GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?

[ScottM]

Nick I really do not blame airline pilots for that stuff. I do hold that the private airlines bear a lot of responsibility. What we saw was that they could not come together and solve a problem or even really anticipate it itself. So when people started demanding a solution instead of the airline stepping up to the plate, government had to step in and force them to do the right thing. It is common failure of business to actually do what they need to do and instead bring regulations upon themselves.

The guys driving the planes had basically nothing to do with that. Like I said earlier I have issues with airline pilots. I just never want to be one. I got to fly for a living for a couple of years when I was in the USAF. Not as a pilot but as crew. That was enough of an experience to drive the fun out of flying that I did not get into a plane for several years afterwards. For me anything that becomes a job is a lot less fun than something I opt to do for a hobby.

 

[Everskyward]

Fact.

Back in the day, airline pilots couldn't keep from hitting each other.

GA pilots manage to do this to each other too, in much greater number than airline pilots. But I have no doubt that the number for both would be much higher in the absence of ATC.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Fact.

Back in the day, airline pilots couldn't keep from hitting each other. One particularly bad situation happened in the Grand Canyon (IIRC), where the two planes collided in midair in the middle of nowhere.

Congress passed the Federal Aviation Act shortly afterward, citing that accident as a driving factor.

If not for airlines, we wouldn't have the FAA today. We also wouldn't have a lot of the restrictions we currently have either.

But, that's not the important point - the important point is that the whole user fee debate should focus on the fact that Airliners drove the need for the FAA, and GA just got brought along.

REALLY ?????.......You're REALLY gonna go with that ?

 

[SkyHog]

REALLY ?????.......You're REALLY gonna go with that ?

Its true.

A. Airliners had a bunch of midairs
B. Congress Passed Federal Aviation Act in response
C. GA is stuck using the same system

A+B=C

I'm not sure where the confusion lies. Its not a slam on airline pilots, but is a reminer that if not for them, we wouldn't be dealing with a fight against user fees right now.

 

[steingar]

Geef. I have to write my page about airliners and airliner pilots for the new book. I've been putting it off and dreading it. I've never consciously written anything bad about aviation before. I've had a few pro pilots come through my classroom getting out of the game and going back to school. It is nice to hear that its working out for some.

 

[EdFred]

GA pilots manage to do this to each other too, in much greater number than airline pilots. But I have no doubt that the number for both would be much higher in the absence of ATC.

Perhaps, but did the public cry out for an FAA prior to the airliner crash? Nick is right that we are forced to use a system designed for the airlines.

 

[Everskyward]

Perhaps, but did the public cry out for an FAA prior to the airliner crash? Nick is right that we are forced to use a system designed for the airlines.

There was probably no GA lobby at the time.

But seriously, how would you better design the system to accommodate both? Keep in mind the volume of airline traffic and and speed difference between small GA and airliners. TSA and other "security" is not included here. We are only talking about traffic management.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Fact.

Back in the day, airline pilots couldn't keep from hitting each other. One particularly bad situation happened in the Grand Canyon (IIRC), where the two planes collided in midair in the middle of nowhere.

Congress passed the Federal Aviation Act shortly afterward, citing that accident as a driving factor.

If not for airlines, we wouldn't have the FAA today. We also wouldn't have a lot of the restrictions we currently have either.

But, that's not the important point - the important point is that the whole user fee debate should focus on the fact that Airliners drove the need for the FAA, and GA just got brought along.

Uh, I hate to break this to you, but they didn't 'create' the FAA out of thin air after the Grand Canyon collision. They effectively merged the functions of the already existing CAA and the CAB into one agency.....which it had been originally before FDR split them into two in 1940.

Fact is that GA would still be regulated and we would still be fighting user fees whether the Grand Canyon collision had occured or not.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Its true.

A. Airliners had a bunch of midairs
B. Congress Passed Federal Aviation Act in response
C. GA is stuck using the same system

A+B=C

I'm not sure where the confusion lies. Its not a slam on airline pilots, but is a reminer that if not for them, we wouldn't be dealing with a fight against user fees right now.

Let me ask you, using your same FLAWED logic - if you had a copy of the movie "Deliverance" would you file it under romance ?

 

[EdFred]

Let me ask you, using your same FLAWED logic - if you had a copy of the movie "Deliverance" would you file it under romance ?

If you live south of N40º - certainly.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Let me ask you, using your same FLAWED logic - if you had a copy of the movie "Deliverance" would you file it under romance ?

Best post of the thead!

 

[EdFred]

There was probably no GA lobby at the time.

But seriously, how would you better design the system to accommodate both? Keep in mind the volume of airline traffic and and speed difference between small GA and airliners. TSA and other "security" is not included here. We are only talking about traffic management.

Well personally, I would set up the Class B airspace and arrival procedures differently. If airliners are landing E-W, there is no reason you can't have N/S flyways right over the top starting at at say - 4000. But no, instead you always get 16,000 or KELSI, or ignored.

 

[Everskyward]

Well personally, I would set up the Class B airspace and arrival procedures differently. If airliners are landing E-W, there is no reason you can't have N/S flyways right over the top starting at at say - 4000. But no, instead you always get 16,000 or KELSI, or ignored.

I see KELSI out there SW of Chicago but where are you trying to go to or from? Also, if you are talking about landing E-W at KORD you also need to consider what KMDW is doing. Also do they sometimes land E-W and depart N-S? I've only been to KORD a few times (thankfully, it's not my favorite place) so I can't remember.

 

[SkyHog]

There was probably no GA lobby at the time.

But seriously, how would you better design the system to accommodate both? Keep in mind the volume of airline traffic and and speed difference between small GA and airliners. TSA and other "security" is not included here. We are only talking about traffic management.

One suggestion might be to have a little looser control over GA flights into and out of major airports. I think one of the reasons ATC is innundated right now is that there are too many places that GA is not "allowed" to go without them.

For example, if I'm flying up through Denver, why do I need to call a controller to fly over the top of DEN at 3000+ft AGL? I've got see and avoid on my side, plus, I'm out of their arrival path that way. Perhaps shrinking Class B airspace to only that airspace in which Airliners approach and depart from, and making the rest an optional "TRSA" like airspace.

Perhaps reducing or eliminating the need for a VFR flight to call clearance delivery at Class C and Class B airports. Why do I really need to call yet another controller to request departure directly out of their airspace via the quickest means possible?

Or finally, having the ability to use a handheld device to fly direct in IFR. Then, we keep ourselves off airways in most cases, and well above any obstacles.

Any of those would make GA naturally less "invasive" on the airliner/FAA relationship, and keep the FAA off our back for stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to begin with.

I'd also like to see the FAA lose power over the ability to issue and regulate pilot certificates as well. That's a state issue, and it should be handled by each state's DOT, with other states giving full faith and credit to the document.

 

[EdFred]

I see KELSI out there SW of Chicago but where are you trying to go to or from? Also, if you are talking about landing E-W at KORD you also need to consider what KMDW is doing. Also do they sometimes land E-W and depart N-S? I've only been to KORD a few times (thankfully, it's not my favorite place) so I can't remember.

Anyone going IFR within 100nm of ORD (ok, slight exaggeration) gets KELSI, which is awesome if you are going IFR from Waukegan to South Bend. Like I said, I would redesign a few things to make it work for everyone. Not just the we're here for the airliners and %*&#@ everyone else system we have now.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Let me ask you, using your same FLAWED logic - if you had a copy of the movie "Deliverance" would you file it under romance ?

 

[EdFred]

I'd also like to see the FAA lose power over the ability to issue and regulate pilot certificates as well. That's a state issue, and it should be handled by each state's DOT, with other states giving full faith and credit to the document.

No effin way. Carry permits anyone? Oh, you can fly in this state and that state, but not this one unless you have a commercial or instrument rating...that would be the most giant clusterf*** ever.

 

[Everskyward]

One suggestion might be to have a little looser control over GA flights into and out of major airports. I think one of the reasons ATC is innundated right now is that there are too many places that GA is not "allowed" to go without them.

But major airports usually have a constant stream of traffic. How would looser control help? How would you fit in?

For example, if I'm flying up through Denver, why do I need to call a controller to fly over the top of DEN at 3000+ft AGL?

Because we are there.

They take the IFR traffic not going into KDEN and route it overhead as it crosses over. Plus, there is a problem of how to enter and exit the airspace. You can't always be directly overhead. You need to consider that traffic at KDEN needs to approach and depart and so does traffic at the reliever airports.

I've got see and avoid on my side, plus, I'm out of their arrival path that way.

I think see and avoid works better with slower airplanes. I realize airliners are generally pretty large and you might be able to see them but you are probably pretty small and they have no problem overtaking you.

Perhaps reducing or eliminating the need for a VFR flight to call clearance delivery at Class C and Class B airports. Why do I really need to call yet another controller to request departure directly out of their airspace via the quickest means possible?

Is this really that big a problem for you?

Or finally, having the ability to use a handheld device to fly direct in IFR.

I don't think that's a traffic or airspace design issue. Even with a certified GPS the ability to go direct is related to the density of traffic in the airspace. If you are IFR they need to keep your separation whether you are GA or airline. Besides isn't that what they are aiming for in the future? Going direct? I haven't done enough research on how it's all supposed to work.

Any of those would make GA naturally less "invasive" on the airliner/FAA relationship, and keep the FAA off our back for stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to begin with.

You can already fly VFR and keep to uncontrolled airports if you want to do that. You don't need to tell anyone where you are going. I think that busy airspace is more complex than some people think and not everyone is going to be happy with the design they come up with.

I'd also like to see the FAA lose power over the ability to issue and regulate pilot certificates as well. That's a state issue, and it should be handled by each state's DOT, with other states giving full faith and credit to the document.

I don't see how that would help at all. You would have 50 different standards instead of one and 50 smaller bureaucracies instead of one bigger one.

 

[Everskyward]

Anyone going IFR within 100nm of ORD (ok, slight exaggeration) gets KELSI, which is awesome if you are going IFR from Waukegan to South Bend. Like I said, I would redesign a few things to make it work for everyone. Not just the we're here for the airliners and %*&#@ everyone else system we have now.

KELSI is quite a bit of a detour. I agree that there could be some compromise routing that wasn't so far out of the way. Even LA has routing through their Class B.

 

[Fearless Tower]

One suggestion might be to have a little looser control over GA flights into and out of major airports. I think one of the reasons ATC is innundated right now is that there are too many places that GA is not "allowed" to go without them.

For example, if I'm flying up through Denver, why do I need to call a controller to fly over the top of DEN at 3000+ft AGL? I've got see and avoid on my side, plus, I'm out of their arrival path that way. Perhaps shrinking Class B airspace to only that airspace in which Airliners approach and depart from, and making the rest an optional "TRSA" like airspace.

Perhaps reducing or eliminating the need for a VFR flight to call clearance delivery at Class C and Class B airports. Why do I really need to call yet another controller to request departure directly out of their airspace via the quickest means possible?

Or finally, having the ability to use a handheld device to fly direct in IFR. Then, we keep ourselves off airways in most cases, and well above any obstacles.

Any of those would make GA naturally less "invasive" on the airliner/FAA relationship, and keep the FAA off our back for stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to begin with.

Keep in mind that Class B airspace is the way it is as a direct result of a Cessna 172 that failed to comply with ATC instructions and was hit by a 727.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Keep in mind that Class B airspace is the way it is as a direct result of a Cessna 172 that failed to comply with ATC instructions and was hit by a 727.

Hey Hey Hey!! Don't start putting facts in here.

 

[TMetzinger]

Hey Hey Hey!! Don't start putting facts in here.

Yeah, don't interrupt me, I'm trying to sell Deliverance to the Romance Channel.

That's one of the best posts ever.

 

[ScottM]

Keep in mind that Class B airspace is the way it is as a direct result of a Cessna 172 that failed to comply with ATC instructions and was hit by a 727.

That is not what the NTSB Report states.

It say the probable cause of the accident is:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of the flightcrew of Flight 182 to comply with the provisions of a maintain-visual-separation clearance, including the requirement to inform the controller when they no longer had the other aircraft in sight."

http://www.psa-history.org/museum/NTSBAAR7905.pdf

 

[RotorAndWing]

Yeah, don't interrupt me, I'm trying to sell Deliverance to the Romance Channel.

That's one of the best posts ever.

Absolutely!

 

[EdFred]

Keep in mind that Class B airspace is the way it is as a direct result of a Cessna 172 that failed to comply with ATC instructions and was hit by a 727.

I thought it was the other way around or was that a different incident?i

 

[Fearless Tower]

That is not what the NTSB Report states.

It say the probable cause of the accident is:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of the flightcrew of Flight 182 to comply with the provisions of a maintain-visual-separation clearance, including the requirement to inform the controller when they no longer had the other aircraft in sight."

http://www.psa-history.org/museum/NTSBAAR7905.pdf

Read the WHOLE report.....including the dissenting opinion.

Bottom line is that the majority of the board faulted the crew of PSA 182 for failing to maintain vis separation after they called the traffic insight (in reality, they lost contact and failed to inform the controller).

However, that collision would never have occured had the 172 complied with the ATC instruction they were given.

 

[Fearless Tower]

And that's a Fact.....Jack!

 

[EdFred]

And there's the rift.....its never the airliners fault. stupid mf'ing spam can drivers in OUR airspace. Bastards.

 

[Fearless Tower]

And there's the rift.....its never the airliners fault. stupid mf'ing spam can drivers in OUR airspace. Bastards.

Never said that. All I'm saying is that it takes two to tango.

If you look at the history of aviation since inception, I really don't think you can blame airline pilots anymore than you can blame GA for the level of regulation that we deal with today. Both sides have produced more than their fair share of f'ups.

 

[SkyHog]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

No effin way. Carry permits anyone? Oh, you can fly in this state and that state, but not this one unless you have a commercial or instrument rating...that would be the most giant clusterf*** ever.

Full faith and credit. If I have a pilot cert from one state, its valid in all 50. Just like driving. Some states may have tougher requirements, but that requirement would not apply to reasonable states.

For example, if Chicago says you have to have 300 hours to get a private, I could take my private from NM and fly right on in

 

[COFlyBoy]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

Full faith and credit. If I have a pilot cert from one state, its valid in all 50. Just like driving. Some states may have tougher requirements, but that requirement would not apply to reasonable states.

For example, if Chicago says you have to have 300 hours to get a private, I could take my private from NM and fly right on in

Why is that better than one agency with a single set of requirements?

 

[ScottM]

Read the WHOLE report.....including the dissenting opinion.

Bottom line is that the majority of the board faulted the crew of PSA 182 for failing to maintain vis separation after they called the traffic insight (in reality, they lost contact and failed to inform the controller).

However, that collision would never have occured had the 172 complied with the ATC instruction they were given.

I did read the whole report and I posted the main cause of the accident.

The collision would also never have occurred had the airline crew maintained visiual contact. We can play these games at all day long. But the bottom line is the report states that the main cause was the airline pilot's fault with only the GA as a mitigating factor.

 

[SkyHog]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

Why is that better than one agency with a single set of requirements?

Because what works in California may not work in Ohio. Why should we assume that the people of each state want that?

Its a political discussion at heart, but it goes back to letting the states decide what they want, rather than having a central government agency deciding that the people in Maine are exactly the same as the people in Oregon.

Plus - its one step closer to eliminating the FAA's control over General Aviation.

 

[Everskyward]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

Because what works in California may not work in Ohio. Why should we assume that the people of each state want that?

But then you contradict yourself by saying that each state should give full faith and credit to other states' requirements. If you're going to hold to your argument why should they?

Its a political discussion at heart, but it goes back to letting the states decide what they want, rather than having a central government agency deciding that the people in Maine are exactly the same as the people in Oregon.

I know it fits into your worldview even though it's impractical in every way.

 

[SkyHog]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

But then you contradict yourself by saying that each state should give full faith and credit to other states' requirements. If you're going to hold to your argument why should they?

It does fit though - if a person from Maine happens to be in Oregon, he isn't suddenly an Oregon citizen, he's just there, exercising his privileges, just as if he had driven there. There's no requirement to get a new drivers license in every state you pass through on a trip, right?

I know it fits into your worldview even though it's impractical in every way.

Meh, I think its perfectly practical. We just need to all agree that the government should not be centralized and just admit that Nick is right.

 

[Everskyward]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

It does fit though - if a person from Maine happens to be in Oregon, he isn't suddenly an Oregon citizen, he's just there, exercising his privileges, just as if he had driven there. There's no requirement to get a new drivers license in every state you pass through on a trip, right?

No, but you certainly need to abide by the driving laws of the state that you are in. Besides, if you're giving states that much power there's nothing to say that they couldn't decide to enact more restrictions on reciprocity.

 

[jesse]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

No, but you certainly need to abide by the driving laws of the state that you are in. Besides, if you're giving states that much power there's nothing to say that they couldn't decide to enact more restrictions on reciprocity.

Like the absolute mess that is conceal and carry.

 

[SkyHog]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

No, but you certainly need to abide by the driving laws of the state that you are in. Besides, if you're giving states that much power there's nothing to say that they couldn't decide to enact more restrictions on reciprocity.

Not eligibility requirements. For example, New Mexico has a graduated license for drivers under 18 now. If you drive in at 16 with a full drivers license from Arizona, you're not breaking the law.

 

[Everskyward]

Re: GA pilot versus airline pilot rift. What causes it?c

Not eligibility requirements. For example, New Mexico has a graduated license for drivers under 18 now. If you drive in at 16 with a full drivers license from Arizona, you're not breaking the law.

That's the way it stands now but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way unless there is some federal standard of reciprocity in driver's licenses. I have no idea if that is the case. Besides, it's not just about eligibility. Under your scheme each state could develop their own set of regs.

 

[BellyUpFish]

16 in Bama.. I got my first ticket at 12..