Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:05 am
#1591843
An interesting discussion.
Various threads to pick up:
1. Value of lookout. I reckon I'm pretty good at lookout. I see more than people I fly with. Yet still I see some aircraft very late. I don't know how many aircraft I don't see that get close. The ones I see are typically are the ones that are moving relative to me, which aren't the ones that are going to hit me. Those are stationary in my field of view, and more difficult to see, and I reckon there's a fair chance I wouldn't see one till too late. And sometimes, Flarm picks up people who are close that I haven't seen, or it takes me a long time to find someone who is quite close. Conclusion. Lookout isn't good enough, and I'm not actually 'good at it' at all (we're largely relying on the 'big sky' theory) and electronic conspicuity can help. Only help - it's not the complete answer, and there are all sorts of issues with it. I think that conclusion is supported by the evidence and the research. So when I say lookout is poor, I don't mean to say that we shouldn't concentrate on it (I spend a lot time trying to teach students to do it well), I mean that it needs to be supplemented.
2. Colours of aircraft. Again, go to the research. What you need is contrast. It's why the RAF paint their trainers black - it's a good contrast against the background, which they found having done the research. The evidence is that dayglow stripes don't do much - they may even break up the silhouette of the aircraft and make it more difficult to see. (Exception, possibly in the Alps, say, against a snowy background).
3. Strobes. OK - if you make them bright enough. But that's very bright. I can't find research on how much of a flashing light you need to stand out against a background, but I have done the sums on how much light battery operated strobes provide relative to the light you get on a normal day. And it's orders of magnitudes down on the background at 1km. And that is completely in line with actual experience which is that you see the aircraft first, then the strobe.
4. Painting composites. Yes, there are some composites that you can paint. But they are high temperature curing ones, not the ones that gliders and so on are currently made from. The operating manuals are pretty clear about keeping them white.
So, electronic conspicuity is a useful tool in the toolbox. This initiative is a very cost effective way of making two of the systems work with each other, which is why I'm working on it. [The cost of upgrading the whole current OGN network in the UK to the new receivers is around £14K. That's seven transponder installs, or maybe 14 ADSB in/out. Given that there are ~2000 aircraft with Flarm, and are likely to be 3000 with PAW by the end of this year, that's a very effective spend.]
Paul
Various threads to pick up:
1. Value of lookout. I reckon I'm pretty good at lookout. I see more than people I fly with. Yet still I see some aircraft very late. I don't know how many aircraft I don't see that get close. The ones I see are typically are the ones that are moving relative to me, which aren't the ones that are going to hit me. Those are stationary in my field of view, and more difficult to see, and I reckon there's a fair chance I wouldn't see one till too late. And sometimes, Flarm picks up people who are close that I haven't seen, or it takes me a long time to find someone who is quite close. Conclusion. Lookout isn't good enough, and I'm not actually 'good at it' at all (we're largely relying on the 'big sky' theory) and electronic conspicuity can help. Only help - it's not the complete answer, and there are all sorts of issues with it. I think that conclusion is supported by the evidence and the research. So when I say lookout is poor, I don't mean to say that we shouldn't concentrate on it (I spend a lot time trying to teach students to do it well), I mean that it needs to be supplemented.
2. Colours of aircraft. Again, go to the research. What you need is contrast. It's why the RAF paint their trainers black - it's a good contrast against the background, which they found having done the research. The evidence is that dayglow stripes don't do much - they may even break up the silhouette of the aircraft and make it more difficult to see. (Exception, possibly in the Alps, say, against a snowy background).
3. Strobes. OK - if you make them bright enough. But that's very bright. I can't find research on how much of a flashing light you need to stand out against a background, but I have done the sums on how much light battery operated strobes provide relative to the light you get on a normal day. And it's orders of magnitudes down on the background at 1km. And that is completely in line with actual experience which is that you see the aircraft first, then the strobe.
4. Painting composites. Yes, there are some composites that you can paint. But they are high temperature curing ones, not the ones that gliders and so on are currently made from. The operating manuals are pretty clear about keeping them white.
So, electronic conspicuity is a useful tool in the toolbox. This initiative is a very cost effective way of making two of the systems work with each other, which is why I'm working on it. [The cost of upgrading the whole current OGN network in the UK to the new receivers is around £14K. That's seven transponder installs, or maybe 14 ADSB in/out. Given that there are ~2000 aircraft with Flarm, and are likely to be 3000 with PAW by the end of this year, that's a very effective spend.]
Paul