We are ndeed a nation divided by a common language.
Before I get carried away and forget.
Regardless of what system we have, whilst we contunue to run "airways" and other means of funelling traffic and combine that with the fantasticly accurate GPS and IRS systems available today we are setting ourselves up for a coming together not previously statistically probable using the old steam driven stuff.
Opposing or conflicting traffic in the "steam driven nav" days could reasonably be expected to "miss" each other simply due to the nature of the signal and receiving apparatus. Not so today with the several metres accuracy available.
Should we not be insisting that any GPS or IRS system have an acceptable random dither applied to the information so derived to open up the probability a bit??
ferris
Forgive me if it looked like I was attributing "that" quote to you, I was not, I was simply using it as one does on the manner of conversational aside.
LCD, well there is low and there is unsupportable low.
I made the comment to an ATC gentleman the other day that we could get the risk to absolute zero by not flying, period.
That is as stupid as suggesting we have a free for all, although I suspect that might actually work.
What I was trying to convey was that the lowest common denominator in that case is actually the pilot training and disciplines. It might be able to be held that the "young tyro" is actually more conscientious than the "old hand", either way we all have to assume that whoever is sharing the airspace with us is going to act responsibly.
I get the feeling that some ATCOs assume the exact opposite.
triadic
Spot on argument as usual.
I believe that his has been recognised of late and there are steps in place.
BIK_116.8
Bwahahah, in them days they were, at least around the region,
and yes they DID own the skys AND were until then, the ONLY aircraft operating in IMC, hence one of the MAIN reasons our Regulatory and ATC systems evolved the way they did and echoes of which are still reverberating loudly through the reform process.
I wont bore the audience with a full exposition of this thesis, but you know what I mean.
cjam
You might be surprised to learn that I actually agree with you.
Go the lowest common denominator that the system allows.
Isn't this what this debate is really all about, "what the system will allow"
The whole "system"
under normal circumstances is politically driven by properly informed punter sentiment, Government from whence the funds derive and the Regulator.
Unfortunately that whole thing is skewed by this "user pays" and "private" enterprise Air Services provider. They are no longer funded by Government, they are expected to run at a profit within acceptable safety parameters, but are artificially constrained by Government from "doing their thing" by a political limiting of the charge they can apply.
IMHO they have done an amazing job in the transition and are unique in the world and I would have expected nothing less from the professionals they are.
But the halcyon "gold plated" days are over.
The punters voted, as always. for cheaper everything, a certain enthusiast told em they could and should have it, the rest is history.
We are not going to unscramle that egg any time soon so it's up to the professionals to find an answer that is acceptable to all.
The ray of sunshine being, that we will all be challenged to rethink old attitudes, procedures and mindsets. Heck we might even find a better way.
We'll never know until we try, not recklessy certainly, but certainly outside the square.
So for all of us looking outside of our own individual boxes, responsibly;
What will the "whole system" allow?