From this morning's Ney York Times:

When Bob Haygooni paid a midflight visit to a cockpit at his new employer, Air India, he was shocked. The pilots, he said, had completely covered the windows with newspaper to keep out the sun.
“All you had in the cockpit was this yellowish glow, as the light permeated the newspaper,” Mr. Haygooni recalled, saying it was a visibility hazard he had never seen before in 30 years of flying.

But “this was a normal thing at Air India,” said Mr. Haygooni, a former United Airlines pilot who flew for the Indian airline for 16 months.

"Visibility Hazard"??? I assume "midflight" means they were at cruising level, IFR, NOT VFR. Don't know about you, but when that big fire ball shines through the windows with very little atmosphere to filter it, I block it with whatever I have, turn on WX radar and peek out from time to time. I am also not aware of any requirement to be on the lookout while flying IFR. I love my job, but skin cancer was not part of my deal.
As for Air India, I guess they have their plate full without this dramatization.

Amos, you must be working for Air India or something?
Have you haver heard of "see and avoid"? Also when flying IFR you have the direct responsibility to watch out for other traffic.
And what does skincancer have to do with this? If the sun is low over the horizon, its rays actually travel further through our protective atmosphere....:ugh:

1. You can not see traffic directly into sun - well not unless you are wearing an arc welding helmet.
2. Dazzle caused by the sun reduces the ability to see traffic removed from the glare ball.
3. I have flown for the RAF and three world majors. In all of these it was common and accepted practice to place a map or other obstruction over the window in line with the sun. You ain't goin' to see anything there anyway.

p.s. It is, of course, up to the ol' man whether you use this technique or not :ok:

Call me old fashioned... but I like to see the other aircraft that's has penetrated my threat protection area:{.

I don't know, but I think that frantically tearing down newspapers from the wind screens may prove to be rather fatal... but that's just me.

There is a difference between:

-Placing a map or other obstruction over the window in line with the sun. :ok:

And

-Completely covering the windows with newspaper to keep out the sun. :confused:

"Air India bashing - gone too far?"

Answer - Not nearly far enough by the sounds of it.

Not just confined to a third world carrier. If anyone has a copy of this months Airliner World, turn to page 37. One very large US carrier with both windscreens partially blocked during a landing. I'm assuming its not a practice autoland. Now I know flying into Sun is a pain, but I have never seen anyone obstruct the screen during landing.

There is a difference between an old Jep map shading a bit on the left side window when sitting for 10 hrs with the sun at 10 o´clock and the widespread Indian culture of covering all cockpit windows completely, effectively turning the old bird into an airborne submarine.
I have come into the cockpit of one flight while in the hold into LHR in the middle of rush hour where you could see nothing outside!

Yes, I know: IFR, TCAS, God watching over you etc., but having experienced 4 actual near misses which required avoidance maneuvering, this culture makes my p..s freeze.

Recently had a Turbulev climbing straight through my level at 12 o´clock - no TCAS.

Appalled to learn that the complacency is not confined to the sub-continent....

seat 0A:

I have nothing to do with Air India. However, I do have a lot of experience flying into the sun (and not only when it's "low over the horizon"). "See and avoid"? Give me a break. Must be flying Cesnas for too long. In modern radar controlled airspace, with TCAS II, you really don't need to be on a "lookout" through the windows - you will be better off looking at your ND for potential traffic hazards and peek outside ONLY when a potential conflict is near. I don't remember ATC requiring different separation when I'm in clouds or at night. On the other hand, read the statistics about pilots getting skin cancer, and you'll figure out what skin cancer has to do with it.

I may put forward an educated guess here that the skin cancer rate in pilots is rather due to the increased amount of cosmic radiation (high energy gamma rays) rather than the UV light which is filtered out by first the actual windshield and than by the cool pilot's sunglasses...

As a SLF I rather prefer to fly in a plane where the pilots are able to quickly look up and see whats coming than as someone phrased it "flying submarine" or grandma's coffee parlor in the garden...

amos, from the lofty heights of your pedestal can you recall the first rule of airmanship?

Second question, why do you have windows?

So, you never fly in IMC because you cannot see and avoid?

Don't you know it's rude to answer a question with a question?

You can see and avoid in IMC. Up to 8 kilometers in fact.

Yes, but it sometimes can be alot less than 8Km, in my limited experience.

What do you do when you find yourself in clouds, with very limited visibility?

Isn't it a difference if you are in low visibility conditions as they just occur or you voluntary create them. If you have a choice do you avoid low visibility or do you fly right into it (Yay)?

Of course, but in my experience you rarely, if ever, spend the entire cruise in cloud with limited visibility.

To artificially subject yourself to zero visibility is a bit daft.

Would you agree that the longer you spend not being able to see outside the chances of you twonking something are increased?

You can rely on TCAS and Radar all you like, they aren't infallible or 100% reliable. Uberlingen springs to mind.

What would you do if you were in the cruise and you had an RA out of the blue (which does happen)? Follow the TCAS commands and attempt to locate the other aircraft visually. You can't do both if you've got charts all over the place.

When I started learning aviation (still learning) the first rule of airman ship was and still is, is lookout!! How the hell can you conduct a lookout with the windscreen covered in newspapers??

Keeping out the sun I suspect is a pigmentation issue with the indigenous at AI, rather than anything else.

Moral of the story: pay your pilots well enough, so they can afford decent sunglasses.

A Boeing report also made it very clear to Air India that the covering of the flight deck windows in flight like this was not acceptable... That is at least 3 years old now... So nothing has changed.


PT6A

Or spend the money on a Basic Airmanship Course :ok:. Just make sure they attend and do not forge the attendance sheet :E

-Placing a map or other obstruction over the window in line with the sun. :ok:

And

-Completely covering the windows with newspaper to keep out the sun :=

That is pretty much my view on the subject. When flying in the direction where the sun was shinning directly into the cockpit at high altitude cruise FLs, I always folded a map or some other type of sun blocking material between the sun and my eyes.

Not to cover all the windscreens in the entire cockpit. I see no reason for that.

You can see and avoid in IMC. Up to 8 kilometers in fact.

Really. 8 kilometers is about 5 miles. So, you are saying that with two aircraft while IMC, a pilot on one can see, recognize, realize a possible conflict, then disconnect the auto-pilot and maneuver to avoid the other aircraft with a closure rate of nearly 800 to 900 mph with just five miles distance? I don't think so.

Besides that, why are you looking out of the window instead of monitoring the flight instruments while IMC?

Actually the 8 Km reference is the definition of IMC maximum visibility.

Anyway, at 900kts closure you're going to be pretty much head on and the chances of acquiring an aircraft are slim. However, you've still got about 20 seconds to react accordingly, if you can acquire the other aircraft, which is plenty of time, unless of course age has dulled your reactions.

What about traffic on a converging course? Or climbing and descending through your level? Not bothered by those?

Besides that, why are you looking out of the window instead of monitoring the flight instruments while IMC?

At no point did I say I just sat there looking out of the window.

You're retired now but I'm sure you can remember such a thing called a scan? Or did you just sit there with you thumb up your bum glued to your AH? You had windows for a reason didn't you.

Grimmrad - skin cancer is more likely from life style. UV's, not ionizing protons, creates skin cancer. UVA protective shirts, sunscreen, or at least long sleeve shirts, for skin cancer protection.

For the sake of argument and in the spirit of some of the views put forward here, it would appear equally acceptable to some people to fly in the cruise without navigation lights or anti collision lights ......:eek:

Jack

13} Approved shades provided by the manufacturer should be used for protection against glare and paper etc should not be used to obstruct the windshield. It must be borne in mind that the other aircraft may have switched off its TCASfor some reason or may have an unserviceable TCASpreventing the display on your aircraft NO. In some cases when the sun is shining directly in your eyes a small paper may be used only in cruise, temporarily, just sufficient to block the suns disc. Appropriate sunglassesmay be worn asrequired to protect against glare.
14} Non flight related documents, magazines, newspapers, etc. must NOT be read whilst seated at your flight deck duty station. All documents required to be used in flight whilst seated at the dUty station have been reprinted to A8 size so that Flight Instruments, etc are not obstructed. No reading, paper work, etc. should be carried out when the other Pilot is not in his seat.

B747-400/2008/RED-07
B747-300/2008/RED-06
B777/2008/RED-12
A-310/2008/RED-07

Operations Department,
santa Cruz(East),
Mumbai 400029.
March 19,2008

To
ALL FLlOHT CREW

Sub: Flight operations support programme

In 2007 on our invitation, Boeing sent their senior Training captains to undertake observation flights on our aircraft as part of the Flight operations Support programme.
A number of observations made by these Training captains and also those noticed by our own Training captains are being disseminated by this Circular.

Aircraft Operations:
1} UseOf NoseWheel steering is not permitted during Takeoff Roll or Landing Roll. Rudder Pedal steering must be used for the entire Takeoff and Landing Roll for all Boeing types.

2) Whenever long over water flights or flights in non radar environment are carried out, Navigation position checks must be carried out. Lat and Long from Jeppesen Enroute Chartsshould be compared with Flight Planand FMS position.

3) Fuel Checksmust correlate to fuel remaining and fuel burn to preclude any fuel leak. Individual tank quantities also must be checked to preclude major imbalance.

4} FMSchangesand standard call outs must be made loudly and clearly and acknowledged by the other Pilot by the word "CHECK".

5} When carrying out auto coupled ILS approach - all available auto pilots must be used.

6) The Ground spoilers playa very important role in the landing I rejected takeoff and their position must be monitored and called out. If not deployed automatically they must immediately be positioned manually.

7) During Takeoff and Climb and again for Descent and Approach PNFI PM ND must have Terrain Displayand PF ND should be on Weather Radar. During cruise both may be on wx, however, when flying over high ground one ND should be on Terrain for better situational awareness.

8} During taxiing appropriate speeds as mentioned in SOP must be used during turns to avoid nose wheel scrUbbing and undue stress on the under carriage. During straight taxi in dry condition and good Visibility taxi speed of 20 kts is considered appropriate.
In no case should taxi speed exceed 30 kts. Jet blast behind the A/c must be kept in mind before increasing thrust.

9) The After Landing Procedure and or Checklists should be done only when well clear of active R/W,taxi instructions are noted, understood and discussed.
10> Cost index determines the speed I Mach during all phasesof flight in the ECON mode.
Air India procedure is to use LRC/FixedMach during cruise. However, ECON mode climb and descent should be used and these speeds should not be modified unless required due to weather, etc.

contd .....2/-
.: 2 '.
Oeneral:
11} During External Checks High Visibility vests and ear defenders / ear plugs must be used irrespective of it being a local airport requirement or not, as these are meant for your protection.

12} cockpit entry door procedure once briefed before flight must be adhered to by each and every crew member throughout the flight.

13} Approved shades provided by the manufacturer should be used for protection against glare and paper etc should not be used to obstruct the windshield. It must be borne in mind that the other aircraft may have switched off its TCAS for some reason or may have an unserviceable TCAS preventing the display on your aircraft ND. In some cases
when the sun is shining directly in your eyes a small paper may be used only in cruise, temporarily, just sufficient to block the suns disc. Appropriate sunglassesmay be worn asrequired to protect against glare.

14} Non flight related documents, magazines, newspapers, etc. must NOTbe read whilst seated at your flight deck duty station. All documents required to be used in flight whilst seated at the dUty station have been reprinted to A8 size so that Flight Instruments, etc are not obstructed. No reading, paper work, etc. should be carried out when the other Pilot is not in his seat.

15) Dress & Uniform :
Inspite of detailed instructions on the subject in the operations Manual, it has been observed that dress and uniform regulations are not meticulously followed. Whilst in uniform pilots are minutely observed by the public and other staff and is commented upon. Crew turn out also displays the discipline, attention to detail and attitude of the Airline crew. Therefore, uniform and method of wearing it should be exemplary I.e.
shirt sleevesshould not be rolled up, top shirt button undone and tie loosened, cap in hand, etc. in the presence of public or when leaving the cockpit. Similarly, when visiting office premises, Simulator, traveling passenger by Air India, full / half sleeves shirt properly tucked in, trousers, socks and shoes must be worn (No sports shoes & T-shirts). When traveling on International flights Jacket and tie must be worn. Similar attire must be worn when deputed to attend meetings / seminars with outside agencies. Whilst traveling on interline tickets (Ztickets, etc.l it must be borne in mind that a number of Airlines have a policy of not accepting / upgrading male staff who are not wearing a jacket and tie and female staff in equivalent formal / semi-formal attire. Jeans,T-shirtsand sports shoesare not permitted.

( Capt. A. Almeida )
Addl. Oeneral Manager-Ops.(FIt.Ops.)
VKI )yotl
FOSPCircular

misd-again: That was exactly my argument. The sun up there won't do it as it is filtered. If anything causes harm on pilots during cruise it's the cosmic rays. BTW, Melanoma is associated with UV, other forms of skin cancer not necessarily.

You find it very common in Asia that the Windows are covered with Papers and Maps to protect against everything from outside. In my opinion some of the "Pilots" are sitting far too low and hide under the glareshield.

Remember many years back the midair collission in Indian Airspace, maybe a good lookout would have prevented it, who knows. With the attitude "I am IFR" and I do not have to lookout, or I have TCAS and that alarms me, I am somehow shocked that there is no sensibility for wrongdoing..... or at least too complacent and that opens the gate for incidents and, God forbid, for accidents.

I am happy to be old fashioned and look outside what the world has to offer.

Fly safe and land happy

NG

It is a while I made a contribution to PPrune.

It is 0300 local here.

Can't sleep.

Sleeping damage from 30 years of jetlagging around the globe for a major.
Retired 3 Years ago.

Here is a discussion You can't win from people who have no idea how it is to make a quick dash from Europe to the US and after 20 hours or so start the return flight. Already tired and drained because Your body it is already past midnight. MAYBE You were able to sleep one or two hours before calling. MAYBE.
Or a loooong flight into awakening Asia.

The next hours the fight is on.
Coffee.
Jokes.
Chief Pilot.
Solving world problems.
Chats with anything that pops up in the cockpit.

Then the horizon starts to glow, trouble brewing. The upcoming rays hack at Your last barriers. Your eyes hurt, You start to feel irritated, miserable.
These were the times I really HATED the sun, my job, everything.
And still HOURS away from homebase. Every minute seemed to take an hour to tick by.

I, like everyone else covered the sun spot with scrap paper. Not that You could see anything around it. At least You were not so blinded that You could still see a bit outside and Your eyes did not need seconds to adapt to see the instruments.

I never flew military planes but I could have written the nr 1 rule for fighter jocks, that is to attack with the sunrays looking INTO Your afterburner.

We don't live in a perfect world and airliners are not perfect, sunshades are even worse. Maybe in future we (read: my successors) will get intelligent windscreens that adapt to circumstances and block the sun.

For those SLF who read these kinda posts: You are doing this by Your own choice and don't start to complain if You read things You don't want to know about a service we provide for You.

Suppose there is a PPrune for topclass kitchen chefs and there was a post called: What do YOU do with a perfect cooked steak that slips out of Your frying pan on the ground

I don't wanna know.

Nor do I look into forums (if there are any) for heart surgeons.

As with many other professions there are areas only insiders can understand.

But be sure all pilots want to reach their retirement age in 1 piece, that is about the best insurance You can get for a safe flight, but sometimes we have to make the best choice out of a lot bad options.
Putting that decision under a newspaper's microscope is not playing level with pilots.

The into-sun morning flights are the ones I try to remember whenever I have a bout of longing back for my previous life. If it is not strong enough I sit up and look for 10 minutes straight into my desktop reading light, like I do now. That solves all these stupid thoughts...


Hmm, is that me who's snoring? 03.50 now....

I don't have a problem with covering up the #2 or #3 windows in (Oceanic/Polar or otherwise Remote) cruise, but I wouldn't cover the #1 windows unless the plane is parked.

14} Non flight related documents, magazines, newspapers, etc. must NOT be read whilst seated at your flight deck duty station.

Man, they wouldn't like me at all.

At the end of the day the regs are clear. See and avoid is the legal method to avoid mid-air collisions.
How can you even attempt that with all windows covered up?

Whilst not the only airline guilty of this violation, it doesn't make it acceptable.

Especially in the crowded skies of India.

I love my job, but skin cancer was not part of my deal.

Interesting perspective but....

Ticked that box.
Also ticked the tinnitus - one ear.
Malaria -twice.
Salmonella many times.
Lung infection - probably TB.
Solar radiation on polar route - lost two colleagues from brain cancer.
Migraine was normal on the very long trans-atlantic flights.

Imodium was standard operating equipment.

Venereal disease was the only one down to personnel choice ;)

Sonny Hammond:
Just to clear things up, traffic avoidance maneuvers or Resolution Advisories are carried out solely on the basis of looking at your Primary flight display and following the Green band on your V/S indicator. If you make the mistake of looking outside at that point, you're all toast. A traffic advisory which signifies potentially conflicting a/c in your vicinity requires you to look outside and visually locate the traffic, but does not require you to take any evasive action.

Friend of mine was undergoing a simulator assessment on the A320 before being formally inducted into an Indonesian LLC based at Jakarta. The simulator view was set for CAVOK and the Indonesian check pilot gave him take off clearance and make left turn. The pilot under test took off and instinctively glanced over his left shoulder just before commencing the left turn. The instructor `froze` the simulator and in a belligerent manner demanded why the pilot had looked outside before the turn.

The pilot said as it was a visual departure he instinctively looked outside to check for visual traffic before turning.

The instructor replied that "you never look outside when flying the Airbus - you trust the TCAS".

Oh yeah? But of course that's Indonesia...

Oh yes. VFR on instruments.:ugh:

Whilst traffic avoidance is important of much more importance is CB avoidance esp since the tops can be dry and offer few radar returns. At night even when there is a little ambient light I look out as well as dipping the wx radar to look at the bottom levels of the clouds. IMHO completely covering the windows is extremely foolish.

you trust the TCAS

I would've trusted my fist to beat some sense into him.

If you make the mistake of looking outside at that point, you're all toast

What a load of nonsense. I've posted it before but it specifically states in my Ops manual that you must follow the RA correctly AND attempt to acquire the threat visually.

So, we have two pilots. One is flying the aircraft in response to the RA. What do you think the other one is doing, specifically?

I mean, if it's not too much bother maybe you could take a look outside or are you happy to just be a useless passenger at this point?!

Take the case, again, of Uberlingen. Maybe a turn away from the threat would have been possible if visual contact had been established. Or, if you could see that the evasive maneuver wasn't working then you could do something about it. Blindly following your TCAS isn't necessarily the best thing to do.

Blind pew,

I had two Euro sized skin parts removed, basal cell carcinoma. One on my temple.
My then excellent vision lost quite a few points when using pills against malaria, I forgot the name. Later this side effect (and some more) caused a swap in the company to some other brand.
The last few years of my career I was diagnosed with atrium fibrillation. No one in my whole family has heart problems.
My disturbed sleeping pattern.

For the rest Your list looks quite the same as mine, slips in New Delhi were crews seldom without anyone losing it to the "Delli Belli" as we called it. Imodium by the truckload.

OK, nearly every job has its effects on health, but ours is sometimes hidden (yet). Airlines are not too cooperative to comply with in depth studies.
As far as I know studies into the risk of radiation into cockpits is difficult as not all agree on what rays and to what level are considered dangerous over accumulated exposure.

There might come a day all medical risks of flying in our cockpits will be well documented, but airlines will NOT be amused. That's for sure.

But requiring people to look straight into a rising sun w/o letting them protect their eyes is like ordering people to drive with max headlights because the oncoming driver should be able to deal with that.
Get a life guys or keep on staring at the books that know it all soooo well.

Double Back great post :ok:i totally relate to those mornings when the sun just " scorch " your eyes as if acid was splashed directly into them, for those supermen who thinks at flight levels if another aircraft is coming directly at you at a closing rate of over 1900km/hr and you can avoid it, especially when the sun is in your eyes even with the best sunglasses you really are living in coo coo land.

Spandex - what a load of tripe - :ugh:since you brought up uberlingen one of the recommendations out of that very unfortunate accident :(is to always trust your TCAS, if both planes did, that day would not be another satistic.

There is a statistical link with flying and skin cancer, but the culprit is suspected to be melatonin level disruption due to irregular sleep patterns rather than solely UV light exposure (which is minimal in most cockpits.)

Spandex - what a load of tripe - :ugh:since you brought up uberlingen one of the recommendations out of that very unfortunate accident :(is to always trust your TCAS, if both planes did, that day would not be another satistic.

So, does that mean it's going to happen? Not always. Just to be clear I am NOT advocating not trusting or not following your TCAS, but you still have to be able to think AND react for yourself.

I believe the recommendation was to always follow your TCAS, trusting it is a different thing entirely.

Lets just say that you were put into that situation. Will you just blindly follow your TCAS straight into the same accident?. Or maybe you should remove your head from your bottom, look out of the window, see the threat, and do what you can to avoid it.

as if acid was splashed directly into them

Not so much of the theatre! :rolleyes:

TCAS may be giving you an RA to an aircraft that you have not seen and would be a bigger threat than the one you have seen and would take into account the one you have seen, so yes trust your TCAS. In a TCAS mandated environment it's better than you.

Amen to that. Also, a crew response is required in 5 seconds of getting a RA. Assuming that you would need a few seconds to look out, sight the traffic, ascertain its relative direction with respect to yours and look back to your instruments to analyze the instructions and execute the maneuver, you would have lost precious seconds and exacerbated the situation to fatal proportions. So yes, crew that are operating in RVSM airspace are trained to positively follow their TCAS, and disregard potentially conflicting instructions from ATC in case of an RA.

Is it not clear yet? I didn't say do not follow or react to TCAS. I did not say react opposite to an RA. Of course, you react to an RA first, PNF should be looking outside to get eyes on.

So yes, crew that are operating in RVSM airspace are trained to positively follow their TCAS

So when they don't, which has and will still happen, and force a situation that is increasingly likely to result in a collision what are you going to do? Just keep following your fallible computer in to a mid air? Stupid. Crew are also trained not to crash aeroplanes, that still happens doesn't it.

TCAS may be giving you an RA to an aircraft that you have not seen

Which, surely, is another reason to keep a good lookout? You know, situational awareness. How good is yours if you can not see outside?

Situational Awareness is increased by using all available inputs including TCAS. In RVSM TCAS is better than you since it sees all responding units (+/- 360 degrees vertically and horizontally); you don't, you only have an extremely limited field of view (typically +/- 60 degrees horizontally and +20 - 10 degrees vertically) and a (very) limited (mental) processor that is subject to many types of input and processing errors. There is always the possibility of a non-TCAS threat, but in a TCAS mandated environment that possibility is remote and less than your perceptual errors.
A bigger threat is weather so do look out, but a TCAS RA needs you to look in and follow the RA commands (PNF needs to monitor this for correct response AND to look out.)
Ignoring the necessity for accurate compliance with the RA commands in order to look out is asking for disaster.
I would hope that the other aircraft I meet in an RA would not try to visually identify me before reacting.

Ignoring the necessity for accurate compliance with the RA commands in order to look out is asking for disaster.

Quite, which is why I haven't suggested such an action!

I would hope that the other aircraft I meet in an RA would not try to visually identify me before reacting.

Neither have I suggested this one.

but a TCAS RA needs you to look in and follow the RA commands

Really?! Who'd have thought:rolleyes: You don't need to repeat what I've already said.

I did ask this question, yet so far nobody has answered. What will you do if the RA is no longer appropriate and to continue to follow it will result in a collision? Keep following it? Or, do something about it?

Thanks for the lecture anyway.

Lord Spandex, to clarify a few things:
1. I was merely responding to a misleading comment from Sonny saying "At the end of the day the regs are clear. See and avoid is the legal method to avoid mid-air collisions." That statement is absolutely wrong when concerning jet aircrafts flying at several hundered miles per hr. and closing in at twice the speed.
2. I am not advocating that looking out is not necessary and shouldn't be done regularly. As a matter of practice, in terminal areas or on oceanic routes with reciprocal traffic (and in most other circumstances where there is crossing traffic), crew have the habit of visually locating traffic passing within +/- a couple of thousand feet of them for situational awareness. However, the primary indicator for traffic is the TCAS on the Nav Display, and it is only after locating an a/c on the TCAS, that the crew then try to visually sight it.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed. With the caveat that TCAS is notoriously inaccurate laterally. There's no point fixating on a target which may be going away from you and is, therefore, irrelevant.

Still, this leads back to covered windows. What do you do when you get a TCAS target? Take all the charts down, have a look, and then stick them all back up again?

When flying into the sun, the glareshield is quite inadequate, hence the practice of loosely attaching newspapers to the front, but there are always sufficient gaps maintained in order to give you a clear view of whats outside. When there is weather around, we just grin and bear it (i.e. No papers on the front) So if there's traffic ahead that needs to be sighted, we lean forward, and if necessary get the paper out of the way, make an assessment of the traffic and leave the paper the way it was. It isn't as cumbersome as some people would make you believe.

Quite often, the paper is required for you to be able to properly sight your own instruments and CRTs/LCDs which are reduced to an almost colourless blur when they're facing the full blast of the sun's wrath.

Never have never will !!!

Just a thought here. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Been flying before most of you here were probably born. Sorry about that(pun not intended). And still am.
Wonder how you fellas handle a dark cloud covered night then. I recently did 9 hours out of a 13 hour trip heading west without even a glimpse of either a star or the ground. Were in clouds throughout the 9 hours. Moonless night, so even for the little time I was out of clouds, I couldn't see a thing.
Most peaceful flight I ever had!
Now back to the newspaper covering bit...:rolleyes:
And oh yes...they should definitely NOT be covering the windows with newspapers. As a matter of fact, when not being used as sun screens, the damn paper should be READ!
Cause that's the only other use it has on the flight deck.
So guess what I was doing on that dark cloudy night. Looking out for traffic...???!!
Nope you missed it again. I was too buzy reading the paper! What with everybody in RVSM airspace having operational transponders and 2 seperate wonderful weather detection systems approved and fitted by honeywell. I think the days of a lookout are long gone my friends. Long gone.
Look what happened to the Titanic...;)

Yep, and autoland is so reliable you might as well chuck your sidestick away too. In fact just take the windows out altogether. Much better hey?

You may be a jockey but it ain't horses or aeroplanes, it's the other one.

What will you do if the RA is no longer appropriate and to continue to follow it will result in a collision? Keep following it? Or, do something about it?

Providing you are in a TCAS mandated environment TCAS will prioritise threats, better than you can. When the RA is no longer appropriate it becomes a TA with no further flight path commands so I can't imagine the scenario you paint.
Following the RA (until it downgrades to a TA) is your best course of action. Think of being under/overtaken on a collision azimuth from your rear quarter but with height separation by an aircraft you can't see (but TCAS can) but is currently no threat and receiving an RA for an aircraft you can see and avoid. The possibility exists that ignoring the RA commands (which would put you in the safest position) and operating purely visually could lead to a further RA on the unseen aircraft. It can and does handle multiple contacts quite well so by following the commands you will place yourself in the safest environment.

:=

TCAS requirements: Traffic collision avoidance system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS#Regulatory_situation_around_the_world)

Class D: (...) The controlling authority for this airspace is the control tower for the associated airport, and radar may or may not be used.

Class E: (...) As far as is practical, traffic information is given to all flights in respect of VFR flights.

Class F: (...) ATC separation will be provided, so far as practical, to aircraft operating under IFR. (...)

Class G: (...) ATC separation is not provided.

And then, there is Africa...

Cover ur butt!

No question, a good lookout is, well, a good idea.


So, ladies and gents who criticize the covering of the glarey bits, on a 8-16 hour for example, long haul flight do you spend that whole time 'scanning for bogeys'


Time for a reality check..

Direct quote from the Oz AIP. My bolding.

A traffic information service will be provided, where applicable, depending on higher priority duties of the controller or other limitations; eg radar limitations, volume of traffic, frequency congestion, or controller work load. Radar/non-radar traffic does not relieve pilots of their responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. Pilots are cautioned that there are many times when the controller is not able to give traffic information concerning all traffic in the aircraft's proximity; in other words, when a pilot requests or is receiving traffic information, he/she should not assume that all traffic will be issued.

Also, Civil Aviation Regulation 163A

Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft

When weather conditions permit, the flight crew of an aircraft must, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules or the Visual Flight Rules, maintain vigilance so as to see, and avoid, other aircraft.

Visual aquisition of the other aircraft was the last resort available to the prevention of the GOL 1907 accident. It's debatable with the closure speeds in that case (head on) whether avoiding action may have been possible. However, it would be nice to think that crews were not relying solely on TCAS to avoid a thunderclap meeting.

The days of seeing and avoiding midair collisions Chuck Yeager style have long gone for jet commercial traffic. Compulsory when flying your pisscat. At the potential closing speeds and with varying weather phenomena such as slanting clouds etc, it is near impossible to judge what the target aircraft's flight path is, and the chances are you may even avoid the wrong aircraft.

Fly the RA PERIOD (The sky's become a whole lot safer if we all do)

As far as blocking the sun goes. I find that by blocking the offending fireball just enough offers you a wider field of vision as you don't have to squint and your eyes are more effective.

Covering all the windshield's with newspaper is just not appropriate, although sitting in the cruise I wouldn't say its unsafe. In fact for some of the posters here I would prefer if their windshield's were covered - that would force them to fly the RA and not play hotshot.

Lookout is required by law and a bloody good idea. Doesn't matter if for weather or traffic. There are quite a few weather phenomena and effects that cannot be seen on radar, would be nice to see it beforehand instead of sleeping in a shaded flightdeck until you get a nasty surprise. Same for TCAS, of course you fly the RA, however it is quite often not even necessary to run into an RA and even more important, there are still planes around without Mode C/S which won't picked up by tcas and don't forget, it is quite legal to fly around for 10 days without any TCAS at all.

As long as mister Boeing himself writes in the QRH that pilots should try to obtain visual contact with traffic in case of a TA or an RA, why would I not do that?
BTW, it sounds like a bloody good idea anyway.

Scary thought that apparently many of my colleages think it doesn't do any harm to block the windows. Jockeys or otherwise...

Blocking the whole windscreen? Why not just block where the sun is?
Seems like, for people like that, OH&S was created, for those with little common sense.:ugh:
Sure TCAS is there, but I'm sure a wide variety of situations could render it useless... Failures and the like. I personally think it's a good idea to keep a lookout whenever and whatever you are flying...

11 September 1990
Qantas Boeing 747 with 360 aboard missed a USAF C-5 Galaxy plane by a reported 17 metres, while flying over Phuket. The case raised air traffic control clearance issues.

Providing you are in a TCAS mandated environment TCAS will prioritise threats, better than you can. When the RA is no longer appropriate it becomes a TA with no further flight path commands so I can't imagine the scenario you paint

Well, how about the other 'Jockey' not following his RA or manuevering in opposition to it? Yeah, yeah we've all been trained to react properly to TCAS and disregard ATC but that hasn't always worked has it? It's happened before and it will happen again. The only way to avoid a smash in that situation is to use your eyes.

I'm not talking about prioritising threats or ignoring TCAS but looking out of the window and using your brain.

Unhooked,
Fly the RA PERIOD

Tell that to the other guy.

Well, how about the other 'Jockey' not following his RA or manuevering in opposition to it

As, I hope, you are aware TCAS will react to his non-compliance and adjust the demands on you to avoid the collision. TCAS will also pick up his movement before you could visually. Remember TCAS 'negotiates' escape manoeuvres between conflicting traffic, something you couldn't do.

The only way to avoid a smash in that situation is to use your eyes

Your eyes and information-processing are considerably more fallible and slower than TCAS in recognising and avoiding collisions.

Tell that to the other guy.

I think we are trying to.:)

TCAS can only negotiate if there is a TCAS working in the other aircraft. Up to 10 days without is perfectly legal and quite often done. Not to mention state aircraft that do not have to conform to usual equipment standards, or all those nice little aircraft that do not need to have TCAS because they are too small and have a general exemption, yet still fly at the same flight levels we do.

There are lots of very valid reasons to keep a good outlook throughout your flight, not to mention it is required by most legislations as well.

As, I hope, you are aware TCAS will react to his non-compliance and adjust the demands on you to avoid the collision. TCAS will also pick up his movement before you could visually. Remember TCAS 'negotiates' escape manoeuvres between conflicting traffic, something you couldn't do.

Of course, but occasionally the RA isn't enough to remove you from the conflict no matter how accurately you follow it. Ever been pinged by fast jets? Or by a guy who has reacted in the opposite sense(That's the guy I'm on about by the way)?

There was a 'Guy' at my old airline who "was confused by the symbology" and didn't do as he should have. They got within feet of the other aeroplane who was following his RA but then had to maneuver himself away from the collision, not in contradiction to the RA but laterally at the same time.

Remember I am not advocating not following an RA but when that isn't enough then your last line of defence is your eyes.

There seems to be some confusion with 'see and avoid', the legal requirement to maintain a lookout and then TCAS.
TCAS and its operational procedures are what they are.

The regulatory requirement to maintain a lookout and additionally see and avoid is a stand alone issue separate to TCAS.

Arguing that TCAS relieves the pilots requirement to maintain a lookout is a severely flawed logic.

Answer me this, what if the other a/c transponder fails?

Swiss cheese anyone?

Additionally,

TCAS is designed to improve safety. Not replace existing safety mechanisms, like see and avoid.

You blokes who cover up cockpit windows and other similar behavior are simply reducing safety margins that have been hard fought for at the cost of the lives of many.

Sack up, be professional and if you have fair skin, try sunscreen.

The original culprits would not have had fair skin and were probably worried it may become darker, that's my take on it. Seen it time and time again down there.

Not racist, just stating facts.

India is the largest importer of shell we say, "cosmetic skin care products" in the world, for both sexes.

making a racist statement and saying that you are not does not make it better.:mad:

Am sure you have lots of time on hand to read someplace that India is the largest importer of "shell" we say cosmetic skin products but none to spell check.

Hello beeps

Didn't take long did it? Ha ha!

I don't recall mentioning any race. All I mentioned was skin pigmentation. Sonny mentioned pigmentation on the post previous to mine and nobody has yet waded in to attack him.

People do want to change the pigmentation of their skin. "SHALL" we take the Northern Europeans who take a holiday and lay in the sun for weeks on end, for example. It is to get a sun tan! So you going to call me a racist again for mentioning skin color??

BTW., the "cosmetic skin care products" to which I refer are nearly as bad by causing skin cancer, as the sun

Every other advert on TV in the Sub-continent is about skin pigmentation products. Just the facts, and nothing but the facts.

Sad there are people on this forum who can never hold level headed discussions without having some bigoted notion about others, while there exists alot of intelligent posters on this forum who actually share useful information and discussions, PPRune is slowly degenerating into a rubble rowsing forum. Last i checked there are lots of ads in the western media on skin care products as well and all that anti ageing creams but whats that got to do with whats being discussed.
I conquer with beeps, people who deliberately post bigotted coments just so they can get a response, and theyll mostly end their posts with somethin on lines of......"not being racist" or "how long since they start crying racism",
If you got nothing meaningful to share let the thread continue without degenerating into some sort of misplaced rhetoric.

Just trying to provide constructive input as to why a pack of clowns, who keep referring to themselves as captains, would want to fly around with the cockpit windows covered with news paper.

This is still going on, in spite of the manufactures recommendations, company Sop's, common sense, airman ship (or lake of) and the rest of it...

You got a better suggestion?

This is still going on, in spite of the manufactures recommendations, company Sop's, common sense, airman ship (or lake of) and the rest of it...

Are you talking about boats now? Lots of nasty reflections from the water, you should really put sun cream on......:rolleyes:

And the pack of clowns fronting for captains blockin cockpit windows must be from the "not fair skin side", yet on this same thread there was a reference of a major US carrier pictured on Airliners with its windows blocked, but Alas its gota be the other side.
Get Real, some things that pilots do are not unique to specific corners of the globe and that's the reason why theres a debate whether or not it is perilious to cover your windows, but obviously some narrow minded people have to always get an angle to even the most mundane of topics.

Friend of mine went for an assessment trip in the A320 simulator in Indonesia. Instructor had visual scene set to good visibility and no cloud and cleared for take off make left turn.

The captain under test glanced over his left shoulder just prior to initiating the turn. Immediately the Indonesian check pilot in the simulator demanded to know why the pilot looked outside before the turn. The pilot replied it was an instinctive check to make sure all clear since it was a visual departure.

The instructor got angry and said that pilots should never look outside in the A320 because the TCAS is always to be trusted.

Somehow, somewhere, this thread took some a wrong turns.
...getting back on track:
1) If you want to keep a constant lookout at FL370 with the sun in your eyes, for 6-7 hours straight, suit yourself. :8
2) If you think that a constant lookout without any potential threats on TCAS will EVER get you out of trouble, dream on. Why? 'cause there is no way you will be able to acquire and identify a true threat, let alone execute an avoidance maneuver at closing speeds of 1.8 mach. And what about during nighttime? Do you suggest that night flying is more hazardous due to the reduced ability to identify and avoid collision threats visually? News to me.
3) Block just enough of the sun to keep it from your face, no one advocates covering all windows.
4) ALWAYS follow TCAS RA's, NEVER := be creative about it. period.
5) If the other guy doesn't have TCAS or his system failed, AND he's in the wrong place at the wrong altitude, well, god help you. Your eyes certainly won't.

Amen to that amos747

The thread should end right there but I fear it wont. There will always be cowboys out there who have convinced themselves that they have better reactions than the rest, and will fly themselves out of an RA visually.

And then we spend hours on forums like this discussing how these people got it so wrong. :confused:

All well and good of course.

Not so long ago, I was a crew member on an oceanic crossing with an ex senior Captain from a "flag carrier", third world, who was occupying the RHS. Broad daylight and there had been Cb's in the area.. He had his eyes glued to the WX radar. As he was the PF, he requested me to obtain a clearance off track to avoid. I asked him why. He replied there was a cb ahead. I suggested to him that he remove his windscreen screen (albeit, semitransparent) and have a look outside. He did and there was no wx ahead, except an island.

Taking wx alone, you cant beat the mark one eye ball, day and night, as I have seen"experts" get it wrong without verification, of visual or radar backup.

There will always be cowboys out there who have convinced themselves that they have better reactions than the rest, and will fly themselves out of an RA visually.

I suspect you may have aimed that at me. Do you have a problem reading English? Nobody has suggested flying out of an RA visually.

Amos
If the other guy doesn't have TCAS or his system failed, AND he's in the wrong place at the wrong altitude, well, god help you. Your eyes certainly won't.

So that's it then? TCAS hasn't worked so you'll just give up. You won't bother looking out and avoiding a collision yourself. Technology has failed you so you think it's ok to fail your passengers. All you have to do is look and react.

Have you two ever seen Withnail and I? You are coming across, to me, as equals to Monty.

Japan Air Prox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Japan_Airlines_mid-air_incident)

Watanabe avoided disaster when he abruptly forced the aircraft to dive based on a visual judgment, saving a total of 677 people on the two aircraft. If the collision had occurred, it would have been the deadliest civil aviation accident in history in terms of passenger lives, surpassing the Tenerife disaster in which two Boeing 747s collided on a runway and killed 583 people in 1977.

SPANDEX - I have had my say and I see no point going down this road with you any more. If you want to push your weak argument any further - do so with someone who gives a toss. I sir, do not. Over n out...

Well, unhooked, sounds like a pattern is developping here.

Just giving up?

And Amos, trusting in devine intervention as a last resort after your TCAS system fails on you :ugh::ugh:

Come on, with guys like you in the cockpit, it`s no wonder the T&C`s are going down the drain.

Unhooked, no more points to make, no sensible arguments. Keep your head inside and run away.

See ya!

P.S. "Over and out" makes as much sense as flying with your eyes closed. None. Back to your flight sim son.

Mercenary pilot, that's a very interesting link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Japan_Airlines_mid-air_incident) that you shared in your post #22 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/452750-air-india-bashing-gone-too-far-5.html#post6496476).

After reading your post, I also found this report about the JAL incident (http://www.asasi.org/papers/2005/Hiroaki%20Tomita%20-%20near%20collision%20in%20Japan.pdf).

This incident happened because the JAL 747 pilot obeyed (wrong) ATC instructions, rather then following the TCAS climb instruction. After disobeying the TCAS RA he then visually avoided the DC10 (which he had kept in sight during his descent.:ugh: (REF 1)) by an abrupt last second manoeuvre. Can anyone explain me what was passing through the mind of this pilot while he was disobeying the TCAS RA and descended towards the DC10 that he already had in sight?

Some will say that this proves that searching visual contact avoided this disaster. Others -like me- will say that the incident would never have happened had the B747 jockey obeyed his RA to begin with.

I agree with Unhooked that amos747's post # 78 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/452750-air-india-bashing-gone-too-far-4.html#post6494817) is a very good summary and would have been a nice end of this thread!

But what disgusts me most of all is that the Ueberlingen tragedy should and could have been avoided. This JAL incident happened about 18 monts before the Ueberlingen collision. Sad to see confirmed that only mortal accidents seem be have an influence on safety recommendations. :{

Ref 1: page 18 of the report (http://www.asasi.org/papers/2005/Hiroaki%20Tomita%20-%20near%20collision%20in%20Japan.pdf): The flight crew of Aircraft A kept insight(sic) Aircraft B, but did not recognize relative position and height accurately. Also have a look at the picture on page 16 of this report!

Their situational awareness by utilizing TCAS information displays was insufficient.

So reliance on TCAS alone is insufficient for good SA.

You also fail to note that Aircraft B, although correctly following their RA, also had to maneuver visually to avoid a collision.

Having kept the other aircraft in sight, despite not following an RA correctly, Aircraft A was able to visually avoid the other aircraft.

Backs up everything that I've said.

It's a fuel saving trick. Cover the windows with paper to reduce the incoming long wave radiation so reducing the demand on the air-con to cool the cockpit, hence reducing fuel consumption. If every aircraft in the fleet did this for 8 hrs a day, the savings would be enormous! Enough to buy the Ops Director a new car every two years.
What? He gets one every year, my my, you see, it works better than I thought.

So reliance on TCAS alone is insufficient for good SA.

I don't think anybody ever said that TCAS displays are sufficient for good situational awareness. It's clear however that simply obeying TCAS RA's would have avoided the JAL incident from happening.

Aircraft A was able to visually avoid the other aircraft
What I remember from this post is that despite A having he other AC in sight before they got really close, they got to within 50 m of each other.

Now it's true that when I get a TCAS TA, apart from getting ready to obey a possible RA as per SOP, I will also be looking out to get visual contact with other traffic. But unless the other traffic suddenly fills my window, I will be obeying the RA. THAT is the lesson that everybody should have learned from Ueberlingen by now! So, my lord, as long as you will agree that you should obey RA's when you get them I do not feel need to continue this argument with you.

I don't think anybody ever said that TCAS displays are sufficient for good situational awareness.

Except those pilots who cover the inside of the flight deck with charts and those on this thread that think it's a good idea.

It's clear however that simply obeying TCAS RA's would have avoided the JAL incident from happening.

Correct. However, that didn't work for B did it?

But unless the other traffic suddenly fills my window, I will be obeying the RA

Good, as will I.

So, my lord, as long as you will agree that you should obey RA's when you get them

I haven't said anything to the contrary, look back at my posts.

THAT is the lesson that everybody should have learned from Ueberlingen by now

Sadly that is the lesson that will not be learned by everybody, ever. It happened in Japan and years later in Uberlingen and it will happen again.

You think it's over now? It's not. Which is why, like Aircraft B in Japan, you need to look out and, if necessary, avoid a collision visually when TCAS is inadequate. Which, in several instances, it has proven to be.

I find it pretty astounding that professional pilots would ever condone covering all the flightdeck windscreens and side screens with charts and it absolutely beggars belief that ANY pilot would discard the MK1 eyeball and their flying skills as the last line of defence to avoid a mid-air collision.

Have covered the sidewindow with the newspaper, after I finished reading the newspaper. Then took a snooze. On long boring routes of course.

Its called the big sky theory. How many midairs in cruise in the last 30 years. The odds were almost zero before TCAS.

I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.

Back to the news.

It's a fuel saving trick. Cover the windows with paper to reduce the incoming long wave radiation so reducing the demand on the air-con to cool the cockpit, hence reducing fuel consumption. If every aircraft in the fleet did this for 8 hrs a day, the savings would be enormous! Enough to buy the Ops Director a new car every two years.
What? He gets one every year, my my, you see, it works better than I thought.

While I concur to Sabena's positition with regards to collision avoidance, I got interested in the quoted comment from rubick101.
Made a rough calculation: let's say that there is [upperlimit] a squaremeter open to incoming sun with radiation of about 1kW/m2. So that means incoming energy of 10kWh for a ten hours flt [again upper limit, the
sun is likely to not always shine in]. Lets take a thermodynamic efficiency of air conditioning system and turbine of 20%, so we need to provide 50Kwh, that would be approx 5 ltrs of fuel per 10hrs flt. Assuming a company with about 100 such flts per day it means about 150 tons of fuel saved each year. (But it could be easily 5 times less, I made genereous assumtions).
150 tons that is not negligible, you could even figure our how much less oil-workers
got killed and then compare that to the potential lives saved by "see&avoid", not that I am advocating this, but, LORD, thruth could reaveal is more complicated then you might think.
Cheers to all.

I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside

You mean you can't do both?!

That's a hell of an admission to make, does your employer know you can't do a proper scan?

I wonder how many errors have been made because someone is being lazy, reading the paper or having a kip.

Its called the big sky theory. How many midairs in cruise in the last 30 years.

At least one. Unless you offset, the dead-nuts accuracy of modern nav systems means you can centerpunch opposite-direction traffic if worse comes to worst, as the Brazilian bizjet-versus-airliner collision showed. Big Sky Theory has turned into One-Airplane-Wide Airway theory.

You mean you can't do both?!

That's a hell of an admission to make, does your employer know you can't do a proper scan?

I wonder how many errors have been made because someone is being lazy, reading the paper or having a kip.

Where did I admit that I can't scan. Does your employer know that you can't understand simple written sentences?

As for "Kipping", you will find it officially approved by many authorities. Paper...maybe not.

Well, perhaps you didn't mean to write it as such but...

I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.

...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".

Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.

Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.

Well, perhaps you didn't mean to write it as such but...



...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".

Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.

Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.

Does your employer know that you also make false assumptions and incorrect interpretations?

Please let them know as it is a dangerous habit to have.

Off the the business section now as there is nothing on the TCAS.

You said it mate, not me.

If you want to rewrite it correctly, the way you meant it, then fill your boots. We'll have a chat about it then.

I said it, you misread it. Not surprising really. To quote yourself..."Do you have a problem reading English?"

Now for the comics. More to learn from that than here.

Just use some common sense when covering windows. Jesus...

In my day, the thin plastic tray mats used by American Airlines were valuable and attractive items.

They could stick to the inside of a DC-10 windscreen like sh*t to a blanket.

It was then possible to keep the sun out of your eyes and so give about 98% of uninterrupted viewing of everything else out of the window. The 2% lack of coverage was irrelevant.

Neither the screen shade or the best pair of Ray Bans that could be bought could deal with the 2% blind spot into sun and an American Airlines tray mat was so much more efficient.

Why else do you imagine that the Hun always got into the Sun?

I said it, you misread it. Not surprising really. To quote yourself..."Do you have a problem reading English?"

Actually I gave you the correct definition for what you had written. You can keep denying it but that'll just make you look even more foolish.

You speak for yourself, therefore, what you have written pertains to your abilities and experiences. The implication of which is that you can't or don't look outside and monitor inside. Again 'rather than' is defined as 'and not'.

You consider that looking outside may cause errors. You would rather monitor inside to prevent yourself making these errors. You consider that this is safe because a midair collision is unlikey, especially with the introduction of TCAS.

You place too much reliance on automation and computers, that is a poor attitude for a professional pilot. Technology is not magic or infallible, it will not replace airmanship no matter how unlikey a situation is, it has not been introduced to the flight deck to pardon you from doing your job it is there to assist you and improve your survivability.

Keep reading your comics, it may expand your mind. I feel sorry for your passengers.

Well, perhaps you didn't mean to write it as such but...

Quote:
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.
...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".

Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.

Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.

Nothing wrong with the original sentence old boy! It makes perfect sense!

Nor does 'rather than' mean 'and not'. 'Rather than' is an alternative, 'and not' is a collective....

Anyway - Mark I Eyeball is best. TCAS is ok. Sleep on the flightdeck is approved at many carriers! Broadsheets beat tabloids for blocking out the sun! Flying in India is sh1te, especially in the monsoon! If you travel around India on holiday take the train, don't fly!

This I believe sums up the thread so far:cool::cool:

It's not worth the effort WK. A brief review of previous posts by the strange-named one shows a very condescending attitude followed by the usual insults. We see a refusal to admit error. That is dangerous actually. Likely a quite knowledgeable type but not nearly as good as he thinks he is. We all see this type on occasion. I enjoy seeing him have to get the last word in.

Bottom line, how many cruise altitude midairs have there been. The odds are infinitesimal to begin with. And of the very few, how many would have actually been prevented by a near continuous scan. Not the Brasil one. Uberlingen, who knows? The TCAS worked properly. Obviously after a TA, one crew should be looking outside.

An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day. There can be low closure rate midairs. There was a near midair over the Atlantic many years ago between a Delta and Continental that were in the same direction. That is where a scan is likely to save the day. But once again, nowadays, TCAS will almost certainly let you know.

Flying in an area where there might be reason to suspect something different?(military stuff perhaps), then common sense, as always, prevails. Being anal retentive is for those few that are that way.

But.....seeing as some say that there is too much reliance on automation and computers, perhaps now that I have finished my snooze and the paper, I will click off the autopilot and hand-fly the rest of the way. After all, one has to be professional:rolleyes:.

...We see a refusal to admit error. That is dangerous actually...

Pray tell how failing to agree with you on an anonymous forum is dangerous?!

Here's the link...
Rather Than (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rather+than)
...to this definition:

rather than
conj.
And not: "Gibson guitarswith their carved tops and necks that are fitted and glued to the body, rather than bolted on are expensive to make" (Joshua Rosenbaum).
prep.
Instead of: "diseases in which the immune system plays the villain rather than the protector" (Sandra Blakeslee).

I wonder if you will continue to refuse to admit your own error.

Bottom line, how many cruise altitude midairs have there been.

I don't know, do you?

The odds are infinitesimal to begin with.

Can you quote that actual odds? If they are, as you assume, infintesimal then why would you want to increase those odds?

And of the very few, how many would have actually been prevented by a near continuous scan

More than would have been caused by a scan undoubtedly. Proof enough that there is no reason to not do one.

An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day.

All the more reason for a good lookout then. But of course you can see them, I saw dozens today with and without contrails.

But once again, nowadays, TCAS will almost certainly let you know.

Almost certainly. That's ok then isn't it. When it doesn't?

Flying in an area where there might be reason to suspect something different?(military stuff perhaps), then common sense, as always, prevails. Being anal retentive is for those few that are that way.

How would you know if there was 'something different' in an area or not? I don't consider a proper scan, including lookout, as being anally retentive.

But.....seeing as some say that there is too much reliance on automation and computers, perhaps now that I have finished my snooze and the paper, I will click off the autopilot and hand-fly the rest of the way.

Why would you do that? Oh, I see...sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

Ignoring the poor English then perhaps you could clarify what you actually mean by
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.

Just what kind of errors might you make whilst carrying out a proper scan?

By the way this is not about trying to get the last word in it's called a discussion. You know, argument and counter argument and if you feel insulted then get a thicker skin.

According to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_collision#List_of_notable_civilian_mid-air_collisions) there have been 11 mid-air collisions in the cruise phase for civilian flights

Thanks Green Granite. It appears since the advent of TCAS that there have been two midairs in the high flight levels in cruise. Neither would have been prevented by this near continuous scan idea.

I'm not sure how many billions of flights there have been in this time period from when TCAS was introduced to the present day so I can't answer the ridiculous odds question posed by the strange-named one, I should think my statement of the odds being infinitesimal are fairly accurate though.

And as a matter of interest to the statement that more midairs have been prevented than created by this very important scan...Here is a link to a midair between airliners caused by someone taking evasive action in the thought that there was a collision risk(when in fact there wasn't) and ceated a collision.

1965 Carmel mid-air collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Carmel_mid-air_collision)
(Conclusions: Misjudgment of altitude separation by the crew of EA 853 because of an optical illusion created by the up-slope effect of cloud tops resulted in an evasive maneuver and a reactionary evasive maneuver by the TW 42 crew).

Another example of your misinterpretationstatements(which I know you are passing on to your employer) is shown below with your direct response below my statement:

An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds. Without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day.

All the more reason for a good lookout then. But of course you can see them, I saw dozens today with and without contrails.

You saw dozens of objects on a collision course today? I think not.

And I don't think my sarcasm is lower than your regular insults. It was just to show how a statement you made, once again did not make sense. I await your having to get the last word in again.:cool:

This guy also 'relied upon TCAS'. He even left it there in the descent into Dhaka until FL200 when my teddy went overboard. This is Biman Bangladesh.

He was/is an experienced skipper with thousands of hours on the DC10 - who's learned nothing.

They're cowboys. Try flying with some of pilots from the sub-continent if you want to see why we have CRM training. . .

http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq174/brianwmay/DSCF1293.jpg

Neither would have been prevented by this near continuous scan idea.

First, lets just make it clear that it was you who first mentioned this "near continuous scan".

Good. Secondly, how can you possibly know that these two collisions wouldn't have been prevented by scanning outside? The answer you are looking for is you don't. You show astounding arrogance and ignorance if you're happy to state such things.

A ridiculous odds question. Why is it so ridiculous, you proclaim that the odds are infintesimal yet cannot, when asked, prove it either way with hard facts. I would go so far to say that you have made a ridiculous odds statement yet will accept the facts if you can produce them.

You can find one incident caused by an optical illusion which resulted in a collision. You think because of this that it's ok for nobody to look outside. A basic thought process at best.

which I know you are passing on to your employer

Again an ignorant statement without benefit of proof and barely worthy of a response. You're making yourself look even more stupid. Also on this point what makes you think that what I, or indeed anybody else, writes here translates in anyway to their professionalism?

You saw dozens of objects on a collision course today? I think not.

Of course I did. That is until we received vectors for separation. Do you think you are never pointing at another aircraft or on a converging course, whether you can see them or not?

It was just to show how a statement you made, once again did not make sense

So instead of using facts to refute my statement you descend into sarcasm. Wonder why - Is it because you just want to disagree with me without having a descent, sensible, counter argument?

As far as insulting you goes if you can please quote them in your next missive and I will gladly apologise.

Finally, do you have a problem with me responding to you on this thread? It's just that to have a discussion, chat or argument a response is required. Yet you keep banging on about me having the final word. I couldn't care less if I do or not and I'm not stopping anybody (I wouldn't even if I could), including you, responding after me.

- You mean that you are not scanning outside contiuously, how unprofessional. A midair collision in cruise might just happen when you let your guard down. There have been hundreds of millions of flights in the last decade with at least two midairs and you don't scan continuously. Unbelievable. Unprofessional. How long have you been willing to go without scanning outside?

-I would go so far to say that you have made a ridiculous odds statement
Can you quote the actual odds?

- I must have been mistaken in an earlier statement. I didn't realize that you were on dozens of collision courses while in cruise, which is of course what I have been talking about all along. You must cruise along in extremely, extremely busy airspace.

-I'm glad you now feel that the statement about the employer is "an ignorant statement" and "barely worthy of a response". I thought so when you initiated that statement earlier in the thread. That is why I made sarcastic quotes about it. Which of course is better than insults.

-1600 km/h closure rate in the Brazil collision. How long were they visible to each other. Not long. And studies have shown that the average time to see, recognize, react and actually have the aircraft move is over 12 seconds. Sorry strange-named man, no arrogance or ignorance on my part. Just the usual facts. Uberlingen... A slower closure rate with some sort of light out there at night to be seen. Bottom line is...you ain't gonna know what avoidance manouver to make till fairly close. Of course proper TCAS procedures will work.

- Anal retentiveness...absolutely. I feel sorry for your passengers and your Captain. Starting the stopwatch for the response time.

You mean that you are not scanning outside contiuously, how unprofessional. A midair collision in cruise might just happen when you let your guard down. There have been hundreds of millions of flights in the last decade with at least two midairs and you don't scan continuously. Unbelievable. Unprofessional. How long have you been willing to go without scanning outside?

What are you on about? I haven't mentioned scanning outside continuously, you brought that one up.

-I would go so far to say that you have made a ridiculous odds statement
Can you quote the actual odds?

No of course I can't which is why I didn't use it as my argument. Unlike you. However, if I did choose to use facts and figures to back up my argument I would produce them for you to see. Proof, you might call it.

- I must have been mistaken in an earlier statement. I didn't realize that you were on dozens of collision courses while in cruise, which is of course what I have been talking about all along. You must cruise along in extremely, extremely busy airspace.

Yes, I do.

-I'm glad you now feel that the statement about the employer is "an ignorant statement" and "barely worthy of a response". I thought so when you initiated that statement earlier in the thread. That is why I made sarcastic quotes about it. Which of course is better than insults.

You misunderstand, again. Your statement of "which I know you are passing on to your employer" can only be, and is, nonsense. Irrelevant of who you think I may be passing my "misinterpretationstatements" to how could you possibly know that I am passing on my "misinterpretationstatements" (whatever they are) to anybody not reading this. Please let us all know how you came to that conclusion.

-1600 km/h closure rate in the Brazil collision. How long were they visible to each other. Not long. And studies have shown that the average time to see, recognize, react and actually have the aircraft move is over 12 seconds.

Again another great reason to be keeping a good lookout. If you see them earlier you can avoid them sooner.

Sorry strange-named man, no arrogance or ignorance on my part. Just the usual facts.

Lets see. "Not long" is a fact is it. Seems more like a generalisation to me.

Uberlingen... A slower closure rate with some sort of light out there at night to be seen. Bottom line is...you ain't gonna know what avoidance manouver to make till fairly close.

Correct and the more time you spend watching the trajectory of the other aircraft the more time you can decide upon a course of action if it's required.

Of course proper TCAS procedures will work.

In most cases I agree and I haven't said otherwise. But, when it doesn't your last second glimpse is not going to give you enough time to resolve a conflict is it.

- Anal retentiveness...absolutely. I feel sorry for your passengers and your Captain.

Well if you want to feel sorry for anyone you should feel sorry for my first officers. Not that they have anything to complain about though.

Starting the stopwatch for the response time.

Anally retentive!!! Was that irony?

For the peace of mind for everyone else, I will stop the enjoyment of using your own quotes about employers and odds in my replies to you along with all else including my sarcastic but not insulting remarks.

While you continue with your continuous scanning(probably while IMC as well), I am going to put the autopilot back on and go for a snooze. I think that I will be quite refreshed for descent and landing while you are no doubt quite tired from scanning and likely repeatedly insulting your fellow crewmembers.

I assume then that you will have the last post. It took only 30 minutes last time to reply. Start timing.:cool:

Strange name.

Hold on before you run off.

Continuous scanning or scanning outside continuously? There's a big difference. You seem to be getting confused between the two.

You're also confused about the meaning of the word insult. Maybe you should look it up, for your peace of mind.

Again you're assuming things about me that you cannot possibly know and stating them as facts. Still getting more and more foolish.

You've also failed to respond to any of my points or questions in my last post. Counter argument?

What was that? Ten minutes?

It'll only be the last post if you don't bother replying, which you won't.

Hold on before you run off.

Continuous scanning or scanning outside continuously? There's a big difference. You seem to be getting confused between the two.

You're also confused about the meaning of the word insult. Maybe you should look it up, for your peace of mind.

Again you're assuming things about me that you cannot possibly know and stating them as facts. Still getting more and more foolish.

You've also failed to respond to any of my points or questions in my last post. Counter argument?

What was that? Ten minutes?

It'll only be the last post if you don't bother replying, which you won't.

Actually, you both have funny names.


But I sure wouldn't want to be stuck with the guy in spandex for any extended period of time. Hope you don't do longhaul.:{

Give it a rest.

Had maybe a dozen RAs during my time. Followed 8 of them exactly, managed to avoid the other traffic by turning (TCAS does not allow for that) for the others. One was into JFK against a small VFR airplane that drove me down to almost 1000 feet before I gave up and reversed into a climb, the TCAS went ballistic but I could not see the need to fly my airplane (747) into the ground. I tried to trust the TCAS but never did completely.
Flew for several Asian carriers that covered their windscreens during the day, never liked it. During double crew if I was support would tear the paper down when I came on the flight deck, both sides, was not popular for that.
Before TCAS was on a flight Singapore to London and asked for FL280 approaching Himalayas from Kabul and got it. As I climbed, real dark night, I saw some light flashing above. I got a stiff neck trying to keep it in sight but was concerned enough to stop my climb and look carefully. It was a Speedbird 747 immediately above, maybe 100 feet or so. If I had done what most of that company's pilots did in keeping the cockpit floodlight on, I would never have seen it. 800 people could have died?
Many Asian carriers also turn off their external lights and close the window blinds as well. Makes their airplanes impossible to see. One reason for the KAL007 disaster. The Russian pilot could not identify the 747 as civilian because it had no lights showing.
Flying Westbound over Canada one night with an experienced local FO, I dimmed the cockpit lights so I could watch the Aurora. It was superb. After half an hour, during which time I called the cabin crew up to see it, the FO said to me "what is that?" He had, over the course of about 6 years flying that route, never seen it because the cockpit floodlights were always kept on at night, totally destroying the crew's ability to see anything outside, including other airplanes.
In my years of airline flying, I became aware that airplanes often come close to each other without the crews being aware of it. The big sky does protect airplanes, even when flown by fools.
Even though I had discounts on the fares, I never allowed my family to fly on those carriers, would rather pay full fare on a carrier I trusted.
Still, what you don't know can't hurt you, right?

"Had maybe a dozen RAs in my time"

I think maybe someone up there is trying to tell you something. I never had one in my time (lot's of TAs but no RAs). I think if I had had a dozen RAs, I would have quit early!

I may put forward an educated guess here that the skin cancer rate in pilots is rather due to the increased amount of cosmic radiation (high energy gamma rays)If that were true, then a lot of other cancers would be prevalent, too. Sorry to say, skin cancer is the result of UV alone. At altitude there is very little atmosphere, so the exposure is far greater than at sea level. Let us not kid ourselves - even at sea level in the midday sun you can burn after 10 minutes. Reduce this for flying at altitude.

rather than the UV light which is filtered out by first the actual windshieldThe windshield does not filter UV.

The sun is a much ill-respected daytime sky object. It is a big occupational hazard for pilots, and one that has yet to be really investigated, understood or even acknowledged. Medical professionals try to collect data, but the airlines block their attempts (no pun intended).

ECAM Actions.

He's at altitude, flying IFR, with the sun in his face. Seems quite reasonable to me.
http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq174/brianwmay/DSCF1293.jpg

I am not sure the punters would agree with you.

Yes I had lots of TCAS RAs because it was a new device, initially it had teething problems.

GPWS also, including warnings of terrain when overflying another 747 going the other way 2000 feet below. Could be annoying if we were both going the same direction and I was stuck overhead the other airplane for a minute or more.

The radiation that causes the most risk to flight crews passes through paper, does it not?

The windshield does not filter UV.

I disagree.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA471609

It does filter, but not as well as plexiglass, there is still a risk.

Let me try and sum up.

"You can teach a :mad: to ride a bicycle but you will never teach it to read and obey road signs" :}

You can teach certain people to fly an aircraft/computer but it can be almost impossible to teach them airman ship/common sense.

This is where nepotism etc., kicks in. A lot of these persons are not selected on merit. A lot are selected because they have come from families who have the clout to get them what they want but not necessarily what some of them deserve. :ugh:

This all, is the fruits of corruption.