How do we avoid fatalities?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Following on from the thread on the midair I thought it would be more apt to discuss the various things brought up on a fresh thread.

A lot of folk seem to think that the answer in avoiding mid airs is to have more gismos.

I have flown a fair bit with aircraft fitted with traffic systems and whilst they can be a great help I can not help but think that they make you rely on them.

Yes true they do make you realise that there is more traffic than you see by just looking out of the window (but so does a radar service), but it is also true that there is a lot of traffic that is not carrying any form of transponder.

I am a firm believer that the old adage 'the most dangerous thing about flying is the drive to the airport' is a lot of non sense, the statistics bear that out.

However when it comes to the chances of having an accident in which a third party is involved I think that these odds are correct.

Midairs are almost invariably fatal and for that have an enormous impact on our perception. They are considered to be the 'failing' of a system which we all consider to be the 'gold standard' (just read the comments on this thread) and think we are good at but know to be less than ideal (again ample proof in the postings supplied here)

Most fatalities in aviation however are caused by other factors which do not involve others but for which the locus of control almost solely lies with the aviator involved. Interestingly most of us seem to think that those things will only happen to others as the behaviour displayed will never be ours. The various 'I learned about flying from that' and our own memories are however proof to the contrary.

Until such time that we realise that the biggest single cause for accidents is the 'human' in the 'human factors' we will see strong support for increased LARS/TCAS boxes rather than focussing on those things which in my opinion do matter.

FD

[redsnail]

I used to fly in a pretty dense traffic area in Oz. About 20 or so aircraft following a VFR scenic pattern around a lump of rocks known as the Bungle Bungles. There would be Chietains, Partenavia's, C208's, C210's, C207's and float aeroplanes all mixing it up. Don't forget the helicopters too.
Come to think of it the circuit at Kununurra was entertaining too.
Now we were mixing it with Twotters, F28's or Bae 146's.
No tower. No radar.
As far as I am aware there hasn't been a single mid air in over 20 years in that area. Why? Good situational awareness. Instead of being dazzled by fancy gizmos in the cockpit we had to keep a bloody good look out. We were also flying at a comparatively low level too. This made it all the more imperative to look out.
A mental picture of who was where was maintained by effective use of the radio.
A main point was while we had to give an effective commentary and to look after the pax, that did not detract from flying the aircraft. (In other words, don't let the passengers interrupt high workload times)

LARS/TCAS are tools. If you don't keep a good and effective look out with assistance from the radio then the tools aren't going to be much chop.

Keep a good idea of where you are in relation to obvious waypoints/aerodromes. Use the radio wisely to keep a mental picture of what's going on. Write down the traffic if you're not sure. Plan your route to avoid known hazardous areas such as training areas/gliding areas/ultra light areas/parachute DZ's.

[IO540]

redsnail

Let's get some logic into this argument, instead of emotive language.

You write "Instead of being dazzled by fancy gizmos in the cockpit we had to keep a bloody good look out"

The above contains a presumption which is given without any support. The lack of mid-airs COULD perfectly well be simply due to

- situational awareness

- suitable separation procedures

- pilots being experienced flying in the area

- traffic following a certain route/level rather than coming from all directions

- everybody being on the same frequency?

However, you assert it is mainly due to

a) not being dazzled by fancy gismos, AND

b) keeping a bloody good look out

I am sorry to be pedantic but just consider the logic. It is entirely possible that a plane loaded with fancy gismos wouldn't have a mid-air, and that a plane flown by a blindfolded pilot wouldn't have a mid-air either.


There is little doubt that

- traffic warning systems in airliners do function

- very few GA operators would be able to afford them (though some would)

- traffic warning systems in GA (currently costing £20k+) are a waste of money, in Class G, until Mode C is mandatory and is used, at least generally

It appears likely that

- airliners do have problems with GA aircraft flying with no XP or just with Mode A generating spurious traffic warnings

- there is little or no statistical evidence that traffic warning equipment would make the slightest difference to the already very low risk of a mid-air in GA

A fair summary so far?

[Bird Strike]

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.

[Evo]

Flyin'D'

I agree completely about Human Factors, which is why it irritates me somewhat that the PPL exam is quite so simplistic. It has been a while since I took it, but I believe that it fails to even discuss the causes of accidents - and IMHO that the majority of accidents are self-caused and preventable is arguably the single most important thing for an aspirant PPL to learn.

I don't really like the style of "the Killing Zone", but it's a thought-provoking book. You spend a lot of time thinking "how could anybody be so stupid?", until you find a flight that's maybe a bit too close to something you've done.

[FNG]

Good points, FD and Evo. Unless you have an instructor interested in the subject (mine happened to be working for the RAF Flight Safety Directorate at Bentley Priory whilst teaching me) or read up on the subject yourself, you may complete a PPL with little study of human factors in accidents, decision making, accident event chains etc. The one thing that we are all looking to acquire is pilot judgment, but it is not a subject referred to much in the manuals. Attending and/or giving seminars is part of compulsory continuing education in many professions (including that of flying instructor). We are mostly hobby pilots, but I nonetheless think that our currency requirements might encourage attendance at seminars on accident analysis and prevention.

[TonyR]

FD

Thanks for bringing the subject of Human Factors into this discussion.

I am just completing a PhD in Human Factors in Aviation and have spent the last 2 years reading up on hundreds of accidents and ground incidents, there were only 2 that I can think of that were (possibly) not caused by human error, both were bird strikes.

Midair accidents are very rare in the UK, I can remember a midair between a Military jet and a 150 a few years ago. the speed factor was so great that most gizmos would have been of little use.

Most other mid air accidents throughout the world happen well outside busy airspace and many have been under some form of radar service, most also happen in good weather.

Pilots crash aircraft, they don't crash themselves, engineers sometimes get things wrong which can lead to an accident, but it is the drivers who are at the top of the list.

2 crew are 4-5 times less likely to have an accident so fly with an other pilot when possible.

I usually do my fun flying in Donegal, N W Ireland. It is a sort of mini Scotland very beautyful and not very busy.

Since the start of the year there have been 22 people killed on the roads in Donegal, this week another 3 teenagers were killed.

Flying is still very safe and only pilots (and engineers) can keep it that way. Better ATC & LARS will not stop anyone from loosing it in IMC or doing something silly.

Stay safe

Tony

[shortstripper]

Hmmmm.

First, I to believe that the perception is far higher than the actual risk. That doesn't excuse us from lessening them further though. However, I think that gizmos are not the way to go as they are both expensive, a non starter in many aircraft and only serve to lower our gaurd. Most accidents in flying have nothing to do with hitting other aircraft anyway, so who are we trying to kid? As the mid-air is the most emotive I will deal with that, but I kind of think that we fear it most because we think it's going to be caused by the "other guy" not us (yer right! :rolleyes: ) whereas weather related accidents ect are our own stupid faults so we like to gloss over those.

Whilst it has happened in the past, do you not wonder why more mid-airs do not happen in the circuit?

All the fancy gizmos would be buzzing away and of little use in this hot spot of aerial activity and yet? .... people seem to think they are this wonderful thing that will cover their aircraft in cotton wool. Redsnail hit the nail on the head "good situational awareness and a good lookout" is the most important factor in avoiding a mid-air. In the circuit we are all sh:mad:t scared of hitting someone so our lookout and awareness of other traffic is well honed. Enroute we tend to relax and lookout is often lowered whilst nav, radio and gizmo tinkering is increased ... that is a major factor IMHO.

I well remember as a glider pilot seeing plenty of GA aircraft fly straight over the club at no more than 1000' when winch launches got to 1300' ... so where was their situation awareness of even fixed hazards??? (they only had to check their map before setting off!!!). People moan about not seeing gliders, but the one thing I can tell you is that most glider pilots will have seen you as their lookout is sh:mad:t hot compared to most GA pilots. Yes they do have collisions on rare occassion so they are not perfect, but they operate in a proximity to others that would have most of us trembling.

I think we need to lookout more, avoid flying at busy levels by choosing random heights, be aware of what is around (radio?) and what is shown on your chart!

Safe flying all!!!

SS

[bookworm]

All the fancy gizmos would be buzzing away and of little use in this hot spot of aerial activity and yet? .... people seem to think they are this wonderful thing that will cover their aircraft in cotton wool. Redsnail hit the nail on the head "good situational awareness and a good lookout" is the most important factor in avoiding a mid-air.

It sounds very noble, man over machine and all that, but has very little basis in fact.

Collision avoidance strategy depends on probability of detection of a conflict in time to do something about it. Take two extremes: you manage to avoid collisions while walking along a pavement in a shopping street reasonably effectively by see-and-avoid. But if I stuck you at the target end of a rifle range and said "keep a good lookout for bullets and avoid them", how effective do you think that see-and-avoid would be?

There seems to be an implict assumption that the human pilot is capable of detecting potential conflicts with sufficient time before collision with a useful level of reliability and all we have to do is be better at it, spend 90% of our cockpit worload resource doing it and all the problems will go away. There's precious little scientific evidence to support that. The anecdotal evidence seems to revolve around the potential conflicts that the pilot did manage to spot, since he has no knowledge of the ones he didn't. And there's a strong argument that the ones that are going to hit you are distinctly harder to see than the ones that will miss, because the former have no azimuthal movement -- they just start as dots and get bigger.

The difference between the bullets and the pedestrians is speed (and angular size, though if I said "150 mm shells" you wouldn't do much better). Speed is a factor in aviation collision avoidance too, which is why we're talking about this in the Private Flying forum. No one has entertained the rather quaint notion that commerical transport aircraft should just see and avoid each other without the help of TCAS for a very long time.

How fast do you have to go before see and avoid becomes ineffective? It seems the recent collision may provide a solitary data point that suggests that it's rather lower speed than many contributors to these threads would like to think.

I'm very content with the notion that the probability of collision enroute is low enough to be an acceptable risk, and that it does not require universal equippage with artifical aids. What frustrates me is the flawed logic of those who revert to the old behaviour of beating the pilot about the head and saying "must try harder next time", and pretend that that's going to fix the problem.

[shortstripper]

Bookworm,

I think you missed my point? I'm not saying see and avoid is going to save you every time, I'm simply saying that fancy gizmos won't either! Take your example ... do you think that a buzzer telling you a bullet is incoming at 2000 mph is going to help you dodge it? lol

what I am saying is that good lookout and situational awareness are the best defence you have overall. Situational awareness does of course include being aware of other aircraft in the vicinity or likely causes of conflict picked up from your chart either before or during your flight. The dot to impact can be less likely if you know where to look, and that's where radio ect can of course help, but in the end eyeball and brain is the number one defender against a collision in a typical GA senario ... It's quite a seperate issue for IFR traffic.

SS

[bookworm]

SS I'm guilty of taking the bits of what you said that I disagree with, without acknowledging the positive aspects of what you say. Sorry.

I do strongly agree that sitauional awareness is key. That's about both minimizing traffic density around you and biasing your search for traffic in the high probability areas. That, after all, is what TCAS and similar devices facilitate.

I think you missed my point? I'm not saying see and avoid is going to save you every time, I'm simply saying that fancy gizmos won't either! Take your example ... do you think that a buzzer telling you a bullet is incoming at 2000 mph is going to help you dodge it?

It's not about a "buzzer". If the "gizmo" showed you the path of the bullet some 10 seconds before it arrived, would that not allow you to step out of the way?

The median distance at which traffic is detected in good VMC is about a mile. That's not the worst case, that's the average. At closing speeds of 5 miles a minute, that gives you 12 seconds to assess the threat, decide which way to turn, and physically change the trajectory of your aircraft. The research I've seen suggests that it takes about 10 seconds to do that. You might make it, you might not. But if you get warning of the conflict at 5 miles, or even 3 miles, and it allows you to start the decision making or even evasion process that much earlier, it makes a huge difference to the probability of a successful outcome.

[Flyin'Dutch']

BW,

Some very valid points, certainly your stance against the old adage that midairs can be avoided by just looking harder.

As you further say in theory it would be possible to eliminate all midairs with a technical device.

But as I said in the opening post, how about the human behaviour which seems to be the root of most GA/Aviation accidents?

TonyR, I am very interested in the human factors, and even more so since I was lucky enough to visit the FAA in Oklahoma and attended a lecture on the subject, the fond of knowledge over there is very impressive. When I tried to discuss this after a CAA safety evening I was met with a rather luke-warm 'We know all of that already' reaction.

Well maybe so but they, at least on the evening that I attended, did not seem to be able to convey the messages in an attractive, interesting, educational stimulating manner. Big shame.

FD

[boomerangben]

Bookworm has indicated the limitation of the mk 1 eyeball, stating on another thread that he has trouble seeing traffic, even when told about it. I must say I was surprised, but maybe it is endemic these days.

Then I wondered why. Glider pilots seem to have more success at seeing traffic. Generally I think that a small helo pilot sees more than what BW suggests and multi crewed aircraft have even more success.

Could it be that pilots who are flying aircraft with fewer instruments and fewer distractions in the cockpit have more success at spotting other traffic? Maybe the effectiveness of lookout is a factor of aircraft design, ie better chance in a Tommahawk than a Cherokee?

Interesting Topic for TonyR's second PhD??!!

[TonyR]

No thanks,

I do notice more traffic in my Rallye than I do in the C 340 and I think when your not so busy it does help

Perhaps in the rallye I seem to be stopped so everything else is moving

[Aussie Andy]

Hi all,

There's a lot of talk about situational awareness: all good stuff, and clearly attaining improved situational awareness is better. There are many ways to do this, looking out of the window I suppose is one, and looking at a TCAS screen is another.

But the radio can also be used to improve SA. We do it every time we arrive in the vicinity of an airfield, whether with "blind calls" on a A/G Radio frequency, or when listening out on an INFO or TWR frequency.

This is great for the high-density circuit environment: I think the suggestion of a dedicated A/A lane frequency as per Whirlybird on the previous thread is that this same advantage could be brought to other high traffic density environments such as the pinch-point traffic lanes to the north and south of London. It would be restricted to simple self-announcement of say "entering lane at [location], [level], routing to [exit point or airfield]"... it would only apply to airspace outside of the airfield ATZs, and would not involve controllers or other cost other than promulgating the regs and marking the charts, so it would be cheap and simple. I am not aware of a down-side to this suggestion... interested if others are.

The problem with the counter-proposal suggested by Whirlybird's CAA contact about just relying on the various airfield freq's and London Information when transiting such areas is that this does not enable you to gain SA regarding transiting traffic as generally speaking most people transiting don't call the airfield freqs, only those joining or departing e.g. Elstree etc., no-one much calls LOndon Info (unless crossing the channel or opening/closing a flight plan), and so it is very hit-and-miss (pardon the pun!) as to whether on a given frequency you happen to hear of any relevant traffic. It is also not very practical, as WB mentioned, to have to change between several of these in short succession.

But it seems the idea is unpopular, so it won't happen. Until then we all keep our eyes open as we do now, and remain "fat dumb and happy" about the converging targets we don't see!

Someone mentioned RIS doesn't work? Worked for me today... I had an FIS from Brize whilst over Oxford and Brize called me to say that there was traffic my level converging from SE, 1 mile: I looked in that direction and I saw him/her about 200' above. So it can work... but I accept that we have no chance of getting blanket LARS coverage and also that it doesn't always work so well, depending on controller workload.

TTFN,


Andy

[ShyTorque]

» How do we avoid fatalities?

Only one thing is true. There is NO simple answer. A good workman needs a whole load of different tools to do a good job and that is how we should achieve good situational awareness.

Lookout is the one thing that works reasonably well in VMC but it isn't the full answer because of the limitations of the human eye and the requirement of any pilot to do other stuff whilst flying, which needs his eyes inside the cockpit for short intervals, such as look inside to check instruments, clock, fuel, chart, change radio settings etc.

R/T can help in certain circumstances, especially if an ATC service can be provided. Planning a route helps to a minor extent too, but it must be realised that isn't at all foolproof!

TCAS is NOT a useless gismo. The ones who doubt its efffectiveness perhaps haven't used it on a regular basis. Rather than pilots relying on it at the expense of the other factors (similar to the Volvo Effect?), it certainly gets your eyes OUT of the cockpit, not inside, believe me. Especially so in marginal weather. It does have its limitations but they are generally understood and taken into account. TCAS is a good tool to supplement the others in the toolbox.

It certainly saved my bacon and that of my passengers when an aircraft supposed to be be remaining VMC below cloud 500 feet below us suddenly turned and climbed unannounced into IMC straight towards us. We were flying at the maximum altitude allowed under the London TMA to avoid him, under Radar Information. We passed in solid IMC, same level, almost head on, so close that we saw the other aircraft flash by us. I am certain he didn't see us at all. It happened so fast that ATC didn't get a chance to inform us. Had I not seen his rapid climb on TCAS and turned away, using the last clock code position given by ATC, I would almost certainly not be here writing this! :uhoh:

[High Wing Drifter]

TCAS isn't going to help with microlights and gliders and non-radio (and hence negative xponder) a/c generally. If anything, the recent Herts accident involved two styles of aviation that are blessed with great vis and don't tend to fly head down. I think there is no 'solution' so long as flying is to remain open to a diverse range of classes and types.

Will Mode S be required on vintage, microlights and gliders? If so then that's a start of an electronic solution, albeit not a complete one as I don't believe that Mode S "enhanced" mode will be required in GA. Enhanced mode would be required for traffic detection..I think...can somebody expand/correct?

Also, I am suprised at how many a/c don't have or don't use strobes in daylight. Maybe a single small, slow strobing xenon daylight only light, top and bottom would help.

[ShyTorque]

HWD,

Exactly, there is NO simple answer.

To be fair, a glider or microlight wouldn't be able to carry out the manoeuvre that nearly killed me and the 5 others in the aircraft that day.

Hence my suggestion on the other thread:

"Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons, how about making Mode C mandatory for aircraft transitting under the London TMA unless able to obtain at least a Radar Information service?"

[redsnail]

For the record, I don't think that TCAS, EGPWS, TSO'd GPS's and the like are useless gismo's. I am very familiar with their use and have used them often at work. However, they are tools to aid in situational awareness and to reduce the workload in a high traffic environment in IMC. (or in a TMA)

Mid air collisions aren't the big pilot killer. Poor attitudes and "press-on-itis" have killed more pilots than any thing else I know.

The best piece of safety equipment any one can have is situated between our ears. Good instruction with development of sound airmanship ideas is the best start. Proper planning. Knowing your limits. Effective use of the equipment you have on board. Strobes, radios, navaids. Continual development of your pilot skills whether it be a new rating or just going over old subjects should be a lifelong aim for all pilots.

Aviation isn't 100% risk free. Come to think of it, life isn't 100% risk free.

Have a look around next time you're driving on the motorway. How many folks are driving to the conditions? How many are being distracted by the car CD player, their phone, the kids in the back? How many are too close to the car in front? Have a look at how many aren't wearing a seatbelt!!
They may have the best air bags, the best ABS and the best tyres money can buy. However, a careless action on their behalf can render all of that useless.

[astir 8]

I mostly fly gliders, from which you have clear vision of virtually all of the sky, and also have "lookout" hammered into you from the first lesson.

Every time I climb into a single engined Cessna the almost total lack of vis scares the sh1t out of me - the lid overhead & in turns, no vis ahead & below (engine), huge door pillars/structure (I'm sure this applies to most high winged a/c, not just Cessnas, but there's more of them).

Any person who flys little other than one of Mr Cessna's products (and presumably this covers a large chunk of the UK GA population) has probably got used to this obscured vision and probably doesn't realise any more how little of the sky he/she can actually see.

[robin]

....and in PA28s it feels like you are driving from inside a letterbox, or a machine-gun pillbox.

True, why is it that in most light aircraft, you have such cr*p visibility??

[slim_slag]

redsnail says:

Mid air collisions aren't the big pilot killer. Poor attitudes and "press-on-itis" have killed more pilots than any thing else I know.
.....
Proper planning. Knowing your limits. And it's all true, but talking to a controller with a radar is very nice too. Even monitoring a 'radar frequency' has been useful to me in the past, I have recognised myself when I've been 'called out' to other traffic that I haven't seen.

Anybody tried the products referred to in TPAS vs. ATD (http://www.aviationconsumer.com/pub/32_3/avionicsreport/5135-1.html)? Only works for transponder using traffic, but any help you can get......

[TonyR]

True, why is it that in most light aircraft, you have such cr*p visibility??


Try something "Made in France"

[robin]

>>>Try something "Made in France"<<<<<

Now there's an idea.......wonder which one I'd choose

[TonyR]

for you robin, what else could I say. But I still think the old Rallye has the best viz