Collision avoidance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collision avoidance
I seemed to create quite a hostile response on another thread when I suggested that the following phrase from RYR manuals meant that you had to remain clear of cloud and/or in good viv when in uncontrolled airspace and/or areas with no radar;
' operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic '.
A few rather insulting posts said I was wrong so perhaps others might like to enlighten me.
' operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic '.
A few rather insulting posts said I was wrong so perhaps others might like to enlighten me.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gatwick
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copied from the other thread...
But it specifies "when VFR conditions prevail" its basically assuming that on a nice CAVOK day at a regional airport other aviators might be operating in the circuit etc of the airfield!!! but it doesnt need to stipulate (as pilots we are meant to be clever) that on when IMC conditions exist,watch out for people that are breaking the law and flying VFR in IMC conditions! as it doesnt need too,this is obvious!! its assuming that when IMC conditions prevail at the airfield,all aircraft operating in the vicinity are operating under IFR or IMC rules,as per the laws of aviation,therefore they are most likely being controlled procedurally by a competent and licenced ATC unit.......need i continue........
come on guys.....your meant to be pilots!!
Zombie,i need not say anymore,and im sure that no other professional pilot would,you seriously need to think and take time to understand the rules and regulations of this pilot game,i seriously hope that before you head of to your EK or BA interview that you do some well needed study,and while your there,you can ask the senior pilot at BA who is on the interview board what there take on this is......as im sure they do a few flights into airports with procedural arrivals and no radar coverage....!!!!!.....the FR and the BA even park on adjacent stands...
But it specifies "when VFR conditions prevail" its basically assuming that on a nice CAVOK day at a regional airport other aviators might be operating in the circuit etc of the airfield!!! but it doesnt need to stipulate (as pilots we are meant to be clever) that on when IMC conditions exist,watch out for people that are breaking the law and flying VFR in IMC conditions! as it doesnt need too,this is obvious!! its assuming that when IMC conditions prevail at the airfield,all aircraft operating in the vicinity are operating under IFR or IMC rules,as per the laws of aviation,therefore they are most likely being controlled procedurally by a competent and licenced ATC unit.......need i continue........
come on guys.....your meant to be pilots!!
Zombie,i need not say anymore,and im sure that no other professional pilot would,you seriously need to think and take time to understand the rules and regulations of this pilot game,i seriously hope that before you head of to your EK or BA interview that you do some well needed study,and while your there,you can ask the senior pilot at BA who is on the interview board what there take on this is......as im sure they do a few flights into airports with procedural arrivals and no radar coverage....!!!!!.....the FR and the BA even park on adjacent stands...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps VJW you would be kind enough to place your answer to my question here so that others could see your view.
I am fully aware of the rules of the air thank you. Of course if all pilots followed the rules then a collision risk should not in theory arise. But some pilots don't and even if a collision is due to them not being in the right place or not following the right rules it still does not let the other aircraft off the hook.
the manuals DO NOT say;
' operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic, BUT ONLY WHEN VMC OR FLYING VFR ',
do they ? And just using procedural rules in non radar areas does not in my opinion allow you to fulfill the requirement in the manual to ' operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic '.
To claim, VJW, that I am not fit to be a captain ( when I am and have had a long and very safe career ) is such an over the top reaction to a simple question that one might conclude that you don't want this information in the public domain for some reason. But I will now let others judge.
I am fully aware of the rules of the air thank you. Of course if all pilots followed the rules then a collision risk should not in theory arise. But some pilots don't and even if a collision is due to them not being in the right place or not following the right rules it still does not let the other aircraft off the hook.
the manuals DO NOT say;
' operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic, BUT ONLY WHEN VMC OR FLYING VFR ',
do they ? And just using procedural rules in non radar areas does not in my opinion allow you to fulfill the requirement in the manual to ' operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic '.
To claim, VJW, that I am not fit to be a captain ( when I am and have had a long and very safe career ) is such an over the top reaction to a simple question that one might conclude that you don't want this information in the public domain for some reason. But I will now let others judge.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gatwick
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But surely Zombie your saying that "if other people break the rules"...??but this could be true in any enviroment.....a zone infringer in the STN TMA ,a grumpy ATC controller,a PPL who decides to turn left instead of right...the possibilities are endless,and aviation relies on people following the rules!just like driving a car or navigating a speed boat.
Think of how many airlines fly into airports with no radar in IMC conditions,we follow the procedures,we follow ATC instructons,and because we are all licenced and qualified it very rarely goes wrong,why install a CAT I ils in kerry if its illegal to use it in CAT I conditions...think about it....
Im sure in this day and age if we just invented air travel,and you told the bloke down at 'elf and safety you wanted to fly a steel tube at 38,000ft at 500 mph with 200 people on board he would have something to say!!
Aviation is a buisness in which we trust each other to do our job correctly,from ATC,Pilots,Fuelers ETC.....
Think of how many airlines fly into airports with no radar in IMC conditions,we follow the procedures,we follow ATC instructons,and because we are all licenced and qualified it very rarely goes wrong,why install a CAT I ils in kerry if its illegal to use it in CAT I conditions...think about it....
Im sure in this day and age if we just invented air travel,and you told the bloke down at 'elf and safety you wanted to fly a steel tube at 38,000ft at 500 mph with 200 people on board he would have something to say!!
Aviation is a buisness in which we trust each other to do our job correctly,from ATC,Pilots,Fuelers ETC.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief lgw warrior, for the 1000th time, this debate is just whether or not the manual says one thing and we do another. THAT'S ALL !!! HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY NOT UNDERSTAND THAT !!
We all know what we do in practice and may I inform you that whilst descending, as cleared, in a procedural ILS going in and out of cloud, we suddenly received a TCAS RA as a light aircraft flew straight through the procedure pattern below us. Just after the RA warning we then saw the aircraft and judged that the chance of hitting him without the RA was high. The Tower said they knew nothing about him.
So for whatever reasons, near misses do happen. How rare they are is for another debate.
I really hope you never have an incident like I had, but if you unfortunately do you will see what I'm going on about !!
We all know what we do in practice and may I inform you that whilst descending, as cleared, in a procedural ILS going in and out of cloud, we suddenly received a TCAS RA as a light aircraft flew straight through the procedure pattern below us. Just after the RA warning we then saw the aircraft and judged that the chance of hitting him without the RA was high. The Tower said they knew nothing about him.
So for whatever reasons, near misses do happen. How rare they are is for another debate.
I really hope you never have an incident like I had, but if you unfortunately do you will see what I'm going on about !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not sure if I've missed the point here but speaking as an ex-controller I wonder if a couple of different concepts are getting confused here. If you are talking about flying in the vicinity of or approaching an aerodrome the meteorological conditions are a bit of a red herring. Bear in mind that outside CAS a fixed wing aircraft may quite legitimately fly at or below 3,000 feet amsl without maintaining 'VMC' vertical and lateral distances from cloud provided that it remains clear of cloud and keeps the surface in sight. Similarly, inside CAS a fixed wing aircraft flying at an IAS of 140 kts or less only has to stay clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. So making the distinction between VMC or IMC doesn't really guarantee that there will not be any other aircraft around. Outside CAS, of course, ATC may not even know the other aircraft is there as Cruise experienced.
Whilst I claim no knowledge of flying anything but spamcans it seems to me that a rule that says 'operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic' caters for any situation (goal-based as the rulemakers call it) and gives the crew an appropriate environment to avoid collisions. To me it means clear of cloud and in enough visibility to take avoiding action in a timely manner if it is necessary. I'm not sure how you can say that you are operating the aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic if, when you pop out of a wee bit of cloud you decided to go through, you might meet another aircraft.
Whilst I claim no knowledge of flying anything but spamcans it seems to me that a rule that says 'operate aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic' caters for any situation (goal-based as the rulemakers call it) and gives the crew an appropriate environment to avoid collisions. To me it means clear of cloud and in enough visibility to take avoiding action in a timely manner if it is necessary. I'm not sure how you can say that you are operating the aircraft in a manner that can establish that the intended flight path is clear of other traffic if, when you pop out of a wee bit of cloud you decided to go through, you might meet another aircraft.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 423 Likes
on
223 Posts
I suggested that the following phrase from RYR manuals meant that you had to remain clear of cloud and/or in good viv when in uncontrolled airspace and/or areas with no radar;
If you are on an instrument aproach in Class G airspace then you are taking the same risk as the other pilot.
