Originally Posted by
safetypee
Funding - need for training; depends on the threat. Theoretical or practical, where is the evidenced based assessment of likely outcome.
How many instances, and how many dead, will satisfy you that there is a need?
Most of the lessons learned, and improvements made, in aviation were written in blood. (CRM for one)
So far, it would seem that no instances are on record as primary cause.
TCAS most likely, but the report appears not to have considered the complete system or actual / realistic conflicts.
Dual TCAS; anyone recall 'Two TCAS North of Darwin' mentality.
Which seems to be the system under discussion, yes.
The industry resorts to training far too often - the universal solution, often without the required thought or justification. Focus safety on the overall operational environment, start with the hardware; only use training for the proven high risk threats without technical solution.
I don't think that this is an either / or situation. (If you feel that the threat is overstated, that's fine)
Considering the 'big picture', what type of deviation could occur; context, situation, location.
What other aircraft systems might mitigate any threat.
What did the industry do before GPWS, TCAS; there were accidents, but check/compare risk, context, situation, etc.
Training; no, not justified.
Really? What you just mentioned is stuff that calls for awareness, updating, and yes, training. (At what periodicity? No idea)
Better to inform pilots and regulators that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” - Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.
How many instances of crews failing to follow valid alerts; and that's after training !
Getting the word out and awareness is a form of trainng. I am not restricting the term "training" to "get in the sim."
Mixing such things into sim sessions would not hurt, in terms of the CRM/crew response to suspect inputs from the TCAS.