flying dog

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.

Ossie, That worked well didn't it. As I said, it is "confusing" how it is discribed and how others explain it. MASSIVE UPDATE: Last night while I had a few non-busy moments I got out mine AND the instructions. I sat there and found the part where they "explained" how to do wind calculations. Read, do, read, do, read..... HANG ON! THE INSTRUCTIONS DON'T MATCH WHAT THEY ARE DOING ON THE DIAGRAMS!! No wonder I am confused. I shall try to find time to scan the page and include it here so if other people are also confused maybe what I have discovered will help them as well. Though I am still interested in the TWO ways to use it.

This will take a couple of posts. Partly because I don't have the link here - now. (This is going to be badly formatted and stuff like that - I am really not running on all systems just now) I once asked someone and their answer was pretty well 100% correct: Use it how the instructions tell you. If you use it another way, you CAN/MAY get errors. This is true and effectivly irrifutable. But I'm me..... and I seem to like asking questions and trying things different ways. Ok, the back of the wiz wheel has the graph and the plastic disc. The premise is that it is used to create a triangle and resolve vectors of course, wind and drift. The first stupid thing is if the wind is 360 @ 30 (let's keep it simple and say Magnetic) you turn the wheel so 180 (or the reciprical heading) is at the top and draw a circle 30 units BELOW the centre circle. Then you turn the wheel so the course is at the top and you slide the wheel so the IAS is in the drawn circle. You then read your ground speed from the centre circle. You get drift from the angle/line on which the drawn circle appears. Yeah, badly explained. I am going from memory. INDULGE ME! Q1: Why complicate things by turning the wheel so the reciprical heading is at the top and putting the circle BELOW the centre one? Wouldn't it be simpler to put the heading at the top and put the circle ABOVE the centre one? It gets the same result! Q2: Think about this: The triangle is supposed to be a "vector diagram" of your IAS, wind speed/direction and your Ground Speed. Given your plane's IAS/TAS (what ever) is "fixed", why also complicate things by making that the DRAWN circle and draw the vectors around the centre circle which is your IAS? How the triangle is drawn as per instrucions, the ground speed is the centre circle and the IAS is drawn. Your plane is flying 360 with a wind of 360/20 With the wheel having 360 at the top, instead of putting the wind circle ABOVE the centre circle, sliding that circle down to your IAS and reading your ground speed from the centre circle, why not put the wind circle BELOW the centre circle. Then, you put the centre circle on the IAS, and read the G/S from the drawn circle. This way you don't have to keep sliding the disc every time you have a heading change. The link - which I shall post when I get home and remember to include - is a JAVA SCRIPT example of the two ways to use the wizz wheel. As per the instructions and the way I suggest. BOTH GIVE THE SAME ANSWER! To me, it begs the question why don't they promote this "other way" to new pilots as it is so much easier to get your head around and REDUCES THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING MISTAKES because you set the centre circle on your IAS and then only turn the wheel. The other way you have to keep adjusting/sliding the disc with every heading change and it is easy to forget. Granted the drift is reversed, but this is easily overcome on new wheels in that they simply stamp the oposite way. left is right and right is left for drift. It isn't that difficult. But my question is HOW does it work both ways? Ofcourse I need it in words I can understand. I know it is complicated and I need to "talk the talk" if I want to ask such questions, but ya gotta start somewhere.

Well, I have in the past and it kind of died. I would like to "talk" to Paul and ask if what I understand to be right is or not. I've asked other people in the past and not really got an answer to my question.