View Single Post
Old 10-06-2001, 11:48 PM   #10
MaggieL
in the Hour of Scampering
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia)
Posts: 4,060
Re: Re: "Cessna"

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic

Interesting, considering the other aircraft involved WAS A CESSNA 172M.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but please check your facts before you post smarmy comments designed to make other people look stupid.
I stand corrected. Sapienza's comment about an airspace violation, and Joe's mention of Class B airspace threw me off.

The Piper I was thinking of I was in the Mexicana DC-9 collision with a Piper Archer in 1986 over Cerritos near LAX...it really stuck in my mind because that *was* a TCA violation (although not a profound one) and I was in VFR flight training in Cessnas near the edge of KPHL TCA at the time. Of course the LAX TCA wasn't *technically* "Class B airspace" then, as ICAO-compliant nomenclature wasn't adapted until much later. But TCA is the moral equivalant. There were pre-impact photos and significan on-the-ground casualties of that crash, too.

The PSA/Skyhawk merger was quite a bit before that, when I was just starting out on BBSs. In that case, *both* aircraft were on ATC clearances and in radar contact. I believe San Diego was not within an ARSA (since it's not now Class C) but possiblyTRSA or even ATA airspace at the time...certainly not a TCA, which was the then-current equivalant of Class B.. Regardless, no airspace violation was involved since both were on vectors at the time.

The idea of flying in Southern CA airspace is intimidating to us East Coast pilots. Myself, I'd prefer *not* to collect any CVRs...the situations that lead to keeping one can ruin your whole day.

And, yes, you are in a bad mood....but judging by your sig it's not an an unusual condition. :-)

The three most frequently heard statements on CVRs *not* involved in accidents:

"Oh, shit"
"Was that for us?" and
"What did he say?"
__________________
"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..."

MaggieL is offline   Reply With Quote