PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Some truth about the ML incident
View Single Post
Old 16th Dec 2003, 09:59
  #73 (permalink)  
Here to Help
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the report comes out blaming NAS we shall have a bloody good look at it and our support for NAS.
What findings of any (theoretical) report would alter your support for NAS? Let's have a look at some scenarios:

1. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by 1 mile and 0ft by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft only as they crossed. Did NAS work in this case?

2. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by a wingtip by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft, but say that there was no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?

3. C421 with a U/S transponder is hit by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft at the last second, but with no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?

My point is, does it matter how close they get as to whether the system works? In case 1, one could argue that the system worked. Case 2 you could try to argue, but the miss seemed to be only due to luck. But how close is too close? In Case 3, it would be extemely difficult to say that the system worked. But what is the difference between Case 3 and the other 2? Luck? Then surely the system failed in all three cases.

If all system defences are bypassed, and it is left to chance as to whether a collision occurs or not, then the system has failed. You don't have to wait for a collision to say this. You don't need to stick your finger in a boiling cup of water to know that it is hot.

I am not saying that the ML incident was left all up to chance (at least one system defence was in effect). I am saying that, compared to our previous system, NAS allows for chance to be the final arbiter in more scenarios, because it has removed some of the previously existing defences (such as Class C, frequencies and boundaries etc).

NAS is too dependant upon fully functioning transponders and see and avoid. It actively removes any of the added protection afforded by radio alerted situational awareness or ATC clearances. It's as simple as that. Once a VFR aircraft makes a flight through Class E airspace with a U/S transponder, then collision avoidance is left up to unlerted see and avoid - it is left up to chance.
Here to Help is offline