Lindberg
Final Approach
If you're unable to just ignore it, yes.So I should turn it off then??
If you're unable to just ignore it, yes.So I should turn it off then??
You are swimming upstream hereI use this system often where I am. I can see traffic on the "fish finder" long before I can see it visually. And it helps greatly finding traffic that ATC has called out if I can't find it visually at first. It works well, it's useful to see what's going on in a pattern, especially before you get there.
You are swimming upstream here
Cirrus = bad (Bonanza good!)
Chute = bad (Mooney roll cages and that magical perfect flat field that appears right when you need it, good!)
TKS = bad (boots that barely work, good!)
basically anything invented for aviation post mid 1970s = bad
I wonder if when I turn 6,000 years old I'll have such disdain for contemporary aviation tech..
Anyway.. I gave up on the Cirrus stuff on this site. But it's good for an occasional laugh fueled by a tired trope.. I'm still high fiving (btw)
...
OF COURSE any collusion avoidance system is GREAT when you have more than two literal seconds to process it AND act on it.
If you're unable to just ignore it, yes.
Aviation light bulbs. They were $19 apiece.Ha. Nice. See. Tech sucks. Yay autocorrect. Haha.
My favorite “safety tech can kill a whole bunch of people” accident report has always been Eastern 401.
Three lightbulbs on three separate safety systems, two malfunctioning, one either malfunctioning or nobody knee where the switch/breaker for it was...
Caused enough sense of safety along with ambiguity, to kill 101 people.
One was even the backup safety system to the primary.
Three friggin lightbulbs. Not even complex safety systems. Close a contact and send current through a $0.19 lightbulb. All three of em.
Did they have to pull the chute because all the fuel siphoned out?Nope.
To the best of my recollection there was one precipitated by a loose fuel cap. Seriously.
Ha. Nice. See. Tech sucks. Yay autocorrect. Haha.
I haven’t seen anyone in this thread say any of those things.
You guys make up stuff in your heads to play victim on the whole Cirrus thing most of the time.
It’s truly become cultural.
I see concerns about close parallels, split tower frequencies, and a discussion that in dense traffic areas ALL collision avoidance software can become a distraction.
Who said any of that other silliness above?
OF COURSE any collusion avoidance system is GREAT when you have more than two literal seconds to process it AND act on it.
And OF COURSE it can’t EVER save your ass if you turned into traffic with 700’ to spare and doing 170. That’s just math.
And OF COURSE we should look at human factors like a continuous alert going off becoming ignored, because they all do.
That’s why many learn to ignore stall and gear horns too... if you spend three hours in the practice area listening to the things going off, and don’t mandate a “must acknowledge” standard — guess what you’ll tune out when you’re tired and heading back to the airport?
Do you want to hear where the other airplanes are in the pattern by what the controller and them are saying, or do you want a computer jabbering “Traffic Traffic!” over the top of them in your headset?
Those truly are valid human factors concerns at a place as dense with traffic as APA.
You seem frustrated unnecessarily. Quite a lot of us like all the tech. Doesn’t mean we feel it necessary at all times nor can we afford all of it. But it’s truly rare anybody says anything more than “I don’t feel like I need it” here.
I love Eyesight in my Subaru and let it drive quite often. But I can drive the car just fine without it.
It’s not something I get butt hurt over if someone says they don’t need it in their car. That seems to be the weird over reaction that any minor (even valid) criticism receives.
I also have learned a few scenarios where Eyesight does truly unsafe things.
There’s no perfect car and there’s no perfect aircraft. No big deal.
I’m sure I can set up a scenario where my Garmin would kill me. Tech is tech. It’ll always have that problem.
Aviation light bulbs. They were $19 apiece.
Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.
100% the fault of ATC? Pretty easy to argue with that...
but maybe I didn't hear him correctly.
Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.
well then I guess the controllers at RDU are at fault 100% of the time, as they have plenty of side-by-side approaches on parallel runways. but wait, something's weird, they don't have mid-airs. so they aren't even good at being wrong. strange. I guess the SFO controllers are always at fault as well, and probably at every other parallel runway location. but again, they all suck at being at fault since all these other locations never have mid-airs. but I do agree with one thing, CLEARLY atc was 100% at fault for having the cirrus fly base at what, mach 7.0 or whatever. yup, def ATCs fault. they should have told the cirrus pilot that it may be a bad idea to blow through final on a parallel runway after being given a traffic advisory. GO DAN!
Had the Cirrus been flying at pattern speeds, the Metroliner would have been well ahead?had the controller waited 5 seconds to issue that clearance, the metroliner would have passed by the time the Cirrus was on base.
I disagree the Cirrus pilot showed poor airmanship that almost killed him, his passengers and the crew of the MetroI don't know, I understand your point, but look at the other side.
Cirrus, you're also clear, just don't smack into the big airplane.
Both airplanes were cleared for converging directions. Yes, Cirrus blew through his mark, but they shouldn't have been cleared for converging directions.
Had the Cirrus been flying at pattern speeds, the Metroliner would have been well ahead?
I disagree the Cirrus pilot showed poor airmanship that almost killed him, his passengers and the crew of the Metro
Yes, the 100% is a little much, I don't agree with that, but are those airports you listed turning one aircraft to arrive to his turn to final next to the other aircraft 700 feet away? I doubt it.
Had the Cirrus been flying at pattern speeds, the Metroliner would have been well ahead?
At the dual-runway airports I have flown at, Tower calls out the traffic and relies on the pilots to separate themselves once they say "traffic in sight."Yes, the 100% is a little much, I don't agree with that, but are those airports you listed turning one aircraft to arrive to his turn to final next to the other aircraft 700 feet away? I doubt it.
Was the controller well aware of the Cirrus speed, and still turned him in?
Did the controller turn the Cirrus at all? I heard "west shore" and "follow the Cessna", nothing about when to turn.I don't think it matters, the problem I see is turning one airplane into arrive that close to another, why do that?
And where I fly, "I'll call your base" is the exception, not the rule. In 30 years of flying, I've never heard it when the relevant traffic was cleared to a different runway than I was.Did the controller turn the Cirrus at all? I heard "west shore" and "follow the Cessna", nothing about when to turn.
good point, I don't know how many feet apart they are. but I certainly know if they were turning me and said traffic on final on the other runway, I'd be looking out for that traffic and made damn sure I had them in site. also wouldn't be flying insane speeds. also wouldn't have blown thru final. lot of things I'd do differently but knowing it can all be blamed on ATC, fk it.
Did the controller turn the Cirrus at all? I heard "west shore" and "follow the Cessna", nothing about when to turn.
Hmm. At about 1:50 he tells us a lot about his airmanship.Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.
Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.
But only simultaneous instrument approaches when the aircrews have special training and HUD or autoland. And there's more five times the distance between the runways at RDU than at APA.well then I guess the controllers at RDU are at fault 100% of the time, as they have plenty of side-by-side approaches on parallel runways.
But only simultaneous instrument approaches when the aircrews have special training and HUD or autoland. And there's more than twice the distance between the runways at RDU than at APA. In fact, APA's spacing is right at the minimum limit for VFR ops.
I was referring to simultaneous INSTRUMENT approaches. And again, there's 3500 feet between RDU's parallels, unlike the barely 700 at APA.I dunno, I’ve been vectored VFR to final side by side to a heavy at RDU.
I was referring to simultaneous INSTRUMENT approaches. And again, there's 3500 feet between RDU's parallels, unlike the barely 700 at APA.