Preventing Mid-Air Collisions

[Romeo Romeo]

I'm not too sure if I should post this because of recent tragic events, but perhaps now might be a good time to discuss it.

All the technology is there to make mid-air collisions a thing of the past but because of bureaucracy, the solution to this problem is years away.

Let's look at what's required to implement ADS-B for light aviation:-

1) A way of broadcasting information via radio - just a few miles should do, but a bit more would perhaps be useful. This is pretty straightforward especially if a lowish frequency (100-200 MHz) were used.

2) Accurate position and time information - easily available by GPS.

3) A bit of software to control everything. Not difficult.

4) A display to give information of other traffic. Easily available.

5) Some bits of paper from the authorities that say you're allowed to switch it on. This is the difficult and expensive bit!

The hardware costs for the above will be well under £100 (especially if a PDA or some such device was used for the display), and if everyone had one then collision would reduce substantially.

Sadly, due to the bureaucracy a very low risk of electronic interference with other equipment is used to justify the high risk of doing nothing.

[stiknruda]

RR,

I read IO540's diatribe on the other thread and felt that it would be wrong to post such a diametrically opposed view on that thread, so I do applaud you for starting a fresh one.

I'm just a very simple bloke who flies older technology machinery (day VFR) . I hold an aerobatic DA and I fly well over a hundred hours a year.

Without a doubt I spend most of my time looking out as I've got bugger all else to look in at and worry/fiddle with.

A few pilots (household names in the seventies) have died over the past few weeks, men with thousands and thousands of hours - they have all expired far away from aircraft crashes and midairs.

I do not think that TCAS(D) will make that much difference (affordablity, reliabilty), how many terminal mid-airs have we had in the UK in the past 20 years ?- I can think of only a handful.

Address the root cause not the symptoms and addres it with training not with placebic tools whose reliability (PDA at £100) is questionable. It is a £ucking big sky out there, use it sensibly - LARS, flight info, etc., but let's not force the powers that be to over regulate us.

How many folk died on the roads on Sunday?



Stik

[PH-UKU]

No disrespect - but aren't we in danger of trying to overcontrol too much here ... ?

How many midairs in the UK each year ? ..... 0.2
How many lives lost ? ..... 0.4 per year ?
How many GA flying machines registered in UK? 8000 ?
Cost to fit Mode S/TCAS ? ...... £4000-£5000 each ?
Total cost to GA community ..... ~£40m ?

How many collisions between cars operating on see and avoid ?
How many lives lost per annum ? 3500 ?
Any calls for compulsory automatic collision detection ... ?

See and avoid works fine for me, and if there is a slight risk, it is one I am prepared to accept.

Of course the other way is for the CAA/EASA/Govt/BAA to continually hike up prices of Licences/Certifications/fuel/landings/insurance etc

and then there will be half the number of aircraft ... and consequently half the risk .....

however .. it IS a timely topic and if I may point out that 50% of all Airproxes involve low-flying jets on 'see and avoid' .....

so, why is THAT not an absolute priority, fit THEM with a TCAS system .. then I might even consider buying a transponder ...

lots of looking at feet by MOD/RAF and muttering of 'it's too difficult' .... 'can't fit it anywhere in the cockpit' .... 'interferes with the weapons electronics' etc etc ....

YEAH RIGHT .. they can put a man on the moon but not a relatively simple bit of consumer electronics in a £20m(Tornado) or £80m (Typhoon) aeroplane, together with it's expensive and highly trained crew.

Sit back and take cover ........

[eharding]

Stik,

As ever, to the point, and entirely correct.

[Flik Roll]

here here stik.

I have said somewhere before, it's all about lookout. So many civvy places don't encourage the 'breaking up' of checks, allowing time for lookout. I have seen far to much eyes in cockpit in civvy flying.

A lookout saves lives

[Final 3 Greens]

PH if there is a slight risk, it is one I am prepared to accept. I agree with you. The severity of the risk is very high, but the probability is very low. Thus we make our decisions in this respect and the vast majority of us never experience a middair.

The more likely middair, IMHO, is between two airliners, in IMC, in the London TMA.

Just a matter of time, due to the very high volumes of fast moving traffic, in a (relatively) small volume of sky.

Thankfully, the incidents to date have al been air proxes.

Stik

As ever, well said.

[High Wing Drifter]

I have to agree, Stik has it case pretty much sewn up. If you can't manage without it, you are unlikely to manage with it! One argument that might be levied against Stik's common sense approach is that the gaps between CAS are getting smaller and so concentrations getting bigger in those gaps. But if the PPL attrition rate continues, then we're in the clear again :(

Flik,
Reading my new multi book, the author makes a big point about doing in the air checks from memory (common sense) and in an unhurried way. The point he is making, is just because you are doing a FREDAI, there is no need to not to be looking outside.


WR,
I have to say I've seen a few aircraft wiggling their wings at they pass by. I might of half heartedly responded once, once I cottoned on that is. Most of the time I wondered "what's he doing?" I didn't really get it. I'll try being less grumpy next time :O
Also, perhaps training people not to fly at exact '000 feet altitudes may help? (I don't know because it needs a study of airprox and accident reports.)
I won't comment on my vertical zig-zags then :\

[slim_slag]

Romeo Romeo,

Your question is a good one and you can get some answers here (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2005/aug/midairs_traffic_avoidance.html). As you can see, £100 is a bit low, if you want decent GA traffic avoidance systems you will be using TIS and paying $5k + whatever it costs to fit.

Unfortunately TIS needs ground equipment/software and I doubt you will see this in the UK any time soon, it's widely available in the US terminal areas though - but then so are decent radar services.

Personally I think stik has a more real world approach to flying and his answer is more appropriate to the UK.

[Romeo Romeo]

I think you're right - it is more of a security blanket rather than a fix to a major problem. One reason why I would like it is for flight in IMC, but as Stik said, it's a rather large sky. When you get up on top, you hardly see anyone; what are the chances of bumping into someone in IMC on those occasions when a radar service isn't available?

I prefer to get a radar service and it does make me feel nervous when the answer to the question 'What stops us from hitting someone else?' is 'Luck', but that's the same stuff that stops most nasty things happening.

I suspect that that more lives would be saved if money was spent on more training rather than on more gizmos.

[jabberwok]

What happened to the cheap proximity warning system that GASIL were plugging a couple of years back? It utilised transponder signals if I recall..

[Whirlybird]

I too agree with Stik. :ok: Not that I think that see and avoid is infallible, however good a pilot you are, however much you keep your eyes outside the cockpit. You can still miss aircraft - above you in a high wing aircraft, below you in a low wing one, behind you in a helicopter....which no-one seems to be able to see so we rotary pilots know that we've got to do the avoiding. But whatever you do, flying will never be 100% safe. Fly at altitudes other than 2000, 2500 etc, as someone mentioned (I think it was on the other thread)? Well, I've tried doing that, and found myself contstantly getting asked by ATC to fly at something they were used to!!!! And if we all fly at 1800 or 2200, aren't we back to square one? So let's just accept that it's potentially dangerous in the sky, though probably no more so than anywhere else, and let's all be careful out there.

[BRL]

Remember This????????? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134856&highlight=spotting+other+aircraft) :)

[Sunfish]

ADS-B would appear to be the answer in Australia

[Saab Dastard]

How many collisions between cars operating on see and avoid ? Any calls for compulsory automatic collision detection ... ?

Actually it will not be long before such "gizmos" will be fitted to private motor vehicles.

I know that one shouldn't believe everything that one reads in the papers, but I understand that some degree of speed limit "enforcement" will be fitted to cars within the next 10-15 years. Whether it is implemented in this country is undecided.

The technology to do this is with us right now. The putative safety benefit that this will be sold under will of course be a distant second to the real "benefit" of road pricing.

There are further plans to use various devices to prevent tailgating, automatically brake and / or steer to avoid obstructions - as Mercedes demonstrated so brilliantly on Top Gear! ;)

G0d I can't wait for the future :yuk:

[chevvron]

Anything which might cause a pilot NOT to keep a good lookout ie through the window is in my opinion dangerous. Total reliance on ADS-B/TCAS prompts pilots not to keep such an 'eyeball' system in operation. Use to ASSIST visual lookout is OK, but where do you draw the line?
When providing FIS to identified traffic, I often give the pilot a clue as to where to 'scan' the sky for a confliction; it's not quite the same a RIS, but it ASSISTs the pilot to fly safely, especially in congested airspace, and the pilot doesn't rely entirely on me to spot conflictions; I'm like an extra pair of eyes in the aircraft.

[IO540]

I can't see how a FIS can be of any value whatsoever in spotting traffic.

Another aviation myth, propagated through the decades and taught to all PPLs...

"Hmmm. I am flying over Kent. London Info tell me there are 11 planes known in the area. Gosh, if I keep a real good lookout I will be able to avoid them". How big is this place? Must be several thousand square miles, and several thousand cubic miles of air between surface and the base of CAS.

Time to duck again!

[chevvron]

London Info are only FISO's and hence couldn't identify traffic even if they had access to radar.
I'm talking about FIS aircraft which are identified and to which, workload permitting, I pass proximity hazard warnings on other traffic observed on radar. This is often generic eg 'multiple contacts operating near 'XYZ' VOR or 'traffic reported to be aerobatting near ABC'. This is to fulfil 'duty of care' without the pilot thinking he/she is getting RIS.
I'm sure you'll agree this does not absolve the pilot of the responsibility for keeping a lookout.