Keeping a good look out

[RotorHorn]

There's a program on tonight on Discovery Wings called Airshow World 2001 (its on at 6pm and repeated at 9pm).

In this particular episode, John Nichol (the Tornado navigator who got shot down in the gulf) talks to a guy called Tim Ellison- a member of the British Disabled Flying Club.

Anyway if I remember rightly Tim is also an ex-mil pilot, and they're interviewing him in a cessna or something similiar (all those planks look the same to me) flying around Old Sarum.

The thing that sticks in my mind was how much they keep their heads up and looking out of the cockpit!!

They made my attempts at what I thought was 'keeping a good lookout' pale into insignificance!! I think their heads must have been on bearings - gave me neck ache just watching them.

Full credit to the military training.

I don't think enough emphasis is given to PPL's about 'keeping a good lookout'.... you wouldn't drive your car reading the paper....

(although I know some have tried!)..

Anyway, if you get chance, try and watch the last 10 minutes of the show (I think thats when this segment is on) - you have to see it to believe it!.

[Chilli Monster]

Not just the military training. You'll find the average Glider pilot, used to sharing a thermal with several other gliders in close proximity, keeps a good look out in much the same way (You have to - the distances we're talking about would make the average PPL's hair stand on end ;)).

But it's no big deal - that's the whole idea behind VFR after all (as opposed to head in looking at a GPS screen!).

Oh - and the aircraft Tim's flying is his Bonanza

CM

[sennadog]

Yep, I saw this and it made me wonder. It seemed to me that they were fairly close to the circuit for the flight and I wondered if that was why they were keeping more than a normal lookout as their heads kept bobbing about.

I don't scan to the extent that they did which leads me to my two questions.

Was their scanning technique a result of flying fast jets in their military careers and perhaps more suited to that type of flying? I would find it difficult to scan to that extent and navigate at the same time!

Was JN hamming it up a bit? I've seen him in aircraft before and I don't remember him looking about to that extent in other planes. Or does that aircraft have particular blind spots that needs more than a "normal" lookout? I'm not saying that they were wrong, it just looked very odd to me and I've not come across that level of scanning in my albeit brief, flying career.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Seemed to me that the lookout was pretty standard for a busy day at Old Sarum.

[BRL]

The circut was to say the least interesting BRL's (the human TCAS) head is on a swivel calling traffic -
I'am available anytime to anyone in the south, well anywhere actually.!!!!! Free of charge........... :D :D

[Final 3 Greens]

Chilli Monster

If glider pilots are so good at lookout, why did one turn in front of a jet on short final at an airfield somewhere in Essex a couple of months ago and cause a go around from circa 100 feet? A/G reported the traffic before they turned off base and the glider said it was looking - dire airmanship IMHO.

Fortunately the JP pilot had rather better situational awareness/lookout and saved the day with superior airmanship.

Sorry, but there are good and bad pilots of all types of aircraft and I don't buy this"glider pilots with halos" point of view, which I consider elitist and unhelpful.

BTW gliding was my entry point into flying and don't remember our club ever considering our skilss superior to any other airmen.

[Chilli Monster]

F3G

I suggest you go back and read the post - I said "average" which by definition means there must also be a low and a high standard.

In the same way that the glider pilot at Essex wasn't the cream of the crop then neither was the power pilot who flew right across my nose joining the circuit one day, whilst reading the distance he was to the nearest 0.1 mile from the airfield by being head down looking at his GPS! (Only way he could have - the airfield I fly from doesn't have DME :D)

Sorry if you took my posting to infer an 'elitist' view (which it most certainly wasn't). Like you gliding was my entry into flying - I now do exclusively power as I like to know where I'm going to land ;)

Maybe you shouldn't read so much into what isn't there?

CM

[LowNSlow]

I did a large part of my PPL on ARV's and AA-5's which allow you to maintain a good lookout. The Auster I currently fly also has loads of perspex to look out of. I feel slightly claustrophobic when I fly a PA-28 or, to a lesser extent, a C172.

I got carved up by a Tomahawk at the PFA Rally that I wouldn't have seen had I been flying a low winged aeroplane. However the 2 bods in the Tomahawk should have been able to see me as I was above them and could see the RHS bods head. If he had turned around, he would have had a bit of a shock :eek:

As we all know the South of England is a busy bit of sky on a clear day. The only defence is to keep the head moving and the eyes looking. :cool:

As an aside, does anybody else waggle their wings when they spot an aircraft relatively nearby just to let them know that they have been seen?

[englishal]

nearest 0.1 mile from the airfield by being head down looking at his GPS!

(as opposed to head in looking at a GPS screen!)

Deary me, some people really don't like this new fangled navigation technology, do they?;)

:D

[Lawyerboy]

In relation to wing waggling, LowNSlow, my instructor does that and it's rubbing off on me. Nothing more disconcerting than not knowing whether you've been seen.

[Chilli Monster]

Don't have a problem with GPS - even have one fitted to my aircraft.

However - when operating into an airfield which is notified in the UK AIP as being available for VFR flights only then you should abide by VFR - which means head out, especially when the day in question is just above VMC minima. If people wish to fly head in then they should operate iaw IFR which includes operating into IFR notified airfields.

CM

[long final]

Chilli,

VFR/IFR whatever, surely using either GPS ( which the chap may well not have had ) or other RNAV help, in getting an immediate, exact distance, is better than a rough guess?

I agree that one shouldn't fly heads down re. GPS, but in some situations, i.e. final, I would wish some people use the technology available to help everyone in the air. Some people see 2 miles Very differently to me. ( Resulting in me cutting someone up, whilst keeping a good look out, the other day )

As Englishal says though, you do seem to give GPS users a bit of a hard time sometimes - just my observation.:cool:

Best Regards,
LF
;)

[Chilli Monster]

1) Your observation is wrong.

2) At the end of the day it's all down to airmanship - not use of technology, and that is the crux of what is being discussed here. Sorry if you've missed the point in what I'm getting at.

Mind you - what do I know. I only deal with pilots like this sometimes on a daily basis ;)

CM

[long final]

Chilli,

Sorry if you've missed the point in what I'm getting at

Thought it was partly about using technology hand in hand with good airmanship :confused:

You did mention the GPS situation - that being misuse of technology can lead to poor airmanship. I was just offering an opinion regarding both the aforementioned GPS and pilot use of it, that may lead to improved airmanship, i.e. use of whatever aids available to improve safety.

Must just be me.

Regards
LF

[Vortex what...ouch!]

So will someone tell me how using a GPS makes you a worse pilot?

Best thing to happen to navigation in years if you ask me.

Roll on decent modern engines in aircraft as well. Or must we continue to use 1940’s technology for the next 60 years?

Luddites.:o

[englishal]

GPS could be used to make GA flying much safer. Why not have a GPS receiver hooked up to a VHF transmitter, constantly re-transmitting you position. Also have a VHF RXer picking up transmissions from similar units on other aircraft, and then a computer which a) filters out transmissions from other aircraft over a certain distance away, and b) calculating any possible threat?

I'm sure it could be built for under a grand. Would be more use to a VFR pilot than a transponder especially if most GA aircraft had these fitted. ATC could even utilise these transmissions, which could be encoded with call sign.

Although it could be built for under a grand, once the CAA get their hands on it and 'certify' it, then you add 'aviation' to the front of the box, you're now looking at 7 grand ;)

Cheers
EA:)

[Vortex what...ouch!]

englishal

I actually worked on the design and integration of a system exactly like that. It was so a council could keep track of its workers out on the road (sneaky lazy council workers ;) )* If I remember it cost a little less than a grand about 5 years ago so I imagine it could probably be done for a lot less today.

It transmitted the vehicles location to a central control room every minute (this can be adjusted as required) and was tracked on a computer with mapping software installed. You could poll individual vehicles for updates and set each one not to update when stationary, i.e. whilst on a job etc.

The bit about adding aviation and increasing the cost 700% is soooo true :)

*I remember one of the workers’ GPS receivers kept going U/S as soon as he was out on the road. Would not update. Had us flummoxed for weeks until we followed the chap and noticed him putting a biscuit tin over the GPS antennae after he left the depot each day. Sneaky sod :D

[englishal]

You can get a box for your car, costs about £400, and it contains a GPS and pay as you talk mobile phone circuitry. If your car is nicked, you get a...txt msg snt to ur mob fn...telling you its gone (plus other functions, like if your alarm goes off). You can even text your car and get stop it, by activating the imobiliser. Useful if you get a text saying your missus (or Mr) is speeding :p (Also good for a gag ;) )..Oh yea, it also contains a database of speed camera's and warns you if you're getting close (could have VRPs for aviation)...

So, it could be done. But I fear that beaureaucratic nonsense would kill any such idea.

Cheers

EA;)

[Vortex what...ouch!]

So true. It seem commercial aviation has embraced modern technology and is leading the way. Glass cockpit and FMS etc. While here in GA people actually (not me) prefer the status quo and to continue doing things the hard way.

Can you imagine what such a system would do for safety in the air? It would be argued by the bureaucrats and luddites that it might fail so we shouldn’t use such systems. Well at worst it would only put us back where we are now wouldn’t it? After all we are talking mostly about VFR which means we would still be flying the aircraft by looking out the window.

Maybe one-day things will change. But not soon I fear :(

Well I must get back to banging my head against the brick wall here :D Or should that be my computer monitor :)

[BRL]

I will shortly be changing the name of this thread to 101 things to do with a GPS unit :rolleyes: :p

[Windy Militant]

We seem to have a very definite schism in the ranks here. Reading between the lines (and stirring with a very large spoon;) ) It appears to me that there is a growing number of people who trust technology with a blind faith almost religious in it's nature. These are the same people who drive three inches from your boot in the P*ssing rain (I've just got back from a rather fraught trip on the M1) because they've got ABS and can stop anywhere in 0.001". Er, no wrong ABS doesn't let you stop quicker. It just lets you keep the pointy end going where you point it by stopping the wheels from locking up.
On the other hand we have the "the day I have to put a radio in the Tiger Moth I'll set fire to the bloody thing!"
What we need is to foster a healthy cynacism about every thing we use when flying. Learn how to do without before you have to! (This can be quite a bit of fun if done properly and with safety well in mind)
How many people have been taught how to fly circuits without instruments? and when did you last practise it!
The way that a lot of flying schools instruct is set up to allow people to progress onto bigger and better things. This is fine but how many times have you cringed as sombody drags a PA28 over the fence hanging on the prop. Airline approaches are fine in a Four holer thunder jet but not wise in a light single.
The word has been bandied about much but It's all down to airmanship. Use GPS it's a good tool, but don't bet your life on it. There are many things that can affect the system and most dangerous are the things that are not immediately obvious say a bug in the software. A friend once switched on his hand held GPS whilst he stood not far from the threshold of a runway and was told he had 30 Nm to run! (Turned out to be a corrupted data base)
To get back to the original thread keep watching the skies.
Dip the nose or weave in the climb. Lift a wing to look into the turn on high wing aircraft. Oh and Always remember your instructors advice and keep looking! :)

[englishal]

These are the same people who drive three inches from your boot in the P*ssing rain

See you could do this if you had an active cruise control system, which matches the speed of the car in front (ie. so when they brake, your brakes are applied!) :D Moden technology eh? :p

Cheers
EA:)

[Final 3 Greens]

Chilli Monster

I have re-read both your posts.

the power pilot who flew right across my nose joining the circuit one day, whilst reading the distance he was to the nearest 0.1 mile from the airfield by being head down looking at his GPS!

Please tell me how this assertion can be justified?

You may have been the victim of poor airmanship or you may not, but to make this statement is truly asinine and makes you look ridiculous.

My temporal and provisional view is that your are probably not elitist, but rather are arrogant and have a big chip on your shoulder.

[Final 3 Greens]

Windy

sombody drags a PA28 over the fence hanging on the prop

This sounds like the Piper POH recommendation for a soft field landing to me and the pilot you saw may have been practising on a hard runway, to maintain currency which is good airmanship.

Perhaps it's better to think a little before making such firm statements?

Also, have you considered how a PA28 is landed off an instrument approach at mimima? Are you sure that you did not witness a simulated non precision approach (or even an ILS)? Do you understand the phrase stabilised approach and why this can mean different approach profiles in different conditions?

Sure, a glide approach will always give the best protection against engine failure in theory due to the potential energy stored in the airframe, but the world ain't that black and white, so that option may not be available and managing the subsequent risks is a major part of airmanship.

I've only a few hundred hours, but I have acquaintances with thousands and they debate these sort of things regularly, often agreeing to disagree; me, I sit quietly in the corner, listen very hard and learn a lot.