Re: OT but is this photo real?
Okay, very fair question. Both Hacker and I grew up in a Navion/L-17. It had pretty good visibility for a GA aircraft. I will admit that my -172 time is fairly limited....I think my last one was a 'fam' flight in one with floats. But I know Hacker has quite a bit of high-wing time in them. On a personal level, I have a single, multi-engine, commercial land ticket with an instrument rating. I've had high performance single and multi-engine time. So I know the gamut of visibility and maneuverability. And I'm NOT blaming the GA environment in general.
I will also admit that prior to my military flying, I had my 'head in the clouds' so to speak. Strictly a VFR, get in and go flying, and not really worried about the world around me, kind of pilot. In the Seattle area, we had the TCA to worry about, and McChord AFB in the vacinity...but for the most part, there was a lot of uncontrolled airspace just to go out and zoom around in, and not have to worry about anyone else being out there. "I" was the kind of pilot that, once I started military training, became scared to death of. "Clueless" is the word that comes to mind. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I mean more from the angle that I just didn't know any better.
To answer your final question? Well, I would hope that the other plane would be in positive control. I think that is the one thing I took away from my military background is that my 'comfort zone' in high traffic areas involves talking to someone who has the bigger picture. That would (hopefully) ensure that we never got close enough for a collision to be an issue. In this case, if the guys were under positive control, and on IFR vectors, then they were flying in controlled airspace. That means that if the -172 was in the same area, they were in controlled airspace too.
Does that make any sense?
If you are going to just go around and 'play', find some uncontrolled airspace to do it in, or stay below 1200'. If you want to be up in the 'big kids playground', then you need to be talking to someone.
And I don't say ANY of this to be inflamatory. I just say it as one who has seen both sides, and in hindsight, is scared to death of 'what I used to be'.
Originally posted by MRussell
I will also admit that prior to my military flying, I had my 'head in the clouds' so to speak. Strictly a VFR, get in and go flying, and not really worried about the world around me, kind of pilot. In the Seattle area, we had the TCA to worry about, and McChord AFB in the vacinity...but for the most part, there was a lot of uncontrolled airspace just to go out and zoom around in, and not have to worry about anyone else being out there. "I" was the kind of pilot that, once I started military training, became scared to death of. "Clueless" is the word that comes to mind. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I mean more from the angle that I just didn't know any better.
To answer your final question? Well, I would hope that the other plane would be in positive control. I think that is the one thing I took away from my military background is that my 'comfort zone' in high traffic areas involves talking to someone who has the bigger picture. That would (hopefully) ensure that we never got close enough for a collision to be an issue. In this case, if the guys were under positive control, and on IFR vectors, then they were flying in controlled airspace. That means that if the -172 was in the same area, they were in controlled airspace too.
Does that make any sense?
If you are going to just go around and 'play', find some uncontrolled airspace to do it in, or stay below 1200'. If you want to be up in the 'big kids playground', then you need to be talking to someone.
And I don't say ANY of this to be inflamatory. I just say it as one who has seen both sides, and in hindsight, is scared to death of 'what I used to be'.
Comment