Dicky
For stats to be remotely comparable on this subject, as you intimate, they have to be based on RATES not absolute numbers and have to relate to similar airspace, or at least the airspace type (e.g. high traffic levels vs low traffic levels [needs to be further spec'd];radar vs non-radar; transponder vs. no transponder etc.) must be specified so that judgment can be made as to whether this is a valid comparison or not. I'm sure the raw data is there, I'm sure that there are resourced government departments to refine the data - but we're hearing.....nothing. Does anyone actually know the answer to a simple question like: "what is the
en-route midair collision rate OCTA in the USA?" ".... Australia?"
All risks we take are based on a perception of what is "acceptable" risk or not. Some people choose not to fly at all, some people won't drive in the city, some folk won't go up ladders. The concept of what is acceptable risk is coloured heavily by emotion. Some people are able to take in the concepts of probability and statistical likelihood and can look at rates of unacceptable outcomes and choose whether they wish to participate in the activity (e.g. surgical complication rates for certain procedures, accident rate for motorcycles, etc.) most of the time they will compare the perceived likelihood of an adverse event happening in a particular activity with an activity they accept every day, such as driving a motor vehicle for example. If an activity is presented as being safer than the acceptible everyday activity, then they are more likely to engage in it. Often this assessment made by individuals will be tempered by whether they feel thay have some control over the event happening (e.g. if I'm a really good driver/pilot etc. it's less likely to happen to me....) or the *perceived* ghastliness of the adverse outcome.
Whilst I understand the emotion behind "1 midair is one too many", the corollary is that the
completely safe thing to do is not to engage in the activity at all, or if
near complete relative safety is required, to put so many safeguards in that the activity becomes prohibitive in terms of time and/or money to engage in. To hark back to some of my previous posts, are you saying that I shouldn't descend *at all* OCTA under the current airspace situation, where there are non-radio/non-TXP aircraft, because I might hit something, even though there's no evidence for this (BTW, that "evidence" is just based on my recall of the last 10 years)?
Niles
The latter approach to safety, to put so many safeguards in that the activity becomes prohibitive in terms of time and/or money, is what the JAA is doing. Going down the road of the JARS may eke a little further safety, but is the cost (and loss of trees in the paperwork!!!) worth the cost to the industry? And more importantly does a system as devised by the JAA and perhaps to be followed its euro-buddy ICAO really relate to the low density traffic and spread out geographic nature of OUR country? Putting traffic lights on every corner of the road may reduce the enroute motor vehicle collision rate, but is the cost worth it and is it the most appropriate measure to take?? Are there places where there are too many traffic lights? Is it the most approriate allocation of limited funds?
Whilst I see airspace "harmonisation" can help the international carriers, it actually does b*gger all for the bulk of us that will never get to fly internationally either for a living or for pleasure (BTW , this is not sour grapes - good luck to those that get there). If you must, develop "fully harmonised" international rules for the international folk who stay cocooned in A,B,C & OCA, and leave the lower levels enough wriggle room under the exemptions to work out the best ways to get around THEIR country. It might sound isolationist, but geographically, that's what we are.
Be interesting to see if the Kings actually will have any FACTS to back up the assertions they will have to make in favour of NAS, and if the opponents can come up with the same....
Safe flying
NOtimTAMs