M20J down, California

[M016576]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I use "no joy" when I don't see called traffic; when I do, I say, "traffic in sight." "Tally ho" reminds me of WWII movies with the fighters diving on enemy formations . . .

"Tally" is used as part of our comm brevity in the fighter community.  Here's what it means and why it's important...

tally:  I see an enemy aircraft/target

visual:  I see a friendly aircraft

no-joy: I don't see the enemy you are talking about

blind:  I don't see my flight lead/friendly you are talking about.

 

if I come across a developed dogfight, and I don't know, or can't tell who's who, I would say "tally 2, status" to ask the engaged fighter which one he/she is.  Once I figure it out, I can then say "tally, visual"... and hopefully shoot the bad guy once I get weapons deconfliction from the friendly.  If I only see one jet- "tally one only"- then the good guy would describe the fight until I'm tally visual.

my students tend to use "blind" often.  Because they don't know where to look all the time while we're maneuvering... at that point, I owe them a "talk on" at which point they respond "visual"... and probably feel some shame at losing sight.

Using "tally" in the ATC system?  Depends on how threatened you are by the other aircraft, I guess! (J/k!)

[Bob_Belville]

"no joy" & "tally ho" are proper, current military ATC terms. Civilian equivalents, "negative contact" and "traffic in sight", are preferred according to one source. http://atccommunication.com/vfr-traffic-advisories 

I have never been questioned or corrected by ATC -- I have a voice that a senior Pan Am captain can only aspire to -- but I'll try to change.   

[Marauder]

Now that we did our usual thing to a thread, it is time for this pilot to "turn and not burn" and "bug out" of this thread.

Hope they determine the cause.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

"no joy" & "tally ho" are proper, current military ATC terms. Civilian equivalents, "negative contact" and "traffic in sight", are preferred according to one source. http://atccommunication.com/vfr-traffic-advisories 

I have never been questioned or corrected by ATC -- I have a voice that a senior Pan Am captain can only aspire to -- but I'll try to change.   

Perhaps you do, but Pan American collapsed in the early 90s.

[Bob_Belville]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Perhaps you do, but Pan American collapsed in the early 90s.

Another aviation tragedy. Progress? But I said they aspired to...  

[FloridaMan]

On 1/21/2017 at 9:18 PM, M016576 said:

"Tally" is used as part of our comm brevity in the fighter community.  Here's what it means and why it's important...

tally:  I see an enemy aircraft/target

visual:  I see a friendly aircraft

no-joy: I don't see the enemy you are talking about

blind:  I don't see my flight lead/friendly you are talking about.

 

if I come across a developed dogfight, and I don't know, or can't tell who's who, I would say "tally 2, status" to ask the engaged fighter which one he/she is.  Once I figure it out, I can then say "tally, visual"... and hopefully shoot the bad guy once I get weapons deconfliction from the friendly.  If I only see one jet- "tally one only"- then the good guy would describe the fight until I'm tally visual.

my students tend to use "blind" often.  Because they don't know where to look all the time while we're maneuvering... at that point, I owe them a "talk on" at which point they respond "visual"... and probably feel some shame at losing sight.

Using "tally" in the ATC system?  Depends on how threatened you are by the other aircraft, I guess! (J/k!)

 

[Hank]

Thanks, Andrew! Even though I can't understand quite all,of that, it's what comes to mind when I hear "tally ho!" Which I haven't ever heard on the radio here, by the way . . .

[M016576]

19 hours ago, Antares said:

 

That song was VERY popular around my training squadron when I was learning to fly the Hornet (as it was across most fighter squadrons around the world, I'd imagine!).  Written and performed by a couple F-16 pilots.  

[RobertGary1]

And for the A&P's...

 

 

[Andy95W]

18 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

And for the A&P's...

 

Great video!  

I've got my ATP and A&P.  The A&P was harder to get and is more valuable to me. (But the other one pays better.)

As John Ratzenberger said in an interview,

The manual arts have always taken precedence over the fine arts. There's no exception to that rule. Michelangelo couldn't have gone to work until someone built that ceiling.

[kortopates]

The preliminary report is finally out https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170118X72227&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA 

Unfortunately it doesn't tell us much about the weather except that the TSP was showing lowering ceiling just before departure. Mostly it covers that the plane went down right by the Lake Hughes VOR LHS:

LHS VOR is situated on a leveled-off mountaintop; its elevation is 5,793 feet. The wreckage was situated on the north slope of that peak, about 70 feet below, and 380 feet from, the LHS VOR. ....... The last radar return was received at 0904:52, with an indicated altitude of 5,991 feet. That last return was about 0.3 miles north-northeast of LHS VOR

[carusoam]

The report includes an interesting note.  

Recent Engine OH in Dec 2016...?

The flight was 1500' above the obstacle for a few minutes before slowly descending over time...

The flight wasn't very long at all.  15 - 20 minutes?

some clouds above, pilot was IR'd, ran into the hill the VOR was mounted on.

This is what I recall from reading the record.  Let me know if I made a mistake.

Best regards,

-a-

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by carusoam

[kortopates]

Yes,  I believe that's all accurate including the flight time, which was only 13 min on the radar track plus the time to depart and climb 1260' agl for the first radar return.

The TSP reported weather was overcast ceiling at 10,000 msl with field elevation of 4001'. There is an 8000' mountain just to the south of TSP, so the finally initially turned south east towards lower terrain and at an altitude of 7259' turned south to LHS VOR, and continued climbing to his high point of 7559' at 3+minutes after the first radar return. Then the plane began a gradual descent and leveling off to 5791' after 9 minutes. A minute later the plane began a gradual climb to its final return at 5991' which 0.3mi NE of LHS VOR. At that point if the mode C was accurate, the plane was level with the reported terrain height, and the reported impact site was only 70' below that. Which is still well within his altimeter error; especially if he was using TSP setting since he was not talking with anyone. This was 9 am so if the terrain was not obscured by clouds/fog he would have no problem seeing it and turning away from the highest terrain - which is what the plane impacted. 

He apparently flew this route 3 days a week to his job in Torrance, so he was very familiar with the route and terrain and his colleagues said he rarely cancelled because of weather. 

He was instrument rated, but fightaware shows no IFR flight activity over the last couple years.

Very recent engine overhaul in December as Anthony noted, but no good evidence yet that it was related given the reported slight climb at the end of the radar track and severe damage to the airframe and prop all suggesting a CFIT.  

 

[carusoam]

Thanks additional insight, Paul.  Unfortunately, I Can't push the like button on that one...

Best regards,

-a-

Edited February 2, 2017 by carusoam

[FloridaMan]

On 1/22/2017 at 8:19 AM, Bob_Belville said:

"no joy" & "tally ho" are proper, current military ATC terms. Civilian equivalents, "negative contact" and "traffic in sight", are preferred according to one source. http://atccommunication.com/vfr-traffic-advisories 

I have never been questioned or corrected by ATC -- I have a voice that a senior Pan Am captain can only aspire to -- but I'll try to change.   

Is this you?