Thu May 06, 2021 11:16 am
#1845318
From my own experience as ex-RAF FJ, latterly glider/GA pilot. We were taught to use the mk 1 eyeball first and foremost when looking outside the cockpit. it's called VFR for a reason, but are we heading to a total reliance on electronics in our hobby than 'proper flying?' I'd say so, to the point that I have flown over the last 17 years in gliders as well as a career of 12 years in military aviation from the 80's and beyond that to GA as a hobby and it has changed in most aspects. I own a permit aircraft, I fly other GA types full of electronic wonderment too and have resisted the 'head down' approach as PIC. End of CV.
To highlight more recent events, on occasion a Cessna or something Piper has shot over my glider site below the minimum level and the pilot of said a/c blundered on at a level collision course with other gliders - not using mk1 EB (as discussed earlier), only for glider pilots to notice the potential conflict and abandon the nice warm column of lift and seek safer air. What was he/she/they doing? I hear you say, probably looking at his/her/their electronic devices, head down and clearly not outside, when he/she/they should have been doing just that. Probably, just probably.
Whilst the argument could be used for EC for all, we are FLARM capable, so in gliding terms, we can 'see each other' electronically, but if you are talking about fitting mode S or other higher power EC devices (permanently, not handheld) a glider only has what can be described as a 'burglar alarm backup battery' of some 7-10 ah to deal with all this - not good. Flying through Wales at low level in a clunky old hawk required more than a few fussy warning devices telling me I was going to contact with an object that had deliberately strayed into the LFA on a known route for FJ. fortunately I had a quicker way to relieve myself from the safety of the cockpit if this contact ever happened, with the black and yellow handle, gratefully, I never had to use it and this was some 40 years ago when GA based EC wasn't even a glint in it's parents eyes.
ATC has been interesting over the last 20+ years, after being offered a short term contract job on the evaluation unit at Swanwick, some 20 years ago (I never did take it - not my thing!) it was an eye opener as I realised that central ATC control was the future to everything ATC, remote head units, and even today, remote visual control towers in airports. I suspect that when we go fully to remotely piloted vehicles, the need for humans to support air operations will generally be defunct and my ' inner luddite' is screaming 'I told you that computers would kill of the need for the human race'. Maybe or maybe not, but for now we're stuck in the middle of this muddle.
Although I can see a very good safety argument for EC, it just gives the 'system' another nail to bang in the coffin for GA. Let me explain: it was mentioned earlier about EV mandating and the fact that we're all going to be driving EV's by 2030/40 (or near as dammit), regardless of whether you want to or not, also the fact that drone operations are going to replace a large chunk of air traffic at the lower levels (that GA currently enjoy) in the near future, it is clearly at odds with a bunch of private pilots who want to fly for fun - this will be cleared out of the way in favour of commercial drones, by mandating all kinds of barriers that we just won't get over (well, for the more budget conscious ones like me, anyway). Our willingness to comply with whatever the 'powers that be' have in store for us will have no bearing on the outcome as we twist turn and dance to tune they want us to play.
I am not normally pessimistic, but have a sneaking suspicion that EC may be contributory to the curtailing of our hobby, all it will take is one infringement too far or a MAC and that'll be the end of the GA hobbyist and added to the fact that all manner of EC/TCAS was being used at the time of the altercation , in fact 'lit up like a Christmas tree' - we just don't stand a chance. 'GA is just too dangerous' will become the mantra and attempts to ban it will be debated by our masters - I hope that never happens. On a parallel, the race towards driverless cars is heating up already to make roads 'safer' - CAT has got the potential capability to provide fully automated flight already, it's just that the tech isn't reliable (read, trusted) enough to convince humans that a robot/remote operator can be equally 'as good as another human' in the cockpit. The jury (for me anyway) is out on that one.
R&T