UK could do with an MBZ (assuming you don't have them already) in some busy areas. Just position, altitude & intention would be helpful for identifying a potential traffic conflict.
As for the gadgets, I admit to being rather fond of TCAS/TCAD for a very good reason, so my opinion is probably very biased in favour of it.
I'd say TCAS I would be more than sufficient for light aircraft use though. Or even a Ryan TCAD 9900B for less than $8000 (US) could be useful. Ryan TCAD 9900B doesn't offer active interrogation - I believe this one picks up the transponder reply signal on interrogation from a radar. Considering that a lot of the UK has some kind of radar coverage, this may be reasonably helpful?
I've flown in GA aircraft with a TCAD, and while there was no serious conflict, it was rather comforting to know where other traffic (or at least some that were squawking) were and it helped us visually identify the potential conflict from its position indicated by the gadget. It wasn't that we failed to look out just because we had a TCAD, but rather it enhanced the chance of spotting the danger. If correctly used as an "aid" (as in not becoming dependent on it, but use it to help), gadgets are great.
Of course TCAS/TCAD doesn't reduce accidents other than mid-air. For other types of accident, I would say there are a lot of "human" factors at play but many involve a gun-ho attitude or poor planning or judgement, or poor flying skill. Save for an autopilot linked to EGPWS, or automatic recovery system from unusual attitude etc, I would have thought it would be difficult to reduce the accidents from human factors without some degree of awareness and training of the pilot, and unfortunately some do not seem to be prepared to change. It has to come from the training system and from within the pilots themselves to promote the awareness and training for prevention of accidents.
I do think that gadgets help when they are functional and when they're USED correctly though.
Last edited by Bird Strike; 11th July 2004 at 06:58.