Resistence to Change and Reform -- Anywhere.
Thread Starter
I guess the real issue is that you do not accept the whole basis of modern ICAO airspace management and separation assurance standards,
From my previous post. You seem to believe in a strange system of inverted risk management, as the risk decreases, the CNS-ATM services increase.
Amazing, isn't it, you (and Bloggsie and his mates) have got it right, the rest of the world, but particularly FAA and Eurocontrol has got it wrong !!
Not only ideological, but, and if I may say so, which I will, arrogant in the extreme --- and all despite our rather poor record of loss of separation incidents.
As a matter of interest, are you a pilot, or just ATC? Genuine question. Back in the G-O-Ds, DCA used to fund flying training for controllers, to give then some idea of what happens at the other end. Likewise, jumpseat rides for the day, multiple sectors, to see what really happens on the flight deck.
Tootle pip!!
PS: A bit like CASA claims for the Part 61 disaster, that CASR Part 61 is a beacon for the rest of the known universe, but I don't notice any rush from said known universe to emulate this self-describes "great achievement".
Dick, any idea why the low level E around Karratha was removed (down to 1200ft if I remember correctly from the maps a while ago)?
My guess is that it didn't work, otherwise it reasons that if it worked it would have remained. But there might be people out there who know the situation better and can comment.
My guess is that it didn't work, otherwise it reasons that if it worked it would have remained. But there might be people out there who know the situation better and can comment.
and all despite our rather poor record of loss of separation incidents.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest, are you a pilot, or just ATC? Genuine question. Back in the G-O-Ds, DCA used to fund flying training for controllers, to give then some idea of what happens at the other end. Likewise, jumpseat rides for the day, multiple sectors, to see what really happens on the flight deck.
Firstly, you must stop using paternalistic language and consider what you write before hitting 'send: 'As a matter of interest, are you a pilot or just ATC (my underlining).' That lends the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you regard yourself as some sort of winged-god that considers ATC a lower form of life. You could write a book on 'How to Alienate a Target Audience 101.'
Secondly, and the previous aside, you are right on the jump-seat rides - I had several and they were invaluable as regards broader education. I enjoyed each and every one. Particularly the first time I had an Ansett ride in the 767 and saw the early days of the 'glass-cockpit' for the first time with the IRS display.
Why that has seemingly ended, I have no idea. Maybe it's the commercialization of ATC provision, whereby the numbers are no longer available to release people for a ride. Maybe 'user pays;,' but in my memory the rides I got were gratis. Just don't know on that one, but I did learn a lot.
In conclusion, and just a bit of advice. Stop lecturing and hectoring like you're delivering the Ten Commandments!
There's stuff that can be addressed, but people don't like being bashed over the head by those that treat them like morons!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick, I Don't get it. You say most other modern countries etc etc, well I just had a look at these 2 Wiki pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_airspace
Not many places have E, and not many of them have E above a towered Airport unless Primary and Secondary Radar Approach, and, The Canadian C zones go up to FL125
I wonder if our class D regionals would be Class C with Radar App in these O/S systems? That would cost a heap more, and achieve what for us?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_airspace
Not many places have E, and not many of them have E above a towered Airport unless Primary and Secondary Radar Approach, and, The Canadian C zones go up to FL125
I wonder if our class D regionals would be Class C with Radar App in these O/S systems? That would cost a heap more, and achieve what for us?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
Bad boy - you do not know or follow the rules: when arguing with experts on airspace, particularly those who have implemented change in the past which has been half turned back, you must NOT inject facts or cogent argument.
Go immediately to the naughty corner and tune to a frequency with constant overtransmits.
I suspect those wiki pages were inserted by military officers in any case.
MJG
Bad boy - you do not know or follow the rules: when arguing with experts on airspace, particularly those who have implemented change in the past which has been half turned back, you must NOT inject facts or cogent argument.
Go immediately to the naughty corner and tune to a frequency with constant overtransmits.
I suspect those wiki pages were inserted by military officers in any case.
MJG
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK, I did not get a response on the other thread, mind you not much above either. 
Talk about resistance. (I used to sell resistors, transistors, IC's and such as a 15 year old for a well known electronics shop in the early 80's. But I digress…..
)
Dick,
1. Has CASA had international consultants examine the safety benefits of surveillance in airspace? And if so, what was learned or reported?
2. Any comments on my post a few above this one.
Talk about resistance. (I used to sell resistors, transistors, IC's and such as a 15 year old for a well known electronics shop in the early 80's. But I digress…..
)Dick,
1. Has CASA had international consultants examine the safety benefits of surveillance in airspace? And if so, what was learned or reported?
2. Any comments on my post a few above this one.
Jaba. When CASA gets international consultants they nearly always come from Europe- rarely the USA.
If CASA has had consultants doing this study they haven't published anything.
In the UK, like the rest of Europe, GA is in severe problems. Only in North America is there a commercially viable GA industry.
I have flown both IFR and VFR in the countries your post covers.
To maximise the use of existing radar we could have designed our own unique system- then flyers and passengers would be Guinea Pigs for an unproven system.
Or we could have copied a proven system that had lots of data available on on the resultant levels of safety. And that's why both times we decided on the US NAS as the way to go.
Unfortunately those who resist change have stopped us ever completing the NAS system.
And if fact ,they have forced reversals on the introduction so the present system is half wound back and a stuff up. No wonder CASA is trying to make it work with piecemeal changes on frequencies at CTAFs. Unfortunately the internal CASA " code " prevents them from getting anyone with professional experience in the US NAS to advise on how to complete the introduction.
I am hoping that new people coming into the system will embrace the proven overseas system and we will be able to comple the plan.
If CASA has had consultants doing this study they haven't published anything.
In the UK, like the rest of Europe, GA is in severe problems. Only in North America is there a commercially viable GA industry.
I have flown both IFR and VFR in the countries your post covers.
To maximise the use of existing radar we could have designed our own unique system- then flyers and passengers would be Guinea Pigs for an unproven system.
Or we could have copied a proven system that had lots of data available on on the resultant levels of safety. And that's why both times we decided on the US NAS as the way to go.
Unfortunately those who resist change have stopped us ever completing the NAS system.
And if fact ,they have forced reversals on the introduction so the present system is half wound back and a stuff up. No wonder CASA is trying to make it work with piecemeal changes on frequencies at CTAFs. Unfortunately the internal CASA " code " prevents them from getting anyone with professional experience in the US NAS to advise on how to complete the introduction.
I am hoping that new people coming into the system will embrace the proven overseas system and we will be able to comple the plan.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Apr 2016 at 22:02.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This is where your ideology fails. Here is my take.
You want the US system here, how do we do that without serious investment in Primary and Secondary Radar which is independent surveillance that mitigates the risk of non transponder VFR. Each Radar would be in the millions to purchase and install, then maintenance, perhaps a million a year each. Then you need Approach Radar Controllers, still need Tower Controllers, big money. Likely too if you are copying the US, Regional D towers would become Radar C terminals. Then, the question logically has to be asked, who pays. Airlines, GA. No federally funded FAA here.
The question logically should be, do we have a problem that needs fixing? All I have seen is long bows been drawn by you and you alone against accidents decades ago. Where is the relationship comparison with incidents in the US? I'm fairly certain you would not have to go very far back at all to find incidents and accident data from the US. Better or worse?
I cannot see how we can emulate the US system here without Mega dollars invested.
If other countries can have similar systems to ours, why make wholesale change. Refine , improve, sure, but only objectively where a need is identified.
BTW, ask about 09/342 and see what you find. It's a good read
Perhaps you could then ask why it was not published
You want the US system here, how do we do that without serious investment in Primary and Secondary Radar which is independent surveillance that mitigates the risk of non transponder VFR. Each Radar would be in the millions to purchase and install, then maintenance, perhaps a million a year each. Then you need Approach Radar Controllers, still need Tower Controllers, big money. Likely too if you are copying the US, Regional D towers would become Radar C terminals. Then, the question logically has to be asked, who pays. Airlines, GA. No federally funded FAA here.
The question logically should be, do we have a problem that needs fixing? All I have seen is long bows been drawn by you and you alone against accidents decades ago. Where is the relationship comparison with incidents in the US? I'm fairly certain you would not have to go very far back at all to find incidents and accident data from the US. Better or worse?
I cannot see how we can emulate the US system here without Mega dollars invested.
If other countries can have similar systems to ours, why make wholesale change. Refine , improve, sure, but only objectively where a need is identified.
BTW, ask about 09/342 and see what you find. It's a good read
Perhaps you could then ask why it was not published
I have to say that using the US as the be all and end all example of how things should be done is getting rather droll.
From Americans coming into the country on 457 visas to "run" our airlines (which has to be an abuse of the 457 visa system if there ever was one) to using US airspace examples to show how crap our system is, if the joint is so good, Bugger off to the US and stay there!
Or better yet lets import their health system (which we slowly seem to be doing anyway), their corporate governance rules (hello mortgage scandal and subsequent 2007/2008 GFC), their presidential style elections with everyone from the local dog catcher to the president being voted upon by an elite few given voting is not mandatory, gun control or lack thereof - we too can have a mass execution weekly courtesy of a misinterpreted statement in the constitution which somehow turns an armed militia (written at a time when it makes sense and was in context) into an almost unlimited access to assault rifles and automatic weapons for the general population. Stuff it, let's have their federal marshal program for airline pilots, I want to shoot out the PFD with my sig sauer 1911 9mm semi auto with the 15 round clip. Never know when that PFD is just going to leap out and grab you by the throat.
Let's throw in the contradiction of the religious south and their extreme God bothering and contrast that with their almost callous disregard for anyone who is unfortunate enough to not live up to the American Dream and be successful with very limited social security and health care policies.
We have it good here people and just because someone doesn't agree with Dick in airspace it doesn't make them resistant to change or stupid, or unwilling to listen to new ideas or anything else.
I cannot for the life of me see how I am protected when I am flogging around in my rpt jet by the see and avoid principle and frequency separation! Isn't that the airspace equivalent of using peril sensitive sunglasses? If I can't hear you or see you then you aren't there! Anyone who is close enough to hit me I am unlikely to see as I don't have a huge amount of visibility forward and to the side of my jet (and none behind obviously) - yes I can see straight ahead and up, but not too far behind and if anyone is a bit lower than me I have no chance, my field of view is such that anyone inside 4-5 miles is nearly invisible under the glare shield or nose of the aeroplane. I can't see the engines in my jet only the winglets, so anyone in that area is invisible to me as well. So frankly see and avoid is a crock of horse poo that really only applies to the other bloke who has to see the big white jet and miss me. And given that a lot of those people (the ones that I am worried about anyway) are weekend warriors that are not very current, have the fam in the back and have numerous distractions, not the least being a noisy piston engine making a lot of noise in a aluminium frame with no air conditioning (so it is hot or cold) with a windscreen that has managed to become a bit scratched over the 40 or so years it has been installed in the aeroplane, looking into the sun for the White jet that blends into the background. Let's just set up a few hurdles for the poor sob to overcome why don't we? Or we could help him with a "listen shags there is a jet in your way" or " I am here where are you?" call, which we cannot do in an unalerted environment where the bloke is either not talking or is talking on a different frequency.
Clearly I am in desperate need of my morning caffeine and a truck load of Valium (oh can't do the Valium I won't pass a damp test).
From Americans coming into the country on 457 visas to "run" our airlines (which has to be an abuse of the 457 visa system if there ever was one) to using US airspace examples to show how crap our system is, if the joint is so good, Bugger off to the US and stay there!
Or better yet lets import their health system (which we slowly seem to be doing anyway), their corporate governance rules (hello mortgage scandal and subsequent 2007/2008 GFC), their presidential style elections with everyone from the local dog catcher to the president being voted upon by an elite few given voting is not mandatory, gun control or lack thereof - we too can have a mass execution weekly courtesy of a misinterpreted statement in the constitution which somehow turns an armed militia (written at a time when it makes sense and was in context) into an almost unlimited access to assault rifles and automatic weapons for the general population. Stuff it, let's have their federal marshal program for airline pilots, I want to shoot out the PFD with my sig sauer 1911 9mm semi auto with the 15 round clip. Never know when that PFD is just going to leap out and grab you by the throat.
Let's throw in the contradiction of the religious south and their extreme God bothering and contrast that with their almost callous disregard for anyone who is unfortunate enough to not live up to the American Dream and be successful with very limited social security and health care policies.
We have it good here people and just because someone doesn't agree with Dick in airspace it doesn't make them resistant to change or stupid, or unwilling to listen to new ideas or anything else.
I cannot for the life of me see how I am protected when I am flogging around in my rpt jet by the see and avoid principle and frequency separation! Isn't that the airspace equivalent of using peril sensitive sunglasses? If I can't hear you or see you then you aren't there! Anyone who is close enough to hit me I am unlikely to see as I don't have a huge amount of visibility forward and to the side of my jet (and none behind obviously) - yes I can see straight ahead and up, but not too far behind and if anyone is a bit lower than me I have no chance, my field of view is such that anyone inside 4-5 miles is nearly invisible under the glare shield or nose of the aeroplane. I can't see the engines in my jet only the winglets, so anyone in that area is invisible to me as well. So frankly see and avoid is a crock of horse poo that really only applies to the other bloke who has to see the big white jet and miss me. And given that a lot of those people (the ones that I am worried about anyway) are weekend warriors that are not very current, have the fam in the back and have numerous distractions, not the least being a noisy piston engine making a lot of noise in a aluminium frame with no air conditioning (so it is hot or cold) with a windscreen that has managed to become a bit scratched over the 40 or so years it has been installed in the aeroplane, looking into the sun for the White jet that blends into the background. Let's just set up a few hurdles for the poor sob to overcome why don't we? Or we could help him with a "listen shags there is a jet in your way" or " I am here where are you?" call, which we cannot do in an unalerted environment where the bloke is either not talking or is talking on a different frequency.
Clearly I am in desperate need of my morning caffeine and a truck load of Valium (oh can't do the Valium I won't pass a damp test).
Snakecharma, your heartfelt reply to Dick strikes a chord in me. There seems to be a problem in Australian Aviation that divisions are drawn between "Sky gods" flying heavy jets with a hundred or more pax, "RAAF" pilots flying at taxpayers expense, and "weekend warriors" who of course are characterised as bumbling fools, then of course there are the even lower folks on the totem pole, LSA, weight shifters, etc. This is unhelpful.
Have you considered that the weekend warrior and her family are as much entitled to protection from YOU as you are from them? This is where the Aviation Act with its priority on the safety of RPT passengers above all fails first in my opinion.
I understand your working environment provides challenges to separation but to blame it all on some theoretical VFR PPL holder is a bit rich. To put that another way; he may be looking out of a scratched windscreen, with Thirty year old radios in a noisy environment, but you have an air-conditioned quiet cockpit with the latest tools and superb training, so exactly who is responsible if an airprox occurs? In my opinion both of you.
I cannot comment on the debate Dick started because I don't have the experience, but I would like to suggest that the underlying idea that somehow volume of passengers count in determining who gets safe passage is fatally flawed.
In a marine environment, (with one exception*) large and small vessels seem to co exist quite well and while big ships often have right away, they are not absolved of blame if they hit something smaller, nor do they go around slagging off at recreational boaters.
*The one exception being a certain ships pilot who is irrationally hostile to all recreational vessels and who can be heard on VHF calling them "marine pollution".
Have you considered that the weekend warrior and her family are as much entitled to protection from YOU as you are from them? This is where the Aviation Act with its priority on the safety of RPT passengers above all fails first in my opinion.
I understand your working environment provides challenges to separation but to blame it all on some theoretical VFR PPL holder is a bit rich. To put that another way; he may be looking out of a scratched windscreen, with Thirty year old radios in a noisy environment, but you have an air-conditioned quiet cockpit with the latest tools and superb training, so exactly who is responsible if an airprox occurs? In my opinion both of you.
I cannot comment on the debate Dick started because I don't have the experience, but I would like to suggest that the underlying idea that somehow volume of passengers count in determining who gets safe passage is fatally flawed.
In a marine environment, (with one exception*) large and small vessels seem to co exist quite well and while big ships often have right away, they are not absolved of blame if they hit something smaller, nor do they go around slagging off at recreational boaters.
*The one exception being a certain ships pilot who is irrationally hostile to all recreational vessels and who can be heard on VHF calling them "marine pollution".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled, when in the G-O-Ds do you reckon DCA gave flying training to ATC? I did my course in 1972 to 1974. I know some overseas ANSPs do provide flying training but as far as I know, it was never done here. I did have a total of six weeks jump seat during my course.
Sunfish,
I suspect that you have missed the intent of my post.
At no point did I suggest that the weekend warrior or VFR/PPL is a bumbling fool, indeed I used to be one, BUT the point I was trying to make was that the weekend warrior or VFR/PPL is the one with the least amount of support, operating in, for the most part, aeroplanes that are not superbly equipped, in an environment which is conducive to fatigue, stress, and a whole bunch of other things, which will in turn take the focus off looking outside for me in my white jet.
If we look at the above objectively and not emotionally then it will be easier to see where I am coming from.
On a side note I accept that some of us might come across as "sky gods" as you call us, but for the most part almost every airline pilot I know is an enthusiast who loves flying in most, if not all, it's forms and doesn't consider themselves better than the average amateur driver.
The difference between "us and them" as you would have it is this...
Airline pilots are (mostly) professional pilots who eat, live and breath their work. It is what they do. Some do so begrudgingly because they have lost the interest given all the crap that gets piled on, but nevertheless they fly every week, do maybe between 500-1000 hrs a year, sim checks every 6 months etc. you get the picture they are very familiar with their environment and aeroplane.
Amateur pilots have lives outside aviation, most don't fly as regularly as either they want to or should for recency purposes, and very few I would wager have sufficient dough to own their own aeroplanes and have them fitted with the very latest in overhead under hangs, chrome grease nipples and twin fox tails, so by extension they are dipping their hand into their pocket to go flying, so every second and dollar counts. They go flying single pilot, so no help from old mate in the other seat, they are flying a piston single so it is noisy and fatiguing, they can't get a hot coffee at the push of a call button, they can't push the seat back and have a hot meal, they haven't got a fmc with triple IRU's coupled to a cat 3b autopilot so they have to hand fly or at least reasonably closely monitor the autopilot, they can't go down the back and go to the dunny and they typically don't have an effective means of managing cabin temp other than in the coarsest of means - so it can be cold or hot (both of which are stress inducing)
Couple to this they are usually, and this is a generalisation, less experienced in hours (but not necessarily years of flying) than professional pilots (GA, Airline, military, flying doc, coast watch, aero rescue, aeromedical chopper etc) and they have a much lower base to work from, and do so in considerably more trying conditions.
What the above paragraphs means to me is this. The amateur pilot is by virtue of their workload/conditions/experience/recency are subject to a higher workload than the airline pilot.
It is a well known phenomena that when placed under stress cognitive ability reduces. I have trained a lot of airline pilots and you see it when they start their line training. They are overloaded and their brain prioritises what it needs to in order to cope. This includes peripheral vision and hearing.
It is very common for pilots under initial training to have tunnel vision and not see and hear (or if they hear not be able to process) visual and aural messages/warnings/radio calls/crew member communications. As they progress through their training their cognition improves and they take in more and more and their awareness of their surroundings becomes broader and more complete.
Whilst I admit I have not flown a piston powered aeroplane in over 25 years, I can't help but feel that the same applies to the amateur pilot, in some way shape or form. Some people would be able to cope with the lack of recency and use it to sharpen their edge, but others wouldn't be able to.
So, the point of my post was that if we take away the alerted part of traffic awareness and simply rely on see and avoid, we are taking away an element of the system that gives the person who is working with a heap of competing priorities a nudge to go looking for the traffic.
If you operate in an environment where you don't see a lot of traffic up close you will become used to not looking too closely for it, as it has never been there. So it will come as a big surprise the day the traffic is there!
However if you have a radio call that says (and I am paraphrasing AIP here! " ready or not here I come!" Then the guy/gal who sees very little traffic when flying, who is working single pilot with the least amount of support, in the more hostile environment (compared to an airline flight deck) BUT who has the more manoeuvrable aeroplane with typically the better opportunity to see the big white jet (by virtue of not having bits of the aeroplane in the way), then they will have the best opportunity to see and avoid you.
This doesn't absolve the airline pilot of liability and nor should it, and infact liability isn't something I put my mind to on a regular basis as the reality is if I hit something like a GA aeroplane it is likely to be my estate that has to deal with the question of liability and culpability not me.
As I previously mentioned, I don't have a lot of visibility out of the front of my steed, a bit more to one side (but not the other) and bugger all behind, so I can't help much..
I have had a jet a couple of thousand feet below me about 10-15 miles in front and reducing for some considerable time and only saw them just before they vanished under the nose at about 4-5 miles in front. I knew they were there, they were on TCAS, I was looking but couldn't for the life of me see them (neither could my offsider) so that says to me that alerted see and avoid is difficult enough, take away the "alerted" bit and you have even less effective chance of seeing the oncoming traffic before you become a noise abatement issue.
So I don't want one of the legs of the stool pulled out from underneath me.
Hope that clarifies what I was saying
I suspect that you have missed the intent of my post.
At no point did I suggest that the weekend warrior or VFR/PPL is a bumbling fool, indeed I used to be one, BUT the point I was trying to make was that the weekend warrior or VFR/PPL is the one with the least amount of support, operating in, for the most part, aeroplanes that are not superbly equipped, in an environment which is conducive to fatigue, stress, and a whole bunch of other things, which will in turn take the focus off looking outside for me in my white jet.
If we look at the above objectively and not emotionally then it will be easier to see where I am coming from.
On a side note I accept that some of us might come across as "sky gods" as you call us, but for the most part almost every airline pilot I know is an enthusiast who loves flying in most, if not all, it's forms and doesn't consider themselves better than the average amateur driver.
The difference between "us and them" as you would have it is this...
Airline pilots are (mostly) professional pilots who eat, live and breath their work. It is what they do. Some do so begrudgingly because they have lost the interest given all the crap that gets piled on, but nevertheless they fly every week, do maybe between 500-1000 hrs a year, sim checks every 6 months etc. you get the picture they are very familiar with their environment and aeroplane.
Amateur pilots have lives outside aviation, most don't fly as regularly as either they want to or should for recency purposes, and very few I would wager have sufficient dough to own their own aeroplanes and have them fitted with the very latest in overhead under hangs, chrome grease nipples and twin fox tails, so by extension they are dipping their hand into their pocket to go flying, so every second and dollar counts. They go flying single pilot, so no help from old mate in the other seat, they are flying a piston single so it is noisy and fatiguing, they can't get a hot coffee at the push of a call button, they can't push the seat back and have a hot meal, they haven't got a fmc with triple IRU's coupled to a cat 3b autopilot so they have to hand fly or at least reasonably closely monitor the autopilot, they can't go down the back and go to the dunny and they typically don't have an effective means of managing cabin temp other than in the coarsest of means - so it can be cold or hot (both of which are stress inducing)
Couple to this they are usually, and this is a generalisation, less experienced in hours (but not necessarily years of flying) than professional pilots (GA, Airline, military, flying doc, coast watch, aero rescue, aeromedical chopper etc) and they have a much lower base to work from, and do so in considerably more trying conditions.
What the above paragraphs means to me is this. The amateur pilot is by virtue of their workload/conditions/experience/recency are subject to a higher workload than the airline pilot.
It is a well known phenomena that when placed under stress cognitive ability reduces. I have trained a lot of airline pilots and you see it when they start their line training. They are overloaded and their brain prioritises what it needs to in order to cope. This includes peripheral vision and hearing.
It is very common for pilots under initial training to have tunnel vision and not see and hear (or if they hear not be able to process) visual and aural messages/warnings/radio calls/crew member communications. As they progress through their training their cognition improves and they take in more and more and their awareness of their surroundings becomes broader and more complete.
Whilst I admit I have not flown a piston powered aeroplane in over 25 years, I can't help but feel that the same applies to the amateur pilot, in some way shape or form. Some people would be able to cope with the lack of recency and use it to sharpen their edge, but others wouldn't be able to.
So, the point of my post was that if we take away the alerted part of traffic awareness and simply rely on see and avoid, we are taking away an element of the system that gives the person who is working with a heap of competing priorities a nudge to go looking for the traffic.
If you operate in an environment where you don't see a lot of traffic up close you will become used to not looking too closely for it, as it has never been there. So it will come as a big surprise the day the traffic is there!
However if you have a radio call that says (and I am paraphrasing AIP here! " ready or not here I come!" Then the guy/gal who sees very little traffic when flying, who is working single pilot with the least amount of support, in the more hostile environment (compared to an airline flight deck) BUT who has the more manoeuvrable aeroplane with typically the better opportunity to see the big white jet (by virtue of not having bits of the aeroplane in the way), then they will have the best opportunity to see and avoid you.
This doesn't absolve the airline pilot of liability and nor should it, and infact liability isn't something I put my mind to on a regular basis as the reality is if I hit something like a GA aeroplane it is likely to be my estate that has to deal with the question of liability and culpability not me.
As I previously mentioned, I don't have a lot of visibility out of the front of my steed, a bit more to one side (but not the other) and bugger all behind, so I can't help much..
I have had a jet a couple of thousand feet below me about 10-15 miles in front and reducing for some considerable time and only saw them just before they vanished under the nose at about 4-5 miles in front. I knew they were there, they were on TCAS, I was looking but couldn't for the life of me see them (neither could my offsider) so that says to me that alerted see and avoid is difficult enough, take away the "alerted" bit and you have even less effective chance of seeing the oncoming traffic before you become a noise abatement issue.
So I don't want one of the legs of the stool pulled out from underneath me.
Hope that clarifies what I was saying
Nice work SC it sums up nicely the current state of play for both the average domestic jet pilot and the average GA recreational pilot. Hopefully Sunny will read it in the right context.
Or to put that another way, hope he doesn't jump to conclusions before he gets to the end of the post.
Or to put that another way, hope he doesn't jump to conclusions before he gets to the end of the post.