X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:00:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web82701.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.201.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with SMTP id 3432469 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:47:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 90501 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jan 2009 17:47:24 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=uTg9LUMzfHRvj75aOvMkZKyNa3SL6v5z3ilJfgmZE7yFm9PxBIRmgbTwY06y2pEMf2bwqLmpDNbAaZ5IEfjvDTUu/CI1nyxydq+6U6dji4Gucw4xd1120LDVNo89jmTK2Fox9wplZ/zImVART7kip3QqJUVBl79+fgdYf3EueLA=; X-YMail-OSG: 7JnsekMVM1k6DlH_c3TDMG_BEbhH.Y3nSokDVt833IkUcDiLMZx.Y9gG2qTlcnvcYjLeQUQ.4P.NPuPsz8V2nJatWz.SNMH.iGw6BMVqNPmA4h28A9yphe0xa0OoRPJLNPam81cE79A3l3QEyDGvsry22mgtUBOCEsEDbzhuDbhl2.SIZMO_pKN37mUMgEJAywJmRjQsgLAwRmcAuYkN8tzALr0DV5cSDQ-- Received: from [75.16.230.172] by web82701.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:47:23 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 X-Original-Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:47:23 -0800 (PST) From: Earl Schroeder Subject: Re: [LML] Re: GEESE X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1847545899-1232300843=:89265" X-Original-Message-ID: <35755.89265.qm@web82701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-1847545899-1232300843=:89265 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While not trying to throw stones.. this statement is very troubling to me: This aircraft was on an IFR flight plan meaning looking out the=A0=20 > window was not required by the pilots since the controllers on the=A0=20 > ground were responsible for separating aircraft. ---------end quote------------------- Those supposed flight instructors that left this impression (above) can rig= htfully be blamed for too many collisions in the past.=A0 I worry about tho= se who continue to fly while I'm trying to share the airspace=A0 while they= have their heads buried in the cockpit.=A0 I see in my flying community th= ose who are guilty of no-heads-up and strive to point out the need to be aw= are of their surroundings.=A0 I might be out there so please look OUT for m= e!=A0 Thanks. Earl I agree with Lorn's summation that follows. --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Lorn H Olsen wrote: The controller is not responsible for separating IFR aircraft from VFR =20 aircraft, only other IFR aircraft. It is still the IFR pilots =20 responsibility to avoid hitting anything that he can possibly see =20 including VFR aircraft, birds and anything else that is up in the air. --0-1847545899-1232300843=:89265 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
While not trying to throw stones.. this statement is very troubling to me:

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.
---------end quote-------------------

Those supposed flight instructors that left this impression (above) can rightfully be blamed for too many collisions in the past.  I worry about those who continue to fly while I'm trying to share the airspace  while they have their heads buried in the cockpit.  I see in my flying community those who are guilty of no-heads-up and strive to point out the need to be aware of their surroundings.  I might be out there so please look OUT for me!  Thanks. Earl

I agree with Lorn's summation that follows.

--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Lorn H Olsen <lorn@dynacomm.us> wrote:



The controller is not responsible for separating IFR aircraft from VFR
aircraft, only other IFR aircraft. It is still the IFR pilots
responsibility to avoid hitting anything that he can possibly see
including VFR aircraft, birds and anything else that is up in the air.

--0-1847545899-1232300843=:89265--