Captain Stable

It is a fact of life that the safer you make something the more layed back people become about hurting themselves.

The old joke about sticking explosives on each corner of a car and how much more aware drivers would be :)

We have all these gismos which can make you feel more secure so someone who thinks " I have got TCAS, I have got FLARM, I have got good radar coverage is more likely to be comfortable with his head glued to the charts, books or internal workings than someone who has nothing.

In someways the more abundant use of auropilots or wing levelers is encouraging pilots to be passengers with the aircraft carrying them around the sky while they chat or even do the crossword on long sectors (Yes quite a common pastime)
I often wonder how much the autopilot used on VFR machines contributes to collisions by detaching pilots from what they should be doing IE flying and seeing where they are going? Just imagine how car accidents would increase if the driver could let go of the controls and allow an autopilot to drive his car. Imagine the detachement and boredom that would arise?

There are danger areas where the vertical or horizontal airspace is limited and a multitude of flying machines are packed. What is the answer? All you can do is to encourage pilots to look out especially in those collision danger areas. Yes use aids, give your passengers a game of spot the aircraft :) and fly at levels others arent likely to choose like 1750 feet instead of 2000 feet or 2500 feet instead of 2400 feet aound London ;) Otherwise mandate every flying object to have a working transponder.

Pace

englishal:

You are never going to win with this guy. This is the man who can throw every toy known to man out of his pram when idiots like me call "Finals" instead of "Final".

Then suddenly we are told that he knows absolutely everything about TCAS and talks about calling "TCAS Climb" when those of us who really know about these things are well aware that the call nowadays is "Resolution Advisory".

Save your breath; it is hard to argue with the perfect.

It appears that Captain Stable's biggest contribution to human wisdom seems to be in the Jet Blast forum.

But, anyway, on the topic: nearly all UK midairs have been at or below 1000ft. It is readily obvious that by the time one climbs through 2000ft there is much less traffic. At 3000ft there is almost none.

There are simply much bigger issues to worry about in flying.

The vast majority of traffic (reported by TCAS or a radar service) is never spotted; the Mk1 eyeball does not work very well at all. It's a fallacy, upheld by the Kremlin Old Guard since WW1.

And since a target on a genuine collision trajectory is a stationary point in your field of view (straight line trajectories assumed) you won't see him until too late.

The exception is when in the vicinity of an airfield, e.g. when landing. Then, TCAS is not very useful due to the possibly high # of alerts, and one has to look out as much as possible. Sometimes there is a real risk; e.g. if flying into Wellesbourne or Stapleford on a sunny Sunday preceeded by weeks of poor weather. Not a lot one can do about these cases - other than not fly to "free for all" airfields known for poor pilot behaviour when they are obviously going to be busy as hell.

Can you point me to the source statistics for this observation (genuinely interested and would be keen to take a look at them).

Am beginning to wonder then if the midairs cited previously as being mainly below 1000' also happen to be in the vicinity of an airfield? Again a pointer to the data would be handy.

GPN01

You dont need statistics to tell you that :ugh: Anyway we all know statistics can paint any picture you want.

Any place where aircraft are contained in a tight space has to increase the chances of a midair. The more aircraft, the tighter the space the more collisions. Its as simple as that.

Pace

Merely my reading of accident reports. I do not recall seeing a formal midair breakdown.

I think all of the last 10 years' midairs (UK; about 1 per year) were below 1000ft, then we got one at 1800ft, and the last big one (the 4-person + 1-person fatal when doing an ILS calibration flight when hit from the side by somebody) is not yet classified but prob90 below 1000ft too due to the nature of the flight.

It is also readily apparent when flying.

Finally, there is a readily apparent correlation between how low people fly and whether they are radiating Mode C. When flying under a radar service, it is simply the case that no matter how hard you look and how hard one's passengers look, most reported targets are never spotted, but those that are reported "level unknown" (i.e. no Mode C transponder) usually turn out to be (when spotted) very low down; apparently around the 500ft-1500ft area. Such a correlation would not suprise me, given the attitudes to transponders (vis the "civil liberties" angle often put across by traditionalists in pilot forums :) ) among those pilots who are not touring much. What this means is that if you are under a radar service, you are much more likely to get a meaningful conflict report/warning (that you can act on) if you fly higher. What this also means is that if everybody was Mode C, the radar controller would not have to make most of the currently-useless reports :)

As to where they happened, this seems to be a mixed picture. Sure some were in the circuit. But others were during variously bizzare circumstances e.g. somebody doing orbiting for photo purposes while hit by an RAF Tornado. I think the "bizzare" ones are easily avoidable.

Yes good idea ;) I realised a few posts ago that Mr Stable is just a wind up merchant who actually doesn't seem to know anything about flying ;)

Hi Pace, I prefer to operate according to fact rather than opinions. That's why I'm keen to read the reports and stats, etc. as it's best to validate some bar room claims based around "obvious" things which, when investigated, aren't. Tighter space = more collisions isn't necessarily true either - I know of nine aircraft often found in very close proximity that don't seem to hit each other!

GPN01

If you are talking about gliders? they do have a high inter glider collision rate.

I have always been sceptical with statistics :rolleyes: start with only you in the sky and all you are ever going to hit is a bird.

Step up from that and the more flying objects within a given space means the more chance of a collision.

Vary the speed of those flying objects and their own unique design ie high wing low wing small windows etc and the chances increase again.

Ok there is always the chance that in the middle of no where you could collide with another aircraft but it has to be the more aircraft in a given space the more chance of a collision.

Pace

Seems the Stable has bolted. What a relief!:D

Look Both Ways Before Crossing the Street
 

The last month, I've spotted two a/c following major highways Eastbound at 4500' shortly before I was about to cross Southbound. contrary to the statistical assumption of the majority of midairs below 1000', I've spotted 3 SEPs, 1 twin, 2 jet airliners and more gliders than I can count in my last 20 flights this year.

Thank you for your opinion.

Just so you know, my total time flying experience is well past four figures. I have commercial licences (CPLs and ATPLs) from four different authorities. I started flying about 35 years ago. I have instructed ab initio students, commercial and IR students, taught type conversions and renewals in both the simulator and the aircraft. I have about 7 different types on my UK ATPL, from SEP/MEP up to 150-tonne jets. I have flown island-hoppers in the Caribbean, night mail, bucket-and-spade holiday charters, scheduled domestic and international airlines, VIP/Corporate passengers, aerial traffic spotting, skydivers, hazardous cargo and police aircraft.

What are your qualifications and experience?

I have not denied anywhere in this thread that the Mk I eyeball has its limitations. You have not admitted that relying on TCAS or TIS-B or other similar systems entails a danger of complacency. It appears that all you can do is resort to insults in an effort to defend poor airmanship.

And then we get silly statements such asThis daft sentence assumes that one can only see a "target" when it is moving across one's field of view. I have news for you - you can see such targets before hitting them - lots of people do.

Pace, excellent post. Sums it up both the problem and a few solutions very well.

Errr, no. I was thinking quite fast moving (jet) aircraft actually. Ok, they're painted in quite high viz markings (bright red in fact) and often trail smoke behind them, but nonetheless...

If you go through the AAIB reports you will see that most mid airs are low down. The last UK one I remember being higher was the 2007 incident which was at 1400 agl 1800 ft amsl. However there have been mid airs in the US at 16000ft (glider / Biz Jet). On a Saturday in summer with good soaring conditions there will be a lot of gliders at 2000 – 10000ft not transponding. Modern 3 X micros are also likely to be at “normal” GA levels.

I do not subscribe to the theory that collision avoidance systems make you complacent. We know that about 50% of the potential threat will not show up on them yet they spot several times the traffic that you pick up with see and avoid. If anything this makes you a lot less complacent.

Rod1

Is this going anywhere?

It just seems to have become a private debate between englishal and captain stable, with nothing new being added, except the length of their... errr... experience.

We've had a lengthier (and more fruitful) discussion between powered & gliding pilots not long ago that covered a similar area and much more besides, and there have been several other threads about eyeball vs. electronics previously.

SD

No it is not going anywhere, and for that reason I am out.:}