Originally Posted by
Traffic_Is_Er_Was
Dick, you put that brochure out in 1998.
A few years later, the FAA did a study of the 329 mid airs between 1983 - 2000 in their proven, safer system.
• All occurred in visual meteorological conditions. Only six occurred at night and
four occurred at dusk. Bright sun was on the only commonly sighted factor related
to weather.
• About 88 per cent of pilots involved in midair collisions do not see the other
aircraft in time to avoid a collision.
• Most midair collisions involve low closing speeds, as one aircraft usually strikes
the other from behind, above or from a quartering angle.
• Most midair collisions occur near airports, especially airports without a control
tower. Midair collisions at high altitudes are rare events.
• A common factor in midair collisions was pilots using inappropriate entries into
the circuit and failing to use radios at non-towered airports.
• The 329 midair collisions indicate that see-and-avoid has inherent limitations as a
tactic or strategy for avoiding midair collisions.
An ATSB study at the same time of the 37 in Australia between 1961 and 2003 showed 29 occurred in or near the circuit area, with 15 happening at an ATC controlled Secondary airport, most prior to GAAP procedures. Only 1 occurred in a MBZ (at night).
My two bobs worth.
Given those numbers, a valid risk assessment would more than likely result in an assessment that the risk of a midair was “low”, with the highest risk in the vicinity of an airfield.
Accepting that we as an industry have accepted this “low” risk for many years, then the only way to lower it further is to apply the appropriate class of airspace for the location and traffic density. If this comes at a cost (which it would) then that segment of the industry that requires it may well have to pay. It is obvious that to date extra costs have been rejected in favour of an acceptance of the above mentioned “low” risk. Remember back in the 80’s RPT jets from DC9 size upward could only operate into a towered airport? There were some excemptions in WA for MMA and the F28. The tower was built at Gove, but never used due to a change in policy, and I bet a risk assessment and cost benefit analysis.
If class G is the answer then we have to invoke simple procedures that can be understood and used by ALL users - with an ongoing education program to match. The responsibility for training, education and standardisation rests with the regulator, whom to date don’t seem to understand the real issues in the field (only in the office). Let’s face it there is no airspace and procedures in any pilot syllabus, so who does the training? The instructors I guess? Who provides the training and standardisation of the instructors? The CFI? Who provides the standardisation of the CFI’s, Chief Pilots, and training pilots in the larger operators? Guess? Nobody! (external that is) That is but one reason why some of the contributors here have obvious different views on how it should all work.
We don’t always agree with what is said, but in doing so we must provide alternative suggestions based on our experience in the field. You never know what will surface unless you put your hand up. Play the ball, not the man!
As has been said previously, the experience and expertise today is in the industry and NOT within the regulator. When those managers with the egos within the iron ring start working with industry we will see some positive change. It is up to the DAS to fix that.