X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:54:30 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mx3.lsn.net ([66.90.130.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with ESMTP id 3430196 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:23:35 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.90.130.75; envelope-from=mmcmanus@grandecom.net Received: from sm-cflow2.lsn.net (sm-cflow2.lsn.net [66.90.138.153]) by mx3.lsn.net (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id n0GLMv3S021435 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:22:57 -0600 Received: from l98upwp2.hewitt.com (l98upwp2.hewitt.com [204.152.235.216]) by webmail.grandecom.net (IMP) with HTTP for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:22:57 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <1232140977.4970fab12265b@webmail.grandecom.net> X-Original-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:22:57 -0600 From: mmcmanus@grandecom.net X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] GEESE References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 204.152.235.216 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/8872/Fri Jan 16 10:55:46 2009 on ns2.lsn.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Another Matt opinion: I don't know Matt. I've come up on birds in my 360 that were just a little to the side. Avoidance in a small plane could be tough, and in an Airbus 320 accelerating through what 200 to 250, it'd probably be even harder. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure that a pilot on an IFR flight plan under positive control DOES have "see and avoid" responsibility when he is in visual conditions. My burning question is, did he ditch with the gear down? I'd assume he did, but haven't really heard. Matt McManus LNC2 360 Quoting Matt Reeves : > Opinion by Matt Reeves: > > FLOCKS OF GEESE FLY SLOW and usually in a "V" shape, AND ARE EASY TO SEE ON A > BLUE SKY DAY - AND ARE sometimes DETECTABLE ON RADAR both on airplanes and on > the ground. Pilots WERE heros once plane hit the flock, but COULD have the > collision with geese been avoided and the answer may be YES. > > It is possible that NEITHER pilot was looking straight out the window > because the airplane was on an instrument flight plan = meaning, controllers > on the ground were responsible for aircraft separation. > > ALSO, this aircraft floated for enough time to save the passengers and did > not break apart mainly because of pilot skill bringing it down to a shallow > angle of impact at the slowest possible airspeed above stall speed AND it is > built out of CARBON FIBER which is significantly LIGHTER and stronger than > aluminum and more flexible AND more seamless preventing instant flooding, > thus saving lives (sorry RV guys). > > Baggage and landing gear compartments sealed with air also helped buoyancy. > PILOTS WERE HEROS in saving lives, but the accident MAY have been avoidable > simply by looking out the window. Future geese avoidance may include horns > on aircraft, much like deer horns on cars, radar, and simply looking out the > window on the departure and arrival checklists. > > This aircraft was on an IFR flight plan meaning looking out the window was > not required by the pilots since the controllers on the ground were > responsible for separating aircraft. However, at low altitude, at geese > flight levels, looking out the window should be mandatory. Most geese do > not fly in clouds. > > All points I have not seen reported. > > What's next? Billions in research and in the end, no changes except a Goose > Therapist Lady will make off with millions and will simply tell us the geese > are depressed that we are taking over their skies. And in the end? I will > marry her. > > Matt > > marv@lancair.net wrote: Posted for David Standish : > > That being said I still need a couple more pilots to get Pete to come out to > Montana this summer. Montana is a great place to fly. Lots of room for > training. Billings is a great small city. Yellowstone Park is nearby. And > a > local FBO has agreed to discount fuel. Please contact me if you are > interested. > > David Standish > > > > > flypetezacc@aol.com wrote: > > ** > > > > The root problem is getting the message out to those that think they > > do not need training. 43% of the accidents are people with less than > > 100 hours in type. But, there is a very large number of accidents > > from people with 5000-20000 hours. The ease of receiving training has > > never been easier I implore those that do not need training to get it > > anyway! > > > > Grassroots effort. Go down the hangar row and let the lancair pilot > > know why its important to get training from ANY qualified > > instructor. help make 2009 the safest year for Lancair pilots. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Peter Zaccagnino > > HP-AT.com, Inc > > 1046 River Ave > > Flemington, NJ 08822 > > 908 391 2001 > > > > > -- > > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > >