Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1845346
TopCat wrote:
malcolmfrost wrote:It's not remotely like rolling dice. None of us would fly if there was a one in six (or even 1 in 36) chance of a mid air collision.

But then maybe the media know the saying does not refer to the literal odds of the action. :wink:
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845351
A4 Pacific wrote:Playing Devil’s advocate for a moment. Since the FISO seems to have been the significant input here. Wouldn’t it be more logical to mandate FISOs whenever any circuit is active at any airstrip? Rather than EC?

:lol:

Fast-forward a few years...

Flyer magazine wrote:It's 2030, and the last three remaining GA airfields have 40 mile wide circuits.

EC-coupled autopilots are mandated, and it is strictly illegal for the pilots to touch the controls within the now 30 nm diameter ATZs.

Just to reassure our readers, we're lobbying the CAA to give us a rebate on the new autopilot electronics that make such devices truly affordable for all. We have a great future, and the UK truly is the best place anywhere for GA.
By rdfb
#1845370
A4 Pacific wrote:Clearly you didn’t see the traffic you thought conflicted with you. Since you don’t know whether or not the other aircraft was fitted with EC that yours failed to detect, I presume you are equally unaware whether that aircraft had you in sight and was manouvering accordingly? You certainly don’t mention altering your own trajectory in response?


I'm fairly sure the other aircraft had no EC. I pick up plenty of traffic in from all directions with little masking (I checked, having written the inverse analysis of what the PilotAware Vector thing does to study my reception capability, rather than my transmission capability). If the aircraft did have EC, I would have expected to see it at least some point round the circuit or after landing, but there was nothing.

Since I believe the aircraft was departing, it seems unlikely to me that it would have spotted me joining from overhead.

A4 Pacific wrote:Playing Devil’s advocate for a moment. Since the FISO seems to have been the significant input here. Wouldn’t it be more logical to mandate FISOs whenever any circuit is active at any airstrip? Rather than EC?


I'm grateful for the FISOs input, but at that point (both established on crosswind at the same level flying parallel) the collision risk was small and doesn't concern me. My concern is what happened before that point - that our paths could have crossed had the situation and timing been slightly different such that the other aircraft had climbed into me.

This is what I meant by "inadvertently rolling the dice". Theoretically, "see and avoid" would have caused me to spot the other aircraft visually and maintain separation visually, thus reducing the risk of MAC to virtually zero. Instead, it seems to me that without realising it I played the "big sky" odds - except the sky isn't so big in and about the area where our paths are supposed to converge. It's debatable what the odds actually were. But if EC worked reliably and both aircraft were fitted and alerting, then I wouldn't have to play the odds at all in this way and there would be no debate on what the odds would have been because (in this scenario) it would have been zero.
By Skybolt1
#1845380
I think you have to assume (as you no doubt did) that other aircraft in the circuit would not have had EC. I don't know how prevalent EC installation is among the aircraft fleet. It would be detrimental to safety if the carriage of EC reduced the look-out, rather than augmented it (it probably goes without saying). My hunch is that it is not in a fair proportion of aeroplanes and I hazard to suggest that even if it is, it would not be switched on all the time.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1845384
Human Factor wrote:EC isn’t TCAS. It’s a useful tool to be used in conjunction with other tools. Primarily the ones either side of your nose.


Two eyes, two ears for sensory input, and (hopefully) more than two brain cells to act upon that input ! :thumright:
#1845408
rdfb

I do wonder how much of this particular flight you have taken the time and effort to investigate, in order to truly understand what happened and form a balanced view? You don’t describe having discussed anything with either the FISO nor the pilot of the other aircraft? You ‘re not sure whether the aircraft was departing, but you suspect that ‘might’ be the case and you either didn’t ‘hear’ (understand the significance of) any of it’s radio calls, or no calls were made by said aircraft? Neither do you know whether the other pilot had seen you and was monitoring your trajectory? I would say these are important questions to ask before leaping to a preferred conclusion.

So to me at least, it sounds as though you have taken an event about which you yourself said:

I don't think that "the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved may have been compromised" so it doesn't qualify as an airprox.


(So safety was not compromised and it wouldn’t qualify as an airprox??)

Yet you cite it as justification for mandatory EC?? Which I find bizarre. But you do of course say this:

I am starting from the POV that I want mandatory EC


I would say that’s fairly obvious! :roll:

Would it be reasonable of me to point out that whilst that may be your opinion, it’s not an opinion currently based on either science or fact. Nor one that your slightly vague anecdote really supports.
By rdfb
#1845421
I think maybe you're missing my chain of reasoning here.
  1. I would like to know about every aircraft that I'm anywhere near, so I can avoid it.
  2. If I end up near an aircraft that I didn't know about, I see that as a disaster averted by luck, and I am unhappy about this. In my ideal world, no aircraft should be [unknowingly] near me at all to mitigate this risk, whether this is because I spotted it or because I received an audible alert.
  3. "See and avoid" doesn't work to achieve this. Both in my specific example the other day, but also in my general experience (see for example my mention of this happening during training, and others on here saying that it's a regular occurrence for them as well), and also in the accident record generally.
  4. Mandatory EC has an opportunity to achieve this. I accept it's not demonstrated to be perfect, so I'm open to discussing when and how, but I still hold the point of view that it makes sense to do it eventually.
Ben K liked this
User avatar
By Marvin
#1845430
rdfb wrote:I think maybe you're missing my chain of reasoning here.
  1. I would like to know about every aircraft that I'm anywhere near, so I can avoid it.
  2. If I end up near an aircraft that I didn't know about, I see that as a disaster averted by luck, and I am unhappy about this. In my ideal world, no aircraft should be [unknowingly] near me at all to mitigate this risk, whether this is because I spotted it or because I received an audible alert.
  3. "See and avoid" doesn't work to achieve this. Both in my specific example the other day, but also in my general experience (see for example my mention of this happening during training, and others on here saying that it's a regular occurrence for them as well), and also in the accident record generally.
  4. Mandatory EC has an opportunity to achieve this. I accept it's not demonstrated to be perfect, so I'm open to discussing when and how, but I still hold the point of view that it makes sense to do it eventually.


I don't think your perfect world is achievable in the VFR world outside of controlled airspace. Get yourself an IR and only fly in Controlled Airspace under a Radar Service and defined separation standards and you may achieve it.

Even if you are prepared to spend whatever it takes on the best kit able to cover all blind spots and all current broadcast position information there will be others in this scenario who will not and, compromise your expectations.

its nice idea but in the scheme of things I don't think its practical outside controlled airspace - "Bandit" Country or the Open FIR what ever term you wish.
#1845437
I found this on wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mid-air_collisions_and_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom

I have no idea whether it’s correct, but apart from one tragic MAC between a light aircraft and a helicopter in Nov 2017, it seems to suggest there have been no MACs between two powered GA aircraft in the UK in the history of flight? Though the military seem to have lost quite a few, and brought down one or two GA aircraft in the process. Many of these ‘double mil’ incidents being for reasons that are fairly easy to understand.

I imagine wiki must be wrong on this?

In that time, how many GA aircraft and those souls on board, have been lost due to other more prevalent causes?

Yet there’s so much noise about MAC! :roll:
By Dominie
#1845443
A4 Pacific wrote:I found this on wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mid-air_collisions_and_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom

I have no idea whether it’s correct, but apart from one tragic MAC between a light aircraft and a helicopter in Nov 2017, it seems to suggest there have been no MACs between two powered GA aircraft in the UK in the history of flight? Though the military seem to have lost quite a few, and brought down one or two GA aircraft in the process. Many of these ‘double mil’ incidents being for reasons that are fairly easy to understand.

I imagine wiki must be wrong on this?

In that time, how many GA aircraft and those souls on board, have been lost due to other more prevalent causes?

Yet there’s so much noise about MAC! :roll:

Dead right wiki is wrong!

There was a Luscombe vs PAC750(?) a few years back (1 fatal), a Yak vs Cessna (2 or 3 fatal) in the circuit at North Weald in about 2000, and Auster and something at Stapleford (IIRC) in the 60s (2 fatal I think), an Auster (or Taylorcraft) vs Turbulent in c.1960 in Ireland (at least 1 fatal), and that's just 60 seconds of thought.
By Ibra
#1845452
A4 Pacific wrote:I found this on wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mid-air_collisions_and_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom

I have no idea whether it’s correct, but apart from one tragic MAC between a light aircraft and a helicopter in Nov 2017, it seems to suggest there have been no MACs between two powered GA aircraft in the UK in the history of flight? Though the military seem to have lost quite a few, and brought down one or two GA aircraft in the process. Many of these ‘double mil’ incidents being for reasons that are fairly easy to understand.

I imagine wiki must be wrong on this?

In that time, how many GA aircraft and those souls on board, have been lost due to other more prevalent causes?

Yet there’s so much noise about MAC! :roll:


There was one at Elstree, not fatal one as both pilots walked away, I saw the first aircraft after it landed with damaged prop, the other one I was told had tires marks on a bent wing

They hit each other exatcly at the OHJ, if you just let the mess fly and organise itself in the circuit, shrinking 3D traffic into 2D surface, 1D lines or 0D point is bloody risky IMO

If you know the runway in use, why one can't just join downwind there is plenty of space, about 4nm lenght, you can't hit someome even if you want to do it on purpose...
By A4 Pacific
#1845478
I’m grateful for the further information regarding MAC. I had a feeling wiki couldn’t be right? I much prefer to analyse data rather than anecdotes.

I have no idea who airspace4all are, but I see their declared aim includes informing policy related to electronic conspicuity.

In the last (very nearly) 10 years there seems to have been three MACs that didn’t include gliders? 2011 also being the last ATZ incidents? Is that correct?