Cessna Twin Driver - LOOK OUT there's a tosser about
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't assume that a squawk= a radar service, it's easy to get lulled into this by a good controller that goes beyond the call, but if you want lars ask for it and confirm it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slim slag agreed, I just feel that the other pilot did nothing to minimise the risk of collision by operating in such a manner around a very busy major airfield. I suspect he/she didn't even see me.
You probably were fixating on the 310, you felt confident that as you were talking to ATC that you were in someway protected, I put it to you, that YOU were at fault just as much as the other pilot and maybe more, and it has scared you into posting on Pprune
Actually, no one is at fault, I just said the above to look at this incident from another perspective.....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowNSlow, I recommend you read englishal's post and learn.
He has actually looked at the situation from the other pilot's pespective (especially as the Cessna pilot was also probably focussed on the 310) and also shown respect to yourself.
Maybe if you had done the same before calling other pilots "tossers" your post would be more useful for other people to learn from.
Admittedly the Cessna 340's airmanship could have been better, but he was doing nothing illegal and you didn't spot him either.
With attitudes such as yours, I am gald I fly my Cessna 340 using my IR in class A airspace and for your information, the nearest I have been to Luton recently was overhead at FL200 which is just about far enough away from tossers like you.
He has actually looked at the situation from the other pilot's pespective (especially as the Cessna pilot was also probably focussed on the 310) and also shown respect to yourself.
Maybe if you had done the same before calling other pilots "tossers" your post would be more useful for other people to learn from.
Admittedly the Cessna 340's airmanship could have been better, but he was doing nothing illegal and you didn't spot him either.
With attitudes such as yours, I am gald I fly my Cessna 340 using my IR in class A airspace and for your information, the nearest I have been to Luton recently was overhead at FL200 which is just about far enough away from tossers like you.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too find the ‘see and avoid’ principle somewhat unreliable in to-days fast traffic. It doesn’t take much of a haze or low sun and despite the best of intentions - separation is at risk.
Obviously, for a light aircraft a full TCAS is not an option. Does anyone have experience with portable CAS? Are there other options? Any recommendations?
I ‘m considering an installation.
Obviously, for a light aircraft a full TCAS is not an option. Does anyone have experience with portable CAS? Are there other options? Any recommendations?
I ‘m considering an installation.
Professional Student
flyme - The Zaon MRX PCAS is a (relatively) cheap device, portable, battery power, that detects other transponding aircraft through use of the same, and displays the nearest one with range and height (although not direction).
Myself and another forumite were using one in a Seneca a couple of weeks ago, it did seem to work pretty well, although with obvious limitations with regard to lack of direction info/only works with transponding aircraft etc
Myself and another forumite were using one in a Seneca a couple of weeks ago, it did seem to work pretty well, although with obvious limitations with regard to lack of direction info/only works with transponding aircraft etc
Thread Starter
Fuji Abound I appreciate what you are saying but, as the twin headed off in the general direction of Cranfield (ie to the West) I would guess that a routing via Pirton would have suited him/her fine.Agreed about the Cessna probably feeling the turbulence far less then the Auster!
englishal Agreed, Class G is free for all users but surely maintaining a listening watch on Luton Radar frequency would be good airmanship given that he was so close to the Zone edge? I am making the assumtion that he wasn't because if he had been then we would never have got so close. In terms of lookout I was obviously as much at fault as the other pilot as I didn't see him until he was so close there was no possibliyt of avoiding action being taken. I disagree that I was fixated on the 310 as once I had identified him and seen he was going to pass well clear I resumed my scan. I was looking away for approximately 2-3 seconds.
slipup With hindsight the title is rather emotive but, as you say the airmanship displayed by the Cessna pilot (who I assume is reasonably experienced given the aircraft being flown) was somewhat lacking. Just because something is legal doesn't make it sensible. I appreciate what englishal is saying and I have certainly learnt from the experience. I'm sorry you feel that a person obeying the requirements of low level operation around the Luton Zone to the letter becomes a tosser in your eyes whereas somebody who is displaying questionable airmanship is blameless.
englishal Agreed, Class G is free for all users but surely maintaining a listening watch on Luton Radar frequency would be good airmanship given that he was so close to the Zone edge? I am making the assumtion that he wasn't because if he had been then we would never have got so close. In terms of lookout I was obviously as much at fault as the other pilot as I didn't see him until he was so close there was no possibliyt of avoiding action being taken. I disagree that I was fixated on the 310 as once I had identified him and seen he was going to pass well clear I resumed my scan. I was looking away for approximately 2-3 seconds.
slipup With hindsight the title is rather emotive but, as you say the airmanship displayed by the Cessna pilot (who I assume is reasonably experienced given the aircraft being flown) was somewhat lacking. Just because something is legal doesn't make it sensible. I appreciate what englishal is saying and I have certainly learnt from the experience. I'm sorry you feel that a person obeying the requirements of low level operation around the Luton Zone to the letter becomes a tosser in your eyes whereas somebody who is displaying questionable airmanship is blameless.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slip up,
A statement like...
suggests you're criticising someone's behaviour in the air, not on these forums.
A statement like...
the nearest I have been to Luton recently was overhead at FL200 which is just about far enough away from tossers like you.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlybird,
Is this not what LowNSlow's original post set out to do, "criticise someone's behaviour in the air" coupled with the insult of calling somebody a "tosser"
These are exactly the reasons why I responded.
I probably went over the top with my last paragraph but there is no intention to criticise anybody's behaviour in the air but rather the tone of the original post.
I am sure LowNSLow found being called a "tosser" offensive, likewise so did many other "Cessna Twin pilots"
Is this not what LowNSlow's original post set out to do, "criticise someone's behaviour in the air" coupled with the insult of calling somebody a "tosser"
These are exactly the reasons why I responded.
I probably went over the top with my last paragraph but there is no intention to criticise anybody's behaviour in the air but rather the tone of the original post.
I am sure LowNSLow found being called a "tosser" offensive, likewise so did many other "Cessna Twin pilots"
Thread Starter
slipup as I said, the title was a bit emotive but I don't see where my airmanship was lacking in this particular case, not that I'm saying I've never made mistakes in the past!!!
PS I didn't call all Cessna twin pilots tossers I would like to be one just as soon as I win the Lottery! 
PS I didn't call all Cessna twin pilots tossers
I would like to be one just as soon as I win the Lottery!
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 48
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the rant...I want to know if you are talking about a Cirrus or Auster??
Glad to hear it as I fly a 337 now and again.
Originally Posted by LowNSlow
After finally getting Annie the Auster in the air again. I took her up to start breaking-in the new cylinders.
Originally Posted by LowNSlow
At least now my Cirrus has her overhauled cylinders on, the mags have been refurbished and she is running like a watch.
Originally Posted by LowNSlow
PS I didn't call all Cessna twin pilots tossers
Thread Starter
gcolyer sorry for the confusion. I have started to break in the new cylinders on the Cirrus Minor II engine which powers my Auster
I've always fancied a Cessna 337 despite the rear engine overheating risk, noise and expense. Just a little too expensive for me to justify for purely pleasure flying though.
I've always fancied a Cessna 337 despite the rear engine overheating risk, noise and expense. Just a little too expensive for me to justify for purely pleasure flying though.
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 48
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
337 are not to bad to maintain and run. There is nothing you can do for the noise though, short of doing one engine approaches. As for the over heating sacrifice some airspeed and open the cowl flaps now and again.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree that I was fixated on the 310 as once I had identified him and seen he was going to pass well clear I resumed my scan. I was looking away for approximately 2-3 seconds.
Point noted about listening watch to Luton and if it were me, I would have, but would it have made a difference if you were not receiving any sort of "service" as such? There are also places, say Plymouth, where you can overfly the airfield (or fly very close) but be talking to someone else (Plymouth Mil for example)...I dunno what it is like around Luton, could they have been with someone else?
Anyway, my main reason for posting was just to create some persepective....I don't think anyone was really a tosser
Cheers
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was a damned good thread title, quite clearly not to be taken that literally, and I'm still wondering what all the aggro is about. 
But then, after several years of reading PPRuNe, I ought to understand.....
But then, after several years of reading PPRuNe, I ought to understand.....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wondering what all the aggro is about
What Aggro?
This is nothing by usual PPrune standards.
Just start a thread on:
Aerobating a R-22,
and you will read plenty of aggro.
Infact Whirly they should be OK for 1G manouvers shouldnt they?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An R-22 isn't even safe straight and level! Now I will be into trouble with Whirlybird.
I fly aircraft of very much the same performance as the C340 at that level, and have often crossed Luton zone VFR or IFR below airways. One of the most helpful ATS units around (especially in comparrison with a certain neighbour). I would not dream of being within half a mile of any zone without clearance in or at the very least being identifiable to the ATS controlling the zone. Someone was relying too much on GPS to keep him clear.
Several comments have pointed out that the pilot was doing nothing illegal, but this was bad airmanship. I learned an important lesson from a friend involved in legal cases in aviation. Your actions must not only be legal, but you must be able to stand up in court and justify them if anything goes wrong.
IO540
See and avoid is fine in my experience. Back it up with at least a FIS, but if you spend most of your time eyes-out rather than looking when flying in VMC at instruments it is perfectly good. You, like the C340 pilot in question and I, fly one of the higher performance aircraft in the open FIR (outside the military routes), so most conflicts come from ahead too.
Transponders are impractical in many aircraft. Technology is not the only solution, and is very fallible.
I fly aircraft of very much the same performance as the C340 at that level, and have often crossed Luton zone VFR or IFR below airways. One of the most helpful ATS units around (especially in comparrison with a certain neighbour). I would not dream of being within half a mile of any zone without clearance in or at the very least being identifiable to the ATS controlling the zone. Someone was relying too much on GPS to keep him clear.
Several comments have pointed out that the pilot was doing nothing illegal, but this was bad airmanship. I learned an important lesson from a friend involved in legal cases in aviation. Your actions must not only be legal, but you must be able to stand up in court and justify them if anything goes wrong.
IO540
See and avoid is fine in my experience. Back it up with at least a FIS, but if you spend most of your time eyes-out rather than looking when flying in VMC at instruments it is perfectly good. You, like the C340 pilot in question and I, fly one of the higher performance aircraft in the open FIR (outside the military routes), so most conflicts come from ahead too.
Transponders are impractical in many aircraft. Technology is not the only solution, and is very fallible.
