NoD
For the purpose of debate (because I am not certain my proposal is serious)
1. I agree most collisions occur in or around the circuit. However, see and avoid should work well in the circuit (the fact it doesnt may be for other reasons). Nearly all the traffic (around GA airports at any rate) is likely to be slow moving. The circuit should help pilot's know where to look for traffic. Where there is AT they should provide additional help.
2. The 10,000 foot rule is well established but how much GA traffic is there above 10,000 feet? Very little. Oxygen constraints provide little headroom above 10,000 feet for most, combined with semi-circular or quadrangle levels and CAS. In short I would suggest the 10,000 rule is largely irrelevant to GA.
3. Providing a corridor above the terrain but below transponding height would point in favour of agl however I am not in favour of the use of dual or alternate altimeter settings.
4. Perhaps 10,000 feet is simply too high to be relevant but that opens up the debate as to what would be a more sensible height / level.
5. As I commented earlier perhaps speed would provide a better common demoninator. How many aircraft capable of flying above 100 knots indicated are incapable of fitting a transponder for reasons other than cost or desire?
Robin 400
I dont see your point.
I agree there are many aspects to avoiding collisions. Only one aspect is the impact of PCAS, TAS and TCAS but I think it is very relevant. A PCAS unit can now be purchased for a few hundred pounds and fitted to anything that is capable of getting airborne! I have noticed the up take of these units has significantly increased but of course there is no relevant training involved in their use and their limitations.
By all means lets discuss how we can adapt our flying to reduce the risk of collision a very effective means of reducing the risk - the floor is yours on that topic as you wish. I will be happy to chip in.