Techniques for locating other aircraft visualy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sweden/Turkey
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found that post very useless. If you're going to be a troll, please at least do it tastefully or somehow amusing. If you cannot accomplish neither, please refrain from posting garbage.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whitehorse
WR - you have just proved a point that I make to my students, it's the other bug**r that will kill you.
Keep your eyes out of the cockpit, search in a up/down motion with the eyes around the cockpit windows. Not forgetting to refocus your eyes on close range objects eg a rivit around the window frame, and then looking out again. If you stare at the horizon in one direction for long enough you will eventually focus on the fly on the window and have little chance of seeing the distant objects. (I think I got this while being trained as a SAR pilot in the RN)
Keep your eyes out of the cockpit, search in a up/down motion with the eyes around the cockpit windows. Not forgetting to refocus your eyes on close range objects eg a rivit around the window frame, and then looking out again. If you stare at the horizon in one direction for long enough you will eventually focus on the fly on the window and have little chance of seeing the distant objects. (I think I got this while being trained as a SAR pilot in the RN)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR - you have just proved a point that I make to my students, it's the other bug**r that will kill you.
Keep your eyes out of the cockpit, search in a up/down motion with the eyes around the cockpit windows.
However, best of all tell them that the people who license you, and will license them, and also those that license more pilots than any where else in the world (the FAA), say it isnt reliable.
However, all the best students should manage that while reading their map, ticking off their PLOG and doing there 15 minute checks.
Sadly it doesnt work. I have flown with them and their heads are in the cockpit for much more time than I would care. If anyone needs as much help as they can get these are the ones that need it.
I do accept the big sky will save them (and us) 99% of the time - I am just making a plea, becasue it is so engrained in PPL methodolgy, that you really should not kid yourself see and avoid will work reliably for the other 1% - sadly the evidence indicates otherwise.
I'd love to have a debate with you based on the evidence, I'd love it were you able to produce evidence to the contrary, I suppose I'd far rather not have my little traffic system on the facia, but until I see the evidence I will go on looking out as best I can, I will try and ensure I use the best scan I can and I will avoid as many cockpit tasks that might distract me and I will fly in a way to reduce the risk of collision BUT I will turn my collision avoidance system on every time
.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst Wr's post wasn't actually helpful, I think you're being a little over-sensitive to what he said.
If you read between the lines what he's actually saying is that he longs for a simpler life! One les impinged upon by the modern social requirements to enure that one has consumed and digested the plethora of information which is now available to all, rather than continue on in ignorant bliss.
It's far safer these days to adopt the sheep like mentality and follow the crowd, 'cause someone else is usually taking the responsibilty!
In that sense I think you should cut the guy some slack!
If you read between the lines what he's actually saying is that he longs for a simpler life! One les impinged upon by the modern social requirements to enure that one has consumed and digested the plethora of information which is now available to all, rather than continue on in ignorant bliss.
It's far safer these days to adopt the sheep like mentality and follow the crowd, 'cause someone else is usually taking the responsibilty!
In that sense I think you should cut the guy some slack!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookout
I think it's great that somebody recognises that they want to improve their lookout skills....and long may that attitude continue.
I do worry when people start adopting the 'I have TCAS, so all is well' attitude. None of the existing aircraft borne collision avoidance technologies (e.g. TCAS, Transponder, ADS-B or FLARM) remove the risk of collision with another aircraft that isn't carrying the same technology. So, even if you have the latest all singing and dancing flashing little box, remember that you still need to be looking out for other aircraft, gliders, hang gliders, microlights, parachutists, balloonists, helicopters, etc. that might be flying in the area.
See and be seen isn't 100% perfect - yes there's always a risk that some b**g*r will arrive in the same bit of the air as you do and that you don't see them before things go bang. There's less of a chance of you spotting, and avoiding them, though if you fail to keep a good lookout, decide it's not worth it and keep your eyes inside the cockpit.
Interesting comment in an earlier posting about how glider pilots are more likely to spot other gliders because they know their behaviour (i.e. turning in thermals). That's probably incorrect - well flown modern high performance gliders fly for anywhere between 10 - 100km without turning or thermalling and are doing that at between 50 - 100kts. Operating height band will be anywhere between 500' and up to around 7000' on high cumulus days if they don't fly in cloud and 20,000+ if they do decide to fly in cloud (and even higher when using the wave effect of mountains). So, you'll find gliders at all heights in open airspace.
I teach gliding students that they should look in all directions and shouldn't concentrate solely upon looking at where they expect other traffic to be. A good wakeup call is to explain that they should be looking for the aircraft that they haven't yet seen - in the congested open airspace in the UK there's a high probability that there'll be other traffic around, it's just that you haven't noticed them yet. A good game to play, if there's at least two of you, is to see who can spot traffic first.....also helps you to improve your visual acuity.
I do worry when people start adopting the 'I have TCAS, so all is well' attitude. None of the existing aircraft borne collision avoidance technologies (e.g. TCAS, Transponder, ADS-B or FLARM) remove the risk of collision with another aircraft that isn't carrying the same technology. So, even if you have the latest all singing and dancing flashing little box, remember that you still need to be looking out for other aircraft, gliders, hang gliders, microlights, parachutists, balloonists, helicopters, etc. that might be flying in the area.
See and be seen isn't 100% perfect - yes there's always a risk that some b**g*r will arrive in the same bit of the air as you do and that you don't see them before things go bang. There's less of a chance of you spotting, and avoiding them, though if you fail to keep a good lookout, decide it's not worth it and keep your eyes inside the cockpit.
Interesting comment in an earlier posting about how glider pilots are more likely to spot other gliders because they know their behaviour (i.e. turning in thermals). That's probably incorrect - well flown modern high performance gliders fly for anywhere between 10 - 100km without turning or thermalling and are doing that at between 50 - 100kts. Operating height band will be anywhere between 500' and up to around 7000' on high cumulus days if they don't fly in cloud and 20,000+ if they do decide to fly in cloud (and even higher when using the wave effect of mountains). So, you'll find gliders at all heights in open airspace.
I teach gliding students that they should look in all directions and shouldn't concentrate solely upon looking at where they expect other traffic to be. A good wakeup call is to explain that they should be looking for the aircraft that they haven't yet seen - in the congested open airspace in the UK there's a high probability that there'll be other traffic around, it's just that you haven't noticed them yet. A good game to play, if there's at least two of you, is to see who can spot traffic first.....also helps you to improve your visual acuity.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
decide it's not worth it and keep your eyes inside the cockpit.
that I did not say -
DONT KEEP A GOOD LOOK OUT and neither did I say KEEP YOUR EYES IN THE COCKPIT.
However, and on reflection, having thought about my experiences surprisingly I would probably have had no near misses if I had relied on the big sky and TCAS and never looked out the cockpit at all - life might have been rather dull though.
In fact of the three that were close, one was air traffic's fault in intermittent IMC in the hold. ATC apologised after, but if the aircraft was going to hit me I would never have seen it, but TCAS would have because I know it was transponding, the second I was the non flying pilot, happened to look up and there was the aircraft full screen about to hit us, the other pilot hadnt seen it, but I know it was transponding and finally a recent incident when I know we were both transponding. I can think of quite a few occasions when I have changed my course having seen another aircraft - but would any of those hit me - probably not.
You have a very good chance of seeing the sort of aircraft that are not transponding because they are liekly to be a lot slower or a lot larger (baloons). It is the fast moving light twins, singles, commercials operating outside CAS (and inside when ATC makes a mistake) and military that presents the greatest risk en route.
.. .. .. and yes, well done to the original poster for asking how to improve his look out, he got some good opinions, and I for one will be really grateful if they help him to see me when I didnt.
I just think we place to much reliance on see and avoid as the sole basis for avoiding collisions and anyone asking the question should also understand why.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you write about TCAS, there will always be somebody who will stupidly accuse you of flying with your head in the cockpit and not looking out.
If you write about GPS, there will always be somebody who will stupidly accuse you of flying with your head in the cockpit and not looking out.
One wonders how much effort one should put into replying to those people. I think it's better to ignore them.
Drawing attention to available technology is a great thing. With TCAS, the extra info comes at zero brain cost to the pilot - assuming one can afford it, why not have it? It's obvious from flying under an RIS that most people who fly (powered) above a couple of thousand feet seem to be transponding these days. I know loads of people who can't wait for transponders to become mandatory but of course they won't post this in any forum...
As for gliders doing long trips and going to 20k feet, I would suggest that the glider population that does that is a tiny fraction of the total. Most gliders go around in the local area, and are relatively easy to spot because they are not on straight line trajectories.
If you write about GPS, there will always be somebody who will stupidly accuse you of flying with your head in the cockpit and not looking out.
One wonders how much effort one should put into replying to those people. I think it's better to ignore them.
Drawing attention to available technology is a great thing. With TCAS, the extra info comes at zero brain cost to the pilot - assuming one can afford it, why not have it? It's obvious from flying under an RIS that most people who fly (powered) above a couple of thousand feet seem to be transponding these days. I know loads of people who can't wait for transponders to become mandatory but of course they won't post this in any forum...
As for gliders doing long trips and going to 20k feet, I would suggest that the glider population that does that is a tiny fraction of the total. Most gliders go around in the local area, and are relatively easy to spot because they are not on straight line trajectories.
As a student pilot, shortly to do my skill test, I have to say that keeping a good lookout is the one thing that I need to concentrate on. I can fly a plane. Most people can manage that...
But it is far too easy to fly along for 5 minutes without looking out the aircraft properly. How many times have you driven your commuting route to work and then realised you can't remember any of the journey?!
It's also especially easy to forget to look out to the right, past your P2 or PAX, even though it is probably the most important sector because it's primarily your responsibility to avoid aircraft coming from that direction.
In my opinion it takes discipline to keep a good lookout and most people become lazy as self-confidence in their flying abilities increase. I would love to have a TACAS as a back up, same as I would like a GPS as a back up to my half mil chart, but only as back ups!
As for the precise method I use, I try to move my eyes from one space in the sky to another, look carefully at that space to let my peripheral vision pick up movement, then move my eye to the next spot. Seems to work. But I have to admit that I usually pick up traffic out of the corner of my eye when I'm NOT doing a careful scan of the sky.
I had one dodgy experience on my QXC. I caught movement in the corner of my eye and glanced down to the right to see a twin making a right turn about 50 foot below and 150 feet to the right of my aircraft. I thnk he came from behind, saw me and turned.
I immediately felt guilty thinking I missed eye-balling him as he came from my left, but to be fair, I think he came from behind so I probably had no chance of seeing him. Nevertheless it was a close encounter in comparison with seeing dots on the horizon.
This must happen quite often, but it certainly woke me up and every dead fly on the windscreen suddenly became a potential Cessna in my head!
And remember chaps and chapettes, most GA seems to be at 2000-2300 feet...It only takes one collision to ruin your flying career...
There but for the Grace of God go I....
But it is far too easy to fly along for 5 minutes without looking out the aircraft properly. How many times have you driven your commuting route to work and then realised you can't remember any of the journey?!
It's also especially easy to forget to look out to the right, past your P2 or PAX, even though it is probably the most important sector because it's primarily your responsibility to avoid aircraft coming from that direction.
In my opinion it takes discipline to keep a good lookout and most people become lazy as self-confidence in their flying abilities increase. I would love to have a TACAS as a back up, same as I would like a GPS as a back up to my half mil chart, but only as back ups!
As for the precise method I use, I try to move my eyes from one space in the sky to another, look carefully at that space to let my peripheral vision pick up movement, then move my eye to the next spot. Seems to work. But I have to admit that I usually pick up traffic out of the corner of my eye when I'm NOT doing a careful scan of the sky.
I had one dodgy experience on my QXC. I caught movement in the corner of my eye and glanced down to the right to see a twin making a right turn about 50 foot below and 150 feet to the right of my aircraft. I thnk he came from behind, saw me and turned.
I immediately felt guilty thinking I missed eye-balling him as he came from my left, but to be fair, I think he came from behind so I probably had no chance of seeing him. Nevertheless it was a close encounter in comparison with seeing dots on the horizon.
This must happen quite often, but it certainly woke me up and every dead fly on the windscreen suddenly became a potential Cessna in my head!
And remember chaps and chapettes, most GA seems to be at 2000-2300 feet...It only takes one collision to ruin your flying career...
There but for the Grace of God go I....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS & stuff
"If you write about TCAS, there will always be somebody who will stupidly accuse you of flying with your head in the cockpit and not looking out"
......Yes, fair point and I'll apologise for making the inference that it could reduce your lookout. BUT I'll bet that there are others who DO think that technology removes the need to maintain a god lookout. More worringly is when they read it on a forum and so think it's a fact (rather tha tongue in cheek).
"As for gliders doing long trips and going to 20k feet, I would suggest that the glider population that does that is a tiny fraction of the total. Most gliders go around in the local area, and are relatively easy to spot because they are not on straight line trajectories."
....Cross-country glider sorties, as a percentage of total glider launches, probably is relatively small. However, on a nice thermic day, that still translates to well over a hundred movements operating between 500' - 7000', flying close to (or even in) cloud. All of whom are trying to minimise time spent circling and maximise time spent on track.
All I'm saying is that everybody nees to keep a good lookout and don't just assume that conflicting traffic will be where you're expecting it to be.
......Yes, fair point and I'll apologise for making the inference that it could reduce your lookout. BUT I'll bet that there are others who DO think that technology removes the need to maintain a god lookout. More worringly is when they read it on a forum and so think it's a fact (rather tha tongue in cheek).
"As for gliders doing long trips and going to 20k feet, I would suggest that the glider population that does that is a tiny fraction of the total. Most gliders go around in the local area, and are relatively easy to spot because they are not on straight line trajectories."
....Cross-country glider sorties, as a percentage of total glider launches, probably is relatively small. However, on a nice thermic day, that still translates to well over a hundred movements operating between 500' - 7000', flying close to (or even in) cloud. All of whom are trying to minimise time spent circling and maximise time spent on track.
All I'm saying is that everybody nees to keep a good lookout and don't just assume that conflicting traffic will be where you're expecting it to be.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR
I am all for "simple flying". Lots of people like it. I don't do it myself because it doesn't deliver what I need which is a mixture of local flights and long legs e.g. across the Alps to the south at FL160, IFR.
Regarding (1), just last week, Flight International reported on serious concerns over the safety of technically advanced aircraft (TAA) in the GA fleet. To quote FI: “glass cockpit aircraft accounted for 45% of the fatal weather-related accidents, compared with 15% for GA fleet with traditional instrumentation”. (Presumably this is in the USA.)
This one has been done to death in another forum recently, if I recall correctly. That kind of "research" is generally rubbish, especially if you see it in Flight International. It's very poor statistical analysis. The planes that go into "weather" are generally IFR tourers. These start at say $350k. These days, nearly all are glass cockpit. The buyers are not going to be doing sunny Sunday local bimbles; they will be using these things to go places - especially in the USA where you really can do that (loads of airports, hard runways, GPS approaches etc etc). A lot of these (esp. Cirrus) will go to relatively new pilots. The old codgers who have had their IR for 150 years and fly 300hrs/year along the same well worn routes will rarely be flying a glass cockpit spaceship. So there will be a big bias in the accident data, because the pilot population flying these types is different. If one is out to find a "problem" it is in the intersection of the mission profile and the lower pilot experience, not glass cockpits.
Regarding (2) Fuji quoted a CAA publication stating essentially that “see and avoid” is not reliable. (Digression: The full document was written MORE from the viewpoint of commercial air transport, i.e. a 737 pilot, rather than a Luton Minor pilot). Fuji and I are very close on this. I believe that when those that license those that license those etc tell me that I should have PCAS available then I will listen. Until then, I will wonder how many private pilots will be playing with their new box of tricks and not looking out of the window at the fast approaching non-transponding aircraft (and that is certainly not directed at you, Fuji). The evidence is not yet there one way or the other, despite what may appear obvious to some.
It must depend on where you are.
The only place where see and avoid might possibly apply to CAT is in terminal areas and in there the 737 won't be doing 500kt. It will be doing slightly over 200kt perhaps. That isn't a lot more than a half decent IFR tourer - I've seen 220kt (GS) myself. There is no practical difference between 150kt and 220kt especially given a decent level of cockpit automation. So for enroute flight, my view is that see and avoid still doesn't work - because a target on a genuine collision course will be stationary in one's field of view.
In the busy GA airfield circuit, see and avoid is the only way because TCAS won't work very well (due to numbers and proximity). This scenario remains dangerous, and there is no decent solution.
(4) Those that licensed those that licensed etc and the likes of Fuji that taught me to fly stressed the importance of an effective lookout. They taught me not to spend time head in the cockpit studying a map, but like all others, I found it immensely difficult initially. But we have to gain this skill. In my experience of “close contacts” (I’ve not had any real scares – perhaps I won’t fly without TCAS when I have) they have been almost exclusively with sophisticated singles (and that is not a poke at IO540). I reckon (but don’t know) that too many such aircraft are flown by those who fly only relatively few hours per year in them, and who are often one step behind their game. As these are normally transponding, perhaps I should take Fuji’s advice and buy a PCAS!
It's indeed likely that there are some right plonkers flying IFR tourers. There certainly are plonkers flying all other types - I hear some on the radio every time I fly. But I would suggest this is nothing to do with the aircraft type or the equipment. The reality of flying a well equipped plane is that you are not doing a great deal and are looking out more or less constantly.
Having said that, if I am flying a leg, VMC, I will be on autopilot which is tracking the GPS and looking out around my own height band. If I see another plane about to pass 300ft under me (note: 300ft looks very close to us pilots) I just let it go. That pilot might think "that idiot, he's got his head down fiddling with his GPS" but (a) he was seen and (b) 300ft is loads of separation. There is no need to do anything about it.
I am all for "simple flying". Lots of people like it. I don't do it myself because it doesn't deliver what I need which is a mixture of local flights and long legs e.g. across the Alps to the south at FL160, IFR.
Regarding (1), just last week, Flight International reported on serious concerns over the safety of technically advanced aircraft (TAA) in the GA fleet. To quote FI: “glass cockpit aircraft accounted for 45% of the fatal weather-related accidents, compared with 15% for GA fleet with traditional instrumentation”. (Presumably this is in the USA.)
This one has been done to death in another forum recently, if I recall correctly. That kind of "research" is generally rubbish, especially if you see it in Flight International. It's very poor statistical analysis. The planes that go into "weather" are generally IFR tourers. These start at say $350k. These days, nearly all are glass cockpit. The buyers are not going to be doing sunny Sunday local bimbles; they will be using these things to go places - especially in the USA where you really can do that (loads of airports, hard runways, GPS approaches etc etc). A lot of these (esp. Cirrus) will go to relatively new pilots. The old codgers who have had their IR for 150 years and fly 300hrs/year along the same well worn routes will rarely be flying a glass cockpit spaceship. So there will be a big bias in the accident data, because the pilot population flying these types is different. If one is out to find a "problem" it is in the intersection of the mission profile and the lower pilot experience, not glass cockpits.
Regarding (2) Fuji quoted a CAA publication stating essentially that “see and avoid” is not reliable. (Digression: The full document was written MORE from the viewpoint of commercial air transport, i.e. a 737 pilot, rather than a Luton Minor pilot). Fuji and I are very close on this. I believe that when those that license those that license those etc tell me that I should have PCAS available then I will listen. Until then, I will wonder how many private pilots will be playing with their new box of tricks and not looking out of the window at the fast approaching non-transponding aircraft (and that is certainly not directed at you, Fuji). The evidence is not yet there one way or the other, despite what may appear obvious to some.
It must depend on where you are.
The only place where see and avoid might possibly apply to CAT is in terminal areas and in there the 737 won't be doing 500kt. It will be doing slightly over 200kt perhaps. That isn't a lot more than a half decent IFR tourer - I've seen 220kt (GS) myself. There is no practical difference between 150kt and 220kt especially given a decent level of cockpit automation. So for enroute flight, my view is that see and avoid still doesn't work - because a target on a genuine collision course will be stationary in one's field of view.
In the busy GA airfield circuit, see and avoid is the only way because TCAS won't work very well (due to numbers and proximity). This scenario remains dangerous, and there is no decent solution.
(4) Those that licensed those that licensed etc and the likes of Fuji that taught me to fly stressed the importance of an effective lookout. They taught me not to spend time head in the cockpit studying a map, but like all others, I found it immensely difficult initially. But we have to gain this skill. In my experience of “close contacts” (I’ve not had any real scares – perhaps I won’t fly without TCAS when I have) they have been almost exclusively with sophisticated singles (and that is not a poke at IO540). I reckon (but don’t know) that too many such aircraft are flown by those who fly only relatively few hours per year in them, and who are often one step behind their game. As these are normally transponding, perhaps I should take Fuji’s advice and buy a PCAS!
It's indeed likely that there are some right plonkers flying IFR tourers. There certainly are plonkers flying all other types - I hear some on the radio every time I fly. But I would suggest this is nothing to do with the aircraft type or the equipment. The reality of flying a well equipped plane is that you are not doing a great deal and are looking out more or less constantly.
Having said that, if I am flying a leg, VMC, I will be on autopilot which is tracking the GPS and looking out around my own height band. If I see another plane about to pass 300ft under me (note: 300ft looks very close to us pilots) I just let it go. That pilot might think "that idiot, he's got his head down fiddling with his GPS" but (a) he was seen and (b) 300ft is loads of separation. There is no need to do anything about it.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can just confirm what other have said re spotting other aircraft, on quite a few occasions I've been advised that there's been a police helicopter, xyz height, south of you by xxx and couldn't spot it (with others in the helicopter who also couldn't see it - and no, not my granny and her mother either) - and these are aircraft that are painted to be noticed.
You can improve your chances by ensuring that when you brief your passengers you tell them to keep a good lookout and advise you if they see anything, even if they believe you have already spotted it.
You can improve your chances by ensuring that when you brief your passengers you tell them to keep a good lookout and advise you if they see anything, even if they believe you have already spotted it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very interesting posts.
With regards "advanced" cockpits I think there is a risk that some pilots could spend more time inside the cockpit than they should. There is a lot more going on compared with a "traditional" cockpit and a temptation to get caught up in button pushing. TCAS adds yet another component.
It is therefore vital that pilots become familiar with these cockpits as quickly as possible and remain wary not to let their skills degrade. There are some very good cockpit simulators around - as many hours as possible using these on the ground will pay dividends.
Never the less I recognise that there are those who will fly this type of aircraft and lack the currency on the equipment they need.
However, accepting this as a given, since these pilots "see and avoid" will have already been compromised, they are exactly the pilots that will benefit from TCAS or PCAS even more than those current and familiar with the kit.
There may be some confusion how PCAS and TCAS works. It is one piece of equipment that requires the minimal of "supervision" in the air.
In its simplest version PCAS only requires you to define the "safety bubble" on the ground in terms of horizontal and vertical separation. Once that done there is really nothing to do in the air. An aural alert will be given through your headset if another transponding aircraft enters the "bubble". Only then a quick glance at the display will tell you if the traffic is at the same height, above or below, its trend relative to you, its distance and direction in 90 degree sectors.
If see and avoid has failed it may just alert you to a serious risk. At two miles if you haven’t seen the traffic and it is at the same level as you it is well worth changing level - you still have time.
With regards "advanced" cockpits I think there is a risk that some pilots could spend more time inside the cockpit than they should. There is a lot more going on compared with a "traditional" cockpit and a temptation to get caught up in button pushing. TCAS adds yet another component.
It is therefore vital that pilots become familiar with these cockpits as quickly as possible and remain wary not to let their skills degrade. There are some very good cockpit simulators around - as many hours as possible using these on the ground will pay dividends.
Never the less I recognise that there are those who will fly this type of aircraft and lack the currency on the equipment they need.
However, accepting this as a given, since these pilots "see and avoid" will have already been compromised, they are exactly the pilots that will benefit from TCAS or PCAS even more than those current and familiar with the kit.
There may be some confusion how PCAS and TCAS works. It is one piece of equipment that requires the minimal of "supervision" in the air.
In its simplest version PCAS only requires you to define the "safety bubble" on the ground in terms of horizontal and vertical separation. Once that done there is really nothing to do in the air. An aural alert will be given through your headset if another transponding aircraft enters the "bubble". Only then a quick glance at the display will tell you if the traffic is at the same height, above or below, its trend relative to you, its distance and direction in 90 degree sectors.
If see and avoid has failed it may just alert you to a serious risk. At two miles if you haven’t seen the traffic and it is at the same level as you it is well worth changing level - you still have time.
Something which I don't think has been mentioned yet is to make sure the windscreen is clean before flight. A screen full of squashes flies doesn't enhance lookout too much!
Head movements (aka rubber necking) make a big difference - beware aircraft hiding behind canopy stays etc.
Make sure before entering a climb (this includes a go around) that you check above and behind, before entering a descent you clear the airspace below by turning off heading 20 degrees or so and checking the intended descent path, when climbing or descending "weave" every 1,000 ft minimum and when you descend on the deadside do so whilst turning rather than flying parallel to the landing runway.
In the open FIR (jungle airspace) I would suggest there is more random separation (although beware choke points etc.) whereas as you come into the circuit area a/c are funnelling towards the landing runway which is why circuit discipline is important.
I recall many years ago that the USA did an indepth study into mid air collision risk and commented that the highest risk time was when operating within 10 nm of an airport with mixed VFR/IFR traffic. Also most close airproxes and/or midairs occur with one aircraft between the 10 oclock and 2 oclock postion so this is where your main scan needs to be concentrated.
The aircraft which pose a threat will not be changing relative bearing so are, I would suggest, more difficult to spot. If you look out the window and see another aircraft with changing relative bearing there should be no collision risk.
Head movements (aka rubber necking) make a big difference - beware aircraft hiding behind canopy stays etc.
Make sure before entering a climb (this includes a go around) that you check above and behind, before entering a descent you clear the airspace below by turning off heading 20 degrees or so and checking the intended descent path, when climbing or descending "weave" every 1,000 ft minimum and when you descend on the deadside do so whilst turning rather than flying parallel to the landing runway.
In the open FIR (jungle airspace) I would suggest there is more random separation (although beware choke points etc.) whereas as you come into the circuit area a/c are funnelling towards the landing runway which is why circuit discipline is important.
I recall many years ago that the USA did an indepth study into mid air collision risk and commented that the highest risk time was when operating within 10 nm of an airport with mixed VFR/IFR traffic. Also most close airproxes and/or midairs occur with one aircraft between the 10 oclock and 2 oclock postion so this is where your main scan needs to be concentrated.
The aircraft which pose a threat will not be changing relative bearing so are, I would suggest, more difficult to spot. If you look out the window and see another aircraft with changing relative bearing there should be no collision risk.
