What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

"That can't be safe!"

N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
This afternoon on the flight home from Michigan we were cruising at 9,500' over the hills of West Virginia when Flight Following called traffic at five miles and 10,000' at our 2 o'clock position, an RJ.

I picked him up at about three miles and it was obvious we were on converging tracks but separated by 500'. At that time I let ATC know I had the RJ in sight.

The RJ pilot kept asking ATC to give him our position because hit TCAS was going crazy and showed a conflict.

We passed directly under him, not ahead or behind but DIRECTLY under his belly, separated by that 500'.

The RJ pilot came on the radio and commented to ATC, "That can't be safe!" To which the Controller said, "500 feet is considered safe."

My smart alec reply was, "Hey, you need to clean the belly of that RJ, it sure is dirty!"

Since I had him in sight and could tell we would pass under him, I did not consider it a safety issue. Besides, at that point, starting to maneuver could have been the thing to cause an accident.

Out of curiousty, what would the rest of you do, if you were in the same situation?
 
Last edited:
I am very surprised you didn't see the RJ do an evasive maneuver based on a "RA" (resolution advisory) on his TCAS. It's likely they actually got a visual on you at some point. They may have secretly been trying to get close look at that new Skyview in your sweet blue and white -9. I know of at least one RJ pilot that has a strange fetish for -9's with skyview.
 
N941WR said:
Out of curiousty, what would the rest of you do, if you were in the same situation?
Click to expand...

Made sure the RJ pilot knew I had a visual on him.

That should have quelled his fears. I'm very comfortable with 500' vertical separation if I have the other A/C in sight.
 
Bill, Kzoo was an ATC training facility when I was at WMU. They'd ball us up and send us at each other pretty often. We'd just wag wings at each other and keep converging. Gives new controllers a little pucker preview.
 
Think about that next time your bi-annual VFR / IFR (91.411-91.413) check is do.

You VFR transponder only check guys may not fly IFR, but doing the full IFR 91.411 check verifies your alitimeter and altitude encoder are actually reporting the correct altitude!
 
If we were head on, I'd have moved a few wingspans (his, not yours) upwind, and stayed there for a few miles; not for aircraft avoidance but rather possible wake avoidance (they tend to settle behind the jet but I have no idea how fast).
 
I was cruising recently at 8500 under VFR flight following and was asked to descend and maintain VFR at or below 8000 for crossing IFR traffic at 9000. I thought all IFR traffic was supposed to be protected by 1000 feet vertical?
 
airguy said:
.............I thought all IFR traffic was supposed to be protected by 1000 feet vertical?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that is only true for IFR separation from another IFR aircraft. I'm sure one of the ATC controllers will chime in soon!!
 
N941WR said:
My smart alec reply was, "Hey, you need to clean the belly of that RJ, it sure is dirty!"

Since I had him in sight and could tell we would pass under him, I did not consider it a safety issue. Besides, at that point, starting to maneuver could have been the thing to cause an accident.

Out of curiousty, what would the rest of you do, if you were in the same situation?
Click to expand...

An RA requires an immediate and positive response to the commands given by the TCAS which are either a climb or descend maneuver. If I was in his position without an RA and did not have you in sight, I would have asked for a vector away. With 500' separation, you seeing me is not valid enough for me and the 280 bodies sitting behind me to continue on present course.

If I had been you in my RV-4 I would have maneuvered 20-30 degrees away from the RJ and not made the unprofessional remark.

As an aside, when departing on weekends out of Florida airports, I would brief my first officers to climb with the autopilot on (both heads looking out the window) and at near Vzf to 10,000'.
 
Last edited:
springer said:
................If I had been you in my RV-4 I would have maneuvered 20-30 degrees away from the RJ and not made the unprofessional remark.
Click to expand...

With a sense of humor like that, I bet you were a barrel of laughs on layovers.:rolleyes:
 
ATCs job is to separate IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft. After all, if you were below 10000' you aren't required to have a mode C, nor are you required to talk to ATC. Exception: in class B ATC will separate all aircraft. that's why VFR minimums go to "clear of clouds".
 
springer said:
If I had been you in my RV-4 I would have maneuvered 20-30 degrees away from the RJ and not made the unprofessional remark.
Click to expand...

and since he wasn't being paid for flying, he isn't a professional pilot by definition, and therefore free to have some fun...
 
Interesting thread. I think the best course would have been for the RV-4 driver to simply reply, "Nxxxx, Traffic in sight". Then everyone (RJ crew, ATC) would know that the RV has not only the requirement but the ability to execute the expectation that, as a VFR flight, they would maintain visual separation. There is nothing that creates a more nagging feeling in an aircraft then to be advised of traffic and not be able to see it. Knowing that the other guy sees you alleviates that anxiety.

As for the snarky comment - I have no problem with that as long as some rapport had been established before it was made. Letting the RJ crew know they are seen would probably put them more in the mood to accept the good-natured josh.

We are all ambassadors for our individual segments of aviation and as such our interactions carry a lot of weight in creating, modifying, or reinforcing impressions individuals in other segments have our our respective niches in the aviation universe. I always try to sound as professional on the radio as possible such that the true professionals that hear my radio calls won't be able to tell that I'm a private sport pilot and think I've. And I find it can be done while still managing to interact with ATC and others in a fun way. IN the enroute phase on a non-busy frequency you might say one thing; congested one in busy terminal area the less said the better.

My two cents...
 
apkp777 said:
I am very surprised you didn't see the RJ do an evasive maneuver based on a "RA" (resolution advisory) on his TCAS. It's likely they actually got a visual on you at some point. They may have secretly been trying to get close look at that new Skyview in your sweet blue and white -9. I know of at least one RJ pilot that has a strange fetish for -9's with skyview.
Click to expand...
To get an RA, both aircraft need to be equipped with TCAS, not just Mode C. The regional would only ever have got a TA.
 
KRviator said:
To get an RA, both aircraft need to be equipped with TCAS, not just Mode C. The regional would only ever have got a TA.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The RJ could have easily gotten an RA based upon the RV transponder information ONLY. The likely reason there was no RA in this case was because everyone was in level flight and the vertical separation was not diminishing enough to trigger the advisory.

Not sure why the RJ boys seemed so uptight but the "dirty belly" comment probably reminded them to relax. Traffic was called, the RV reported them in sight, and they probably saw the target on the fish finder the entire time.
 
tkatc said:
they probably saw the target on the fish finder the entire time.
Click to expand...

That's probably what gave them the willies. They both had their heads down watching the finder and not looking out the window.

500 feet crossing north of Atlanta in VFR seems to be the norm.
 
springer said:
With 500' separation, you seeing me is not valid enough for me and the 280 bodies sitting behind me to continue on present course.
Click to expand...

I think about this every time ATC calls out airline traffic anywhere close to me. Its always easy for me to see him, but harder for him to see me. The other guy also has no real way of knowing whether I'm a skilled professional with eagle vision and decades of experience, or disoriented student pilot. Its actually rather impressive that things seem to work out, due in part to TCAS?
 
BobTurner said:
ATCs job is to separate IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft. After all, if you were below 10000' you aren't required to have a mode C, nor are you required to talk to ATC. Exception: in class B ATC will separate all aircraft. that's why VFR minimums go to "clear of clouds".
Click to expand...

ATC will separate VFRs from IFRs in class C airspace also. The minimum, however, is 500' vertical and "green between" aka "target resolution". Basically it means "DONT LET THEM HIT!". :D
 
tkatc said:
This is incorrect. The RJ could have easily gotten an RA based upon the RV transponder information ONLY. The likely reason there was no RA in this case was because everyone was in level flight and the vertical separation was not diminishing enough to trigger the advisory.

Not sure why the RJ boys seemed so uptight but the "dirty belly" comment probably reminded them to relax. Traffic was called, the RV reported them in sight, and they probably saw the target on the fish finder the entire time.
Click to expand...

Respectfully...

I sit on the other side of your frequency everyday. I appreciate your comments as a Controller.

If I'm at 10,000 doing 320-350Kts and come within 500' of an RV doing 170kts... 500kts closure with only 500' makes me uptight:(

The only one with positive contact was the RV. We as RV pilots are all yeager/pappy and crossfield in one;) I'm sure the RJ pilot didnt recognize this "fact" and was nervous about relying on the unknown talent of said RV driver.

Example: If not on Autopilot, RV pilot maintaining Visual strays from altitude because "where the eyes go... the body follows" (ask my wife;))

ATC alert sounds at 200' off altitude... Now we are down to 300'

I take the time to type all this because... I've been there a couple of times. Hauling 150 pax with 500' separation and 500kts of closure rate. Some controllers do nothing, some call traffic and steer you 10-15 degrees off course for traffic. I say THANKS to the controllers that are "over protective".

For the original RV driver that posted:

In this situation I would not use "I'd like a turn or descent". I use, "I'm turning to avoid and descending for traffic".

Professional or Not? I would have made the exact same comment that you did about the dirty belly. :D
 
Bob

I see that Walt has posted about having your transponder checks done, but all this is useless unless your STATIC is accuarte.

Do a GPS box and compare your GPS derived TAS to your indicated TAS. From a CAS which most new EFIS will be or damned near enough to.

If you are IFR any more than 3 knots error and I would not be happy with the static error, for VFR no more than say 5 knots max error.

The ffect on your static could be up to 150' in some cases and that cuts 500 down to 350 feet, and less if they have an error too :eek:

Ignore this at your own peril.
 
Rhino889 said:
Respectfully...

I sit on the other side of your frequency everyday. I appreciate your comments as a Controller.

If I'm at 10,000 doing 320-350Kts and come within 500' of an RV doing 170kts... 500kts closure with only 500' makes me uptight:(

The only one with positive contact was the RV. We as RV pilots are all yeager/pappy and crossfield in one;) I'm sure the RJ pilot didnt recognize this "fact" and was nervous about relying on the unknown talent of said RV driver.

Example: If not on Autopilot, RV pilot maintaining Visual strays from altitude because "where the eyes go... the body follows" (ask my wife;))

ATC alert sounds at 200' off altitude... Now we are down to 300'

I take the time to type all this because... I've been there a couple of times. Hauling 150 pax with 500' separation and 500kts of closure rate. Some controllers do nothing, some call traffic and steer you 10-15 degrees off course for traffic. I say THANKS to the controllers that are "over protective".

For the original RV driver that posted:

In this situation I would not use "I'd like a turn or descent". I use, "I'm turning to avoid and descending for traffic".

Professional or Not? I would have made the exact same comment that you did about the dirty belly. :D
Click to expand...

I don't understand your closure numbers. The 500' separation should only happen when the IFR vs. VFR traffic is moving in relatively the same direction. IFR vs. VFR traffic on opposing courses would have 1000' separation unless my ASA kneeboard lies to me. :confused:
 
No way I come within 500 feet of another airplane. 499' is only one foot away. Who needs the aggravation?

There's also the little matter of me not knowing who's piloting that other plane. Maybe his TCAS is showing you incorrectly, so maybe he dips just a bit to avoid you.

I'm pretty conservative in these matters, though.
 
springer said:
If I had been you in my RV-4 I would have maneuvered 20-30 degrees away from the RJ and not made the unprofessional remark.
Click to expand...

I expect a turn away of 20-30 degrees would have merely delayed the encounter an put the RV smack in the middle of the wake turbulence. I doubt the outcome would have been so jovial.

A rate 1 orbit may have still encountered the wake.

Ok to continue IMHO, 500' is scary close though, next time I would recommend a 180 degree turn away.
 
IFRs do not always follow the NEODD SWEVEN rules of altitude (nor do VFRs for that matter :rolleyes:) because ATC might have a multitude of reasons to assign such a conflicting altitude.

As far as closure rates, I do see the point, but in my head, skilled or unskilled, the guy with the other aircraft in sight doesn't want to die either. At least that's the logic I grew up with before 9/11.
 
LeeM_2000 said:
I don't understand your closure numbers. The 500' separation should only happen when the IFR vs. VFR traffic is moving in relatively the same direction. IFR vs. VFR traffic on opposing courses would have 1000' separation unless my ASA kneeboard lies to me. :confused:
Click to expand...

If he passed 500' below the RJ, then he was on a roughly reciprocal course. Had the RJ been overtaking him, the RJ would have been 500' below. (assuming level flight, of course)

Think about it:
IFR flight, westbound: 8000'
VFR flight, westbound: 8500' (above IFR)
VFR flight, eastbound: 7500' (below IFR)

So 500' vertical separation is possible regardless of relative courses.

:)
 
LeeM_2000 said:
I don't understand your closure numbers. The 500' separation should only happen when the IFR vs. VFR traffic is moving in relatively the same direction. IFR vs. VFR traffic on opposing courses would have 1000' separation unless my ASA kneeboard lies to me. :confused:
Click to expand...

Wow?

OK.... he's in a hover and I'm passing at 343kts within 512'. Do you still feel good about the separation?

Apparently the entire original intent of my post was lost on you because your kneeboard numbers differed from my general/rounded examples? Oh ya, I also really only had 147 pax on the plane... sorry about stating 150:rolleyes:

ASA Kneeboard Vs Real-world:

tkatc said:
IFRs do not always follow the NEODD SWEVEN rules of altitude (nor do VFRs for that matter :rolleyes:) because ATC might have a multitude of reasons to assign such a conflicting altitude.
Click to expand...

Regards,

Scott
 
Last edited:
Sid Lambert said:
That's probably what gave them the willies. They both had their heads down watching the finder and not looking out the window.

500 feet crossing north of Atlanta in VFR seems to be the norm.
Click to expand...

The normal airliner (737) approach into Burbank is "Palmdale at 12K, Janny at 8..." I routinely fly home from the Los Angeles basin at 7.5K and also agree that 500 ft is the norm with "traffic in sight" :D I think it's cool watching them pass right over head! Rosie
 
I'm with you Rosie

If you initiated an uncoordinated deviation in the LA area every time someone at legal altitude was 500 ft above or below, air traffic would go out of control very fast. The only time I was "impressed" was in our Archer climbing out of John Wayne Airport in Orange County on the frequency for 19L heading toward Corona Del Mar and a DC-9 Super 80 departing from 19R on another frequency passed under me. Until I saw him I was unaware of his presence, that fuselage just seemed to go on forever, magnificent but the old cheeks tensed up a bit.

Bob Axsom
 
Wake Turbulants

If I am 500 ft below, it does not make me very comfortable if the aircraft above can make some severe wake turbulants. I have always been told to desend to increase the 500 ft seperation depending on wake category of the other aircraft. If I am 500ft above no problem. Calgary has had me 500ft above many 4 engine jets, no issues. Once over Quebec City I was told to expedite my descent after the controller realized the converging jet was in the wrong wake category. Does this not apply for controllers in the US. Or is this just at the controllers discretion?
 
For the record, I called the traffic in sight as soon as I saw him. The RJ never did call me in sight.

As for the "unprofessional" comment, I couldn't agree more, the RJ pilot should have been more professional.
 
500' separation between Big Jets and us is common in our area. Plenty of time to see and avoid. I like them flying lower their wake could awake a passenger :D



500feetseparation.jpg
 
tkatc said:
This is incorrect. The RJ could have easily gotten an RA based upon the RV transponder information ONLY. The likely reason there was no RA in this case was because everyone was in level flight and the vertical separation was not diminishing enough to trigger the advisory.

Not sure why the RJ boys seemed so uptight but the "dirty belly" comment probably reminded them to relax. Traffic was called, the RV reported them in sight, and they probably saw the target on the fish finder the entire time.
Click to expand...
I humbly stand corrected. I was under the belief that unless both aircraft were suitably equipped, TCAS only generated TA's in order to avoid a conflicting resolution advisory. That is only true if you're broadcasting Mode A. If you're squawking Mode C/S the kerosene budgie will get an RA. ARINC has published a good document about the latest version of TCASII, which also shows why there wasn't an RA in this case, that being the two aircraft weren't computed to approach within 350' vertically at their closest point.

You learn something new everyday. ;)
 
Why even put yourself there? If you trip an RA, regardless of why or who is at fault, do you really want to be on the FAA's radar? Sidestep a few degrees left or right and give yourself more separation.

+1 on someone's wake turbulence comment. What if it had been a 757?
 
Sig600 said:
Why even put yourself there? If you trip an RA, regardless of why or who is at fault, do you really want to be on the FAA's radar? Sidestep a few degrees left or right and give yourself more separation.

+1 on someone's wake turbulence comment. What if it had been a 757?
Click to expand...

Since we were both in contact with ATC, sidestepping a few degrees isn't necessarily a good thing. Had I turned right, I would have turned towards the approaching RJ and that could be viewed as an aggressive maneuver. Turning left would have delayed the crossing, which would have put the RJ behind me, where I couldn't see him.

As for the thought of wake turbulence, had it been a 757 on the same course, going directly under him, like I did with the RJ, would have been the desired course of action because there is no wake turbulence there. However, passing behind and below him, surely would have caused me to encounter his wake turbulence.

In this case, since both of us were in contact with ATC, on our assigned altitude (and I had the RJ in sight) with no one making any abrupt changes in altitude or direction, the best thing to do was to continue on.

BTW, one thing I didn?t include in my initial post was that we were 1000 feet above a broken cloud layer so descending at that point wasn?t really an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top