flying dog

Yes the technology exists. IMPLIMENTING it is another story. Who would pay for it? To apply the above idea would cost a lot of money and time. (It will probably be done and sent off-shore to India)

Yeah, but how important is that part of the information? It was a 767 and there was this confusion about the Co-Pilot seeing Venus and mistaking it for another plane. The "fact" that a 767 has two engines is IRRELEVANT.

I just love the article, or at least this part: The incident occurred at night on board a Boeing 767 twin engine passenger plane And what other option is there? 1,3,4,5?! It is kind of redundant saying it is a 767 TWIN engine. Ah, gotta love the yanks.

I think it was last week when I saw on the news about a 152 which did an emergency landing in Bringelly (Sydney). Anyone heard any more?

When you backtrack a runway you are supposed to be on the right side. So if you did have to pass another on a taxiway then i would think that would carry over as well. Most of the passing/ overtaking rules for aircraft are the same as maritime when you are in the air. That's not what I was told/instructed.

Me thinks he pulled back on the Cyclic rather than the collective.

English is predominantly latin and greek Wow, that's news for me. There was a show on Foxtel and a lot of English is from German they were saying. I know Latin and the other languages have some influence on the words, but PREDOMINATNLY?

Just noticed this: When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane

Yes, granted the are on different taxiways, but it still seems "strange". Ok, analogy: In cars we pass each other to left. That is to say we keep the other (oncoming) car to our RIGHT. When we are on highways - where there is sepeartion between the oncoming traffic - they are still on our right. It isn't that sometimes they are on our left. Now, planes going to/from RWY 16L at Sydney have to go on the taxiway to get there. Obviously there are two so there is one to "go there" and one to "get back". Yes, I sort of agree there MAY be minor benefits to planes going certain ways, but as there are planes coming and going, I don't get why they would be put on taxiways which would make them pass oppostie to how planes are "supposed to" pass.

As a rule if you are passing another plane, you each turn right and have the plane pass on your left. Ok, that is when flying, but what about when taxiing? Watching the planes at Sydney airport - the big one - planes going to 16 L. There are two taxi ways and I was interested that the planes were being put to pass on each other's right. Ok, it is accademic and they were on seperate taxi ways, but I would have thought that as a general rule the controllers would have maintained the same side for passing when taxiing as to when they are flying.

You know you are flying slow when the birds come and land on you.

I shall read "Clown" as ACROBAT with lattitude.

Yeah, I've seen those recent e-mails going around. All the pensioners should get in a boat and sail back into Australia and get a better deal than they are now. I could find the e-mail and include it if you wanted.

I worry that soon we won't have any FREE choices left to make without some kind of rules applied to us first. And if I am up the duff, I would become: Flying b!tch Yikes!

Alf, Thanks. But what I (may) be having trouble understanding is how "they" determin what is safe. Sure, take THE safest way to do something and make that the RULE/NORM. Or Find the lowest commond denominator (of stupidity) and find a safe way for them to work and make all work as per that. But if someone has "skills" which would allow them to do something ANOTHER way and which doesn't put them at any more risk than doing it another way, why can't it be allowed? (I wonder if my hormones are playing up making me like I am just now?) (I wonder if I'm "up the duff"?)

This one is less AVIATION and more general safety, but heck, I can ask here anyway - can't I? Building site. There are workers there. If the worker is doing work above their shoulder height, they are supposed to use a stool/platform to raise themselves so they are higher and can "work safer". All is good. There aren't enough workers and so an advert is put in the paper for people qualified to do some work. Near by there is a Circus which has folded and one of the acrobats is a licenced electrician/builder/what ever. They apply for the job and meet all the requirements for qualifications, and so are taken on. One day, this person has to work "above the allowable height" and so needs one of these stools/platforms. But since it is such a busy place, there are no free ones. BUT! (smile) (wink) There is a 2 meter lengths of 8 inch conduit lying around not being used - it is an off cuts - and a piece of thick wood about 1 metre by 1 metre. This new guy uses the conduit and the wood to stand on - as you see them do in the circus. Someone sees this and tells him that he can't do that because it is "UNSAFE". This person who is doing it has been in the circus doing just that - well nearly - for about 8 years with no accidents. Though when they were doing it in the circus, they were: Blind folded and juggling flaming sticks. The building site's safety record is only 4 years without accident. (Therefore the person's "failure rate" is less than that of the building site.) Here they are simply - if that is the right word - bashing in a few nails. Who is to say what is and is not a SAFE way for people to dotheir work? C'mon, someone have a go at me. The day can't get any worse than it is already.

Ok, another attempt to "explain" my view: People/anyone usually have two choices: Do what they want, or: Do what others say. I guess the most powerful verb in the English language is CHOOSE. (as in pick one of many.) A lot of what I was reading is that it seems to be "more correct" to do what the majority want rather than what YOU want. Lemmings come to mind. Sure there are times when it is better to do what the majority want. But others when it is better to do what YOU want. So back to my EXAMPLE of when/how to cross the road: With or againist the lights. The law aside, there is no guarantee that either is safer. The person crossing the road has the final say in what they do. Why are people seemingly obsessed with pointing out the failings of people who made the "WRONG" decission and the end result is death? Granted it is/was not advisable to go flying at/just before sunset. Sure it was not advisable to not have weather. etc, etc. However, the PIC made a choice. The important thing for US - who are still alive - is to LEARN from what happened rather than JUDGE the decission. NO ONE knows what was going through their head when the choice was made. But we can see the results.

Ok, By the way my point is not specifically to do with flying, but more life in general. "Getting into a dangerous situation". How "Safe" is it to fly? Some people would say it is not safe at all. Others advocate that the most dangerous part is the drive to the airport. We can argue about "what is safe and what is not" and "Risk minimisation" and all that stuff. Sure it is valid and following those "rules" you can extend your life, but.....! Ok, another example - a bit of a joke in some ways. A bloke goes to the doctor. He is middle aged and getting worried about his health. He smokes, drinks, and pretty well lives a "wild" life. "Doctor, you have to help me. I really want to live a LONG life. I want to make it to 100!" He exclaims to the doctor. The doctor quizzes him on his lifestyle and his habbits, then after a lot of thought he tells the man, "You have to stop smoking. Stop drinking, Eat good/healthy food. Go to bed early each day, get up early. Walk a lot." And the list goes on The man thinks seriously about these instructions. They are LIFE CHANGING, though that is what he wants: To live to 100. He looks at the doctor after a lot of consideration, "Will I really live to 100 if I do all these things?" The doctor looks at him blankly and replies: "No, but it will fell like it." Taking this "taking it safe" to the extreme - which is a good place to take theories to see how well they hold up: You can sit at home in your bomb proof house with 100 years of food supply and water incase of a nuclear bomb and know you will never be injured, or you can live life. The problem with living in your bomb proof house is you can't be sure of EVERYTHING. Food storage, water purity and so on - without going to yet another extreme. So one day you are sitting there eating your food and die of food poisoning because you made a simple mistake. Me: I'd rather "take my chances" and at least enjoy life. People are always good at handing out "post event" opinions, when really by that stage they are accademic. In my experiance - which to most of you is negligable - is the ONLY OTHER person/people you can really "trust" are people to take action BEFORE the event. Alas there are things going against them nowadays. The law is one of them. There seems to be fine line of people's rights and "arresting" people. Which basically is what you would be doing if you were to stop someone doing something which YOU thought was dangerous to them. So as good as your intentions may be, if you stop someone doing something, there is a legal can of worms you have opened about stopping them doing what they want to do - and unless you are a doctor who can deem them "unfit to make rational decisions" then you are not on firm grounds. Anyway, enough of my ranting. I guess there are better things for you to do than read my attempt to explain my skewed view of things in ways which others can clearly understand. Bye for now.

Ok, I'm home now and have a bit more time. (I wish.) (Let's play hyperthetical) Another "scenario" is this: Pilot 1 wants to get out of where they are. Pilot 2 - and maybe others - say it is not a good idea. So the scene is set: Does pilot 1 stay or go. If pilot 1 "goes" there is "danger". If he stays, there is also "danger", but of another sort. So if he stays, problems get worse, and nasty things happen to Pilot 1. Pilot 2 (and others) conditions are irrellivant. So Pilot 1 has to live the rest of his life based on what he was told by others - be it with good intentions. Say Pilot 1 goes and "gets through" by the skin of their teeth, he is better off than if they stay. So, really where does the ultimate resopnsibility lie?

I am trying to read it all and take it in. There is a lot to read. I started this thread because I too don't want to detract or distract the existing thread about the crash. This is about some of the other things which were mentioned which I see as "interestingly mentioned" and how they apply - or don't - to how these kind of things happen. Peer pressure is a big one and the first one which got me. I have had a few times when it has been a real serious descision about flying or not. Once I had to abort a flight after take off and turn back becaues of clouds just out of town. Luckily a short time later the weather cleared and I got out, but still had to divert and spend a night away from home. Another more recent one was at a flying and the weather came in a bit too soon and every one was (nearly) panicing. Although I say "panicing" it was a somewhat comical one. Picture - if you will - a room FULL of pilots. EVERY SINGLE ONE having their I-Phone, I-Pad, Smart phone, Laptop or what ever other electronic device turned on. ALL looking at the SAME weather site. ALL OF THEM! Not, one doing it and relaying information to the others. Now, let's look at that for a second: "Brotherly trust" obviously didn't exist. They couldn't trust each other to get the weather and relay the information to the rest. They had to get it for them selves. "Second hand" information just isn't good enough. Sheesh! And yes, I too was semi-guilty. Though I actually RANG the weather people and got it "from the source". Yes. there was a bit of "You don't want to risk it" said to people to stop the person flying off and taking a chance. This worked. There are few and I am talking less than probably 5 times in my life where I have been in a situation where someone has had to stop me doing something "stupid". (DON'T ASK - you won't be be told.) The idea that people "promote" this comerardery (how ever it is spelt - sorry still jet lagged.) is a good thing. You learn to "Trust" others because of ....... Well, honestly I don't know. One time when someone stepped up to the plate for me - luckily I guess - and I realised this later, my gratitude was dismissed and I was made to feel like a fool. This is NOT a good thing to promote positive re-enforcement. Subsequent attempts have also yielded similar results. So again, it destroys the idea of "people are good". There ARE exceptions I know, but to belive it as a general thing is foolish. You are leaving yourself open to all sorts of nasty stuff. Anyway, enough of that. "We all have our time." is another line of thought. Many pilots say to people who are going up on a flight: "The most dangerous part is over. You got to the airport ok." I can belive that in many ways, but really I am more of the idea that when it is our time, we are going to go no matter what we do. Sure you can expidite it by what is called J-Walking, or crossing at "incorrect" places, or we can cross when the little lite says "Cross now". But really neither is any more dangerous than the other. If a car swearvs along the street and mounts the footpath, you are a gonner if you are waiting for the light to allow you to cross. Likewise if the car's breaks fail, the driver is sending an SMS, talking on the phone, or anything else, while you are walking over the street when the light says "WALK". When you time is up, it is up. Try to not tempt fate, but also try to enjoy life and the wonders it can bring.

And nowhere did I say they did either. However, I belive a few seconds either way and the entire situation could have been a lot worse.

Tex, I am posting what I know. SOMEONE (not you), or others, are SPECULATING on what happened and telling me the story. I find this amusing if nothing else. Yes, the "story" was not clear and is becoming clearer as time goes on. This is the turn of events as best I can remember: I am flying en-route from the Oaks to Katoomba. After clearing the step, I start the climb to clear the mountains. I climb to 6,500 feet. Flying over Warragamba, I notice a plane at my 3-4 O'Clock and check with Sydney what they (the other plane) are doing. I skwarked my ID so I could be identified. I was told the plane is on a CONVERGING COURSE. Though obviously lower, converging got my attention. Other than that there was no other activity on 124.55. This initial plane didn't say "Traffic sighted. Don't worry." So I was watching him. Scanning him, instruments, and looking out the front window, on one of the cycles, I caught a blurr infront of me. Be it a "blurr", a shadow passing over me, or what ever: Alarm bells run that it was a near miss. Checking my position/altitude/etc I got back on to Sydney and asked them what they see. "Nothing" was basically the reply. Again: There were no other planes talking on the frequency at this time near by to where I am/was. Investigations revealed there WAS another plane, and I wasn't seeing things. But that was all I got at that point. More questions revealed we "missed" by ABOUT 600 meters Horizontal and 400 Vertical. Even more questions then revealed the paint was intermittant and therefore the information about our seperation was constructed from data known. I DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG. It has been suspected the other plane which nearly hit me had electrical problems. Thus the transponder not working all the time - giving intermittant paints on the radar - and why they didn't reply. Ofcourse where they landed with no radio in Sydney is ANOTHER question - but I don't care. My report has been submitted to RAA and they are happy with the information given. What happens next is not my concern, as it is beyond my responsibilty. I am still here so that's all that matters - and I was not in the wrong.

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.