I’ve changed my mind.....
I don’t think we are better than this...
4 pilots died at MNG. Dick thinks these changes are a response to that accident. AsA admits as much if you carefully read through the reasons (supposedly) for the change.
At MNG the primary method for ensuring separation of 2 IFR aircraft in G Airspace failed to the ultimate extent, many pilots and controllers had predicted this for years. This method is to be used in determining a target level of safety.
At MNG the ground based survellance safety net failed, its shortcomings have been known for years. This is NOT meant to used in determining a target level of safety. It’s a SAFETY NET.
At MNG the airborne based survellance safety net didn’t come into play as neither aircraft had TCAS/ACAS. . This is NOT meant to used in determining a target level of safety. It’s a SAFETY NET.
Surveillance whether ADSB or SSR only assists in aviation safety if we choose to use it intelligently. If the equipped aircraft makes it on a controller display only guarantees (perhaps) the authorities have a smaller area to search for the crash site.
It does not guarantee safety....Its CONFLICT DETECTION, stupid. (And resolution and monitoring) Either in the human brain or computer chip.
(Apologies to James Carville 1992, quote “It’s the economy stupid”)
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 23rd Feb 2021 at 06:49.
Reason: Spelling correction