOTH Visually confirm multiple selections... 121 cockpits run a command response checklist set up. PM states a condition, PF visually verifies and confirms. It's not like one guy reads the list and the guy flying just flys the plane. Checklists are run this way, because statistically, there are more accidents from improper selections of important things, than running into a wayward 172. accordingly in our warning prioritization, Traffic is not the "top" of the list. We get our gpws warnings long before tcas, and in the event of a tcas and egpws warning at the same time, the traffic call is muted. Somebody decided gear and flaps were more important, and im going to guess it's with good research
Side note, why do all the military towers ask us to check gear down with our landing clearance?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
They're required to state it per their regulations.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
So, all sarcasm aside...do you believe that, following a mid-air, if you stated that the reason you did not see the other aircraft was because you were running checklists, that this would be a valid reason? Either with your company or with the FAA?
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
It would be dependent on the situation. Failure to see and avoid would always be a factor of course, but as it goes, I'm some situations verifying selections could distract you just long enough to have a problem.
We had a Q nearly get hit by a T-6 doing acro under V213. Our visability is somewhat restricted above, below and behind. If an airplane is making large altitude changes in close proximity we may not be able to physically see it until the last second when it comes into our field of view. If we happen to be confirming flaps, gear or other systems, we may not see him with enough time to react.
With the T6, he had pulled vertical, and the crew never had a chance to spot him. They followed the RA, got the "climb more" call, and I believe ended up using over travel ( 125%) power to out climb. The T6 came close enough that pax got freaked when they saw the plane. Crew estimated less than 1/4 mile seperation when it finally came into view.
While turning to intercept, descending, slowing, configuring at the same time, running checklists and flying the plane, you simply don't have as much time to devote to looking outside the airplane. Lets mix in target fixation one the runway is in sight. There are a lot of things working against you. The help you are supposed to get was developed because people finally realized that see and avoid when task saturated isn't safe, nor always practical. Class b airspace, tcas, terps procedures etc. They all exist because the human eyeball wasn't enough.
Military towers have the check gear down call because too many pilots forgot to do it themselfs. I'd say landing on your wheels is pretty damn important, but mix in lots of factors and it gets skipped. If somebody is too busy to put their gear down, do you honestly think they are looking outside the airplane?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Don't put too much weight in there being a logical and/or pressing reason behind military regs. We're also required to wear reflective gear, in combat zones, during all hours of darkness...even though we're nowhere near vehicles, and despite the fact that there's not a single documented case of a pedestrian being hit by a military vehicle where reflective gear would have prevented it. So, just because there is a requirement at DoD installations for tower controllers to say "check wheels down" (and, by the way, there is a similar requirement for pilots to call "gear down" before crossing the threshold) doesn't mean that there is some epidemic of gear-up landings that this requirement is a fix for.
All that aside, the argument is a red herring: of course it's important to put your gear down. That's not even what we are discussing here. You are focusing on the "before landing" checklist as the singular example of checklist execution, as if that somehow defends two people being heads-down performing challenge-response-verify at altitude to the detriment of clearing (isn't that the scenario we're actually discussing here in the OP?). As aviators, we have to task prioritize: we can't do all things simultaneously with the same level of intensity. Task management means knowing what is important to focus on, and when. Just because the before landing checklist, at a singular point in the flight, is a high priority, it doesn't mean that every checklist is always the highest priority. It certainly doesn't mean that the "cruise checklist" (or insert whatever other checklist you want here) is more important that not hitting another aircraft.
Again, the bottom line priorities as aviators that are ALWAYS true -- regardless of what iron we fly, where we fly it, or who we fly it for: don't hit the ground or anything attached to it, and don't hit anything else in flight. There's not a checklist, FOM, or part of 14 CFR that takes precedence over those basic airmanship duties. That's what I've been getting at since my first snide post: those are ALWAYS your highest priorities strategically, even if they're not what you're tactically executing.
Secondly, the idea that a challenge-and-response checklist mantra is the single, safest way of aircraft operation and checklist execution is asinine. Let's not make flying a Q any more magical than it actually is...it's not rocket science...and neither is flying around a single seat fast mover. Somehow single pilot aircraft have been able so safely read checklists, execute checklists, verify execution, AND read approach plates, AND clear, AND hand fly the airplane perfectly safely for as many years as multi-pilot aircraft. The task prioritization responsibilities remain the same, and it is perfectly possible for normal pilots to do all by themselves safely, effectively, and regularly.
Just as you can't hang much credence on military regs for being the Oracle of all that is correct in aviation, you can also say the same about whatever procedures your company flies with, as well as the audible warning priorities that some engineer developed for your avionics suite.
Id like to think that there's only a miscommunication going on here. And I'd like to believe that "too busy running checklists" was really meant to mean "our time is divided during certain critical phases of flight between visually clearing as much as we reasonably can, while accomplishing the necessary checklist items required for the particular phase of flight." An aircrew can't stare outside the window only, anymore than they can be inside only. They have to divide their time in varying ways depending on the phase of flight, with collision avoidance always being a top priority along with ensuring their aircraft housekeeping is in order.
As I've described before, there's really only one aircraft I can think of where there were serious problems with visual lookout vs task loading. The F-117. Not because of it's limited visibility out the windscreen, but because of the requirement that in order to employ as a weapon system, that the single-pilot had to be heads-down in the Sensor Display searching for the assigned target, releasing the weapon, and guiding it to the target. That's a 5+ minute span of time where the jet is cruising on autopilot, at .90M+, varying in it's altitudes.....sometimes by +/- 3000' - 5000' or more, with no TCAS, and with no one clearing its flightpath. Want to talk about scary vis-a-vis VFR traffic which may not even be squawking. Add to it that in the training environment, though I'm IFR and with a block altitude, I was doing all this while cruising sometimes at altitudes below to well below 18,000, and around and above areas like Phoenix, Albuquerque, Tucson, El Paso, and Dallas, while hitting simulated targets in these places. All of this was a requirement in order to effect my mission.....as Im only one guy in the jet and it's a heads-down intensive jet as Ive described.
EVEN with all the above described things I was required to do that were part of my mission and couldn't be avoided, had I ever had a midair with another aircraft in VMC even while doing the very required things I described above, I would've been as much responsible as the other guy for failing to see and avoid; as my mission limitations couldn't be used as an extenuating circumstance (barring some off the wall investigative circumstance). In fact, I'd probably be more at fault if it was known that I was completely heads down at the time, regardless of need. That situation totally sucks, but it was what it was: a total Catch 22. Luckily.....very luckily...it never happened. But it was always in the back of my mind when I was "into attack" on the final attack run in that plane, that Im hurtling through the sky, swapping altitudes, and there are potential VFR planes out there that I'll never see until impact, since I'll never have the chance to. That was reinforced a good few times when, while on the attack run and looking through the bottom of the jet through the DLIR at targets below, I'd see a light civil aircraft cruise through the sensor display picture crossing my flightpath below.
Food for thought gents, in regards to putting operational needs far above collision avoidance at times other than when briefly necessary. And I even had a legit excuse.
As I've described before, there's really only one aircraft I can think of where there were serious problems with visual lookout vs task loading. The F-117. Not because of it's limited visibility out the windscreen, but because of the requirement that in order to employ as a weapon system, that the single-pilot had to be heads-down in the Sensor Display searching for the assigned target, releasing the weapon, and guiding it to the target. That's a 5+ minute span of time where the jet is cruising on autopilot, at .90M+, varying in it's altitudes.....sometimes by +/- 3000' - 5000' or more, with no TCAS, and with no one clearing its flightpath. Want to talk about scary vis-a-vis VFR traffic which may not even be squawking. Add to it that in the training environment, though I'm IFR and with a block altitude, I was doing all this while cruising sometimes at altitudes below to well below 18,000, and around and above areas like Phoenix, Albuquerque, Tucson, El Paso, and Dallas, while hitting simulated targets in these places. All of this was a requirement in order to effect my mission.....as Im only one guy in the jet and it's a heads-down intensive jet as Ive described.
EVEN with all the above described things I was required to do that were part of my mission and couldn't be avoided, had I ever had a midair with another aircraft in VMC even while doing the very required things I described above, I would've been as much responsible as the other guy for failing to see and avoid; as my mission limitations couldn't be used as an extenuating circumstance (barring some off the wall investigative circumstance). In fact, I'd probably be more at fault if it was known that I was completely heads down at the time, regardless of need. That situation totally sucks, but it was what it was: a total Catch 22. Luckily.....very luckily...it never happened. But it was always in the back of my mind when I was "into attack" on the final attack run in that plane, that Im hurtling through the sky, swapping altitudes, and there are potential VFR planes out there that I'll never see until impact, since I'll never have the chance to. That was reinforced a good few times when, while on the attack run and looking through the bottom of the jet through the DLIR at targets below, I'd see a light civil aircraft cruise through the sensor display picture crossing my flightpath below.
Food for thought gents, in regards to putting operational needs far above collision avoidance at times other than when briefly necessary. And I even had a legit excuse.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Shack.
This task management is a core part of a pilot's airmanship.
One of my favorite sadistic exercises as an IFF IP was to try and task saturate my wingman at the end of the sortie to see how he'd handle it. It was usually after the 5th or 6th BFM fight, when he was defensive at the floor, out of airspeed, physically huffing-and-puffing because he's exhausted, and his SA is in a big pool on the floor because he is completely focused in on the tactical execution of the BFM. If he was task prioritizing during the fight appropriately, he'd see that he was out of gas and call "terminate" (or if his SA was low, his IP would call it for him).
Knowing that his SA plate was COMPLETELY full all ready, I'd throw at him three additional tasks simultaneously just to watch the helmet fire; "Wreck 2, FENCE out, sweep ATIS, push 8, cleared to rejoin."
He has to do all three, and in a timely fashion....but the measure of his skill as a wingman was the order in which he prioritized these tasks. Not only did he have to consider the time which he was expected to complete these tasks in, but he also had to perform them in such an order so as to maintain those basic wingman responsibilities and airman responsibilities.
The "correct answer" was this:
First and foremost, keep lead in sight, and set up a safe formation rejoin line (and not let any cockpit tasks mess up his rejoin line or Vc).
Second, safe up the weapons systems.
Third, and while performing the rest of the "FENCE Out" checklist, grab ATIS (hope you copied it down correctly!), switch to channel 8, and be ready for me to check him in on the radio. If he was doing all of this right, he'd complete the checklist right about the time he was finishing the formation join up.
Rarely, if ever, were wingmen actually on freq when I checked them in AND in formation position -- for many of them, being all ready up to their performance limit when the last BFM engagement ended, the extra pile on of tasks was just too much. There were some guys that could do all that and had their crap really together, but it was rare.
The guys who flew a nice rejoin but weren't on freq when I checked them in got a "WTF weren't you on the radio?!" in the debrief, but secretly a pat-on-the-back since they'd prioritized their formation deconfliction and rejoin execution responsibilities above the cockpit tasks. Pass go, collect your money young wingman.
The guys who were on freq, but performed a crappy rejoin got slapped in the debrief for task misprioritization.
The worst were guys who performed a terrible rejoin and also weren't on the radio. When I had to physically move my jet out of the way of theirs to avoid a midair, that usually indicated that their prioritization was totally out to lunch.
Bottom line: things may be busy in the airplane, but that never changes our core responsibilities as airmen.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
Statistically, single pilot airplanes make up a staggering percentage of all mid air crashes. Most mid air collisions happen near airports. In the last 10 years more military planes have smacked little ga planes than us 121 guys. 121 flies a staggering amount of hours each day, and with remarkable safety, so I would say, statistically, yes they have figured out how to make out very safe.
Be interesting to look at the mid air per flight hour of 121 vs. mil. I know 121 in the us went over 400,000,000 flight hours without a mid air..which is pretty remarkable.
Your first snide post was referring to him bashing on the ga guy hanging out in the approach corridor, your comment implying that us 121 guys feel like we own the sky, and ga should die.
Quite simply, there are places that are not smart to loiter in a 172, the approach corridor at one of the nations busiest airports is not one of them. For you to think it's ok, because see and avoid is primary, is ignorant. Initial to touchdown is one of the busiest times in an airliner, and, even a first year human factors student knows that sa drops as work load picks up.
Thats great that you like to dump on a guy who is already worked out. When you do that to them, how many of them would see a wayward piper while trying to run lists, grab weather,work radios and rejoin formation?
To be perfectly honest, it gets old dodging people who in locations that they really just shouldn't be. When you fly 4-6 legs a day, 4-6 days a week it gets really old. When you are bumping up on 1000 hrs flt time in a year, and have had to fill out paperwork on lots of RAs caused by somebody doing turns around a point 4.2 miles away from the airport at 1350 feet as you come in on an approach, it gets maddening. Flying around ny/ct/nj on the weekend is like driving over a holiday weekend. The air is full of people who dont know what their doing, and are clueless as to where they are hanging out.
The last 10 minutes of a flight, no matter how much they try to limit heads down time, will always be just that. It would be awesome if we could toss the gear out 30 mi away, but we can't. Speeds needed from ewr to match spacing between 11 and 22 arrivals means we have to holds off til the last second and then do it all as fast as we can. None of us like it, but opperationally, it is what we have to do.
So yes, we do get annoyed when somebody blindly places their airplane in a stupid place. When your (not mike or hacker, or anybody in particular) lack of situational awareness, planning, out common sense become my problem, then yes I have a problem with it.
FlyChicaga
Vintage Restoration
In my opinion, the way commercial aircraft cockpits are designed is what forces airline pilots to go "heads down" 90% of the time they are in the cockpit. Airline flying demands precise skill. Heading, altitude, course, etc., all down to tight tolerances. If all airliners were equipped with modern HUDs, everyone would be a lot better off. However, installing a HUD into a 1980's or early 1990's aircraft is cost prohibitive, thereby, reducing safety. So airline pilots will continue to stay heads down, because that's the only way they can maintain the tight tolerances required of them, while at the same time doing briefings, running checklists, and so forth.
It would be so much easier if modern airliners all had HUDs and easier control inputs, like the F-16 does with the piccolo throttle quadrant.
It would be so much easier if modern airliners all had HUDs and easier control inputs, like the F-16 does with the piccolo throttle quadrant.
Noted. Unfortunately, the below that I wrote will still apply, whether a single-pilot mil cockpit or a 2 or 3 pilot 121 cockpit. Catch 22? Yup. But it is what it is. You or I hitting a GA plane that should or shouldn't smartly be in one place or another while in VMC, will normally have us at fault too, if not worse. Completely sucks, but both our operational needs won't be a legit excuse for hitting another airplane (nor will his failure to see and avoid us be an excuse either, unless there are particulars in info such as one overrunning another). As I said, food for thought.