Lookout during cruise in upper airspace

[noflynomore]

Originally Posted by aterpster

It was part of the design and certification of an unusual airplane.

A type-specific suspension of one of the Rules of the Air wasn't part of the certification process.
IMC = collision avoidance is the responsibioity of the controller, not the pilot. Ergo the pilot is not "required" to maintain a lookout, indeed as he is assumed to be IMC at all times by IFR rules he clearly cannot do so. Its nice if he can, and obviously a good idea to do so when possible, but it ain't a requirement because it can't be.
If it were so then Concorde could not have been certificated to fly with the heatshield up.

[aterpster]

I certainly do not agree that because an aircraft is on an IFR flight plan, that it is assumed to be IMC at all times.

Even in Class A airspace in VMC conditions pilots have a responsibility to maintain a traffic watch. In Class E airspace, there could be VFR aircraft not even in communications with ATC.

I didn't mean to imply that the Concorde's suspension of operating rules was part of the type certificate per-se. I suspect there was some altitude, below which, the Concorde crew had to be able to maintain a traffic watch in VMC conditions. Otherwise, it was a form of Russian Roulette.

[noflynomore]

Originally Posted by aterpster

I certainly do not agree that because an aircraft is on an IFR flight plan, that it is assumed to be IMC at all times.

In Controlled airspace (ie airways) it must be. The controller has no way of knowing your flight conditions so must assume you are always IMC. because you can be IMC the whole time they must assume you are. You cannot therefore be expected to achieve any lookout at all, let alone required to. Surely that is self-evident?
Weather radar and serviceable de-ice equipment is mandatory in airways - why? because you are assumed to be in permanent IMC - light icing is assumed to always exist in airways, is it not? You can't launch without either of these on the basis that it is a nice blue sky day - the are required equipment.
How can you possibly be required to conduct a lookout if you are in permanent IMC? This is very basic indeed...
The Concorde case proves this. There was no altitude "below which". Is there some altitude "below which" the clouds are required to clear for Concorde tp permit a lookout? Why? Wasn't Concorde capable of IFR flight or sumpn'? Why are other aircraft types exempt from this extraordinary scenario? What then happened to Concorde when cloud extended to minimas?

You cannot be serious - surely? Utter hokum. Sorry.

[megan]

If it were so then Concorde could not have been certificated to fly with the heatshield up

Vision was not impeded unduly with the nose raised on Concorde. It's not a heatshield, but for aerodynamic streamlining primarily, though it did protect the windshield from high temperatures that airflow stagnation would have caused otherwise. With the nose down the turbulence was such that the noise generated makes speech difficult to hear.



https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%201503.html

Suggested FAA cockpit vision standards.

The manufacturing industry, represented by the Transport Airworthiness Requirements Committee of the Aerospace Industries Association, maintained that the proposed size of the clear vision field was in excess of that required to meet the most important objective of the proposed standards. That objective was to provide optimum vision for avoidance of midair collisions in "see and be seen" conditions of flight.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/...c_25_773-1.pdf

More importantly FAR 91.113 (b), which says: “When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.”

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by megan

More importantly FAR 91.113 (b), which says: “When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.”

Thanks for the regulatory cite. We also looked out for TRW avoidance when those conditions existed. As one of my pilot friends used to say, "One peek is worth a thousand sweeps."

[blind pew]

I joined SR in 1979 and was shocked to find that in CH and D VFR traffic would fly in IFR airspace whilst the ZRH controllers didn't bother to use primary.
That night I phoned a mate ex BEA and said that he had to tell someone as we never bothered to look out.
BEA had dirty,scratched screens which we used to protect our trousers from dirty meal trays.
SR issued us with Raybans...foc.

This was still going on in the 90s as I had two airmisses in quick succession, one of which was leaving the holding pattern which was so close I could see the look on the kraut's face and a cigar in his mouth.

WRT Concorde...when it went subsonic it couldn't maintain its previous cruising level and several times both over the Adriatic and Atlantic we had warnings from ATC that she was descending through our airspace.
Adriatic was noise heading over the Alps...Atlantic was technical.

Remember the Zagreb report...if the Trident crew had been looking out they might have avoided the collision.

[Denti]

I believe many european ATC units do not have access to primary anymore, certainly the case in germany as far as i know.

Anyway, yes, it is a very good idea to keep some lookout, especially in airspace that might have mixed use, mostly below FL100 in europe. And even during cruise, but mainly for weather avoidance. For traffic avoidance it is bloody useless, as most human beings cannot judge relative altitude worth a dime up there. Not to mention that transponders are a requirement, otherwise you won't be up there. And that TCAS is as well, well, for airline flying anyway. Yes, TCAS may be inop up to three days, but in my experience it is a very reliable piece of equipment, in 17 or so years of airline flying i had one failed TCAS, and it was repaired during the next nightstop.

Just checked our OM/A, no requirement for lookout during cruise, but a requirement to check weather via WX-radar and reports via ACARS.

[blind pew]

Would disagree Denti as Could have saved the Zagreb accident as they were on converging tracks in the proximity of a beacon.
Had a bit of a close shave in a stack at FFT with a 74 who probably started his descent early before leaving the fix...in between layers..

[galaxy flyer]

Flynomore,

You are the one who cannot be serious, Sir. Regardless of the type of flight plan or being IFR, if flying in VMC conditions, a lookout must be maintained and that must be true in the U.K. or EASA airspace.

[megan]

At 3:50. In sight for some time (con trail) before anyone takes corrective action. Wonder if the commercial saw anything?

[galaxy flyer]

Oh, that was exciting!

[noflynomore]

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

Flynomore,

You are the one who cannot be serious, Sir. Regardless of the type of flight plan or being IFR, if flying in VMC conditions, a lookout must be maintained and that must be true in the U.K. or EASA airspace.

An awful lot of "musts" in your post. You seem very sure of yourself.

Please post references to back this up for UK rules. (We've seen the FAA reference) It's just that I've never come across this as a mandatory requirement in some 30 years of airways flying and neither has any instructor I know, so one of us must be wrong...

ps. good practice is not the same as a mandatory requirement as i've said ad nauseam- but you insist this is mandated in the ANO. Please quote the reference or retract the statement.