Traffic Avoidance

[nickduncs84]

Thanks Bevan, it's great to see you in here responding to questions and listening to users. It's enough to make me an avplan fan at least.

 

Aldo, I do always pay attention when someone of your experience has something to say. While I agree with you that it's not the system that is broken, that doesn't change my opinion on the issue as a whole. At the end of the day, it is what it is that matters and in this case the way it is has issues.

 

Although I'm a low hour pilot, I've had a keen interest in aviation and particularly aviation safety since I was a teenager. The one thing I know for a fact is that it's bad decisions by people that should know better that is usually at the root of any accident. Sometimes these bad decisions are obvious, but often it's a simple false assumption that leads to a tragic chain of events.

 

So in this case, given what we all know, the assumption has to be that the system doesn't work and therefore can't be relied on. At the moment, that only leaves the eyeballs as the last line of defence. If people think that's sufficient, then they're entitled to their opinion, but in my opinion, a technology based solution would be more effective.

 

And as for the separation requirements and how that relates to GPS accuracy, I'm afraid I can't see the connection. I'm not talking about using technology as a primary means of maintaining adequate separation, im just saying it's better than the current system when OCTA.

 

Nick

 

 

[facthunter]

Nick, without trying to pick on you, you have decided one thing, and you more or less keep stating it. The eyeballs Are not the last line of defence, they are the main way it is done.

 

Even in controlled airports (Sydney) I mentioned the need to act on what you see. You can't solely rely on what radio instruction someone has been given.

 

You have height selection depending on direction. You plan safer tracks parallel to one side. You read up on HOW to make an effective scan. You eyes are very clever but can play tricks (human factors stuff). You use your radio effectively (and it would be nice if others did too)You make your circuit entries safe. You should be able to operate in a circuit without radio with four or more similar aircraft and manage your distance from them. Experience should help with all this, provided your training is good and you make the effort. You should instinctively react to an aircraft in conflict with you without having to think about it for long because you don't have long. Ie IF it is static in the window you will hit it. You turn away from the direction it is moving ( in the screen)If you are coming head on both turn right. Learn about the dead side of the field. Where would you go if an aircraft was moving contrary to the circuit direction? etc. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I once had the enlivening experience - flying into Sydney late one afternoon via George's River, for the old 05/23 runway - of being told to follow the 727 about 3 miles on my left. Naturally that led to some urgent scanning, to try to see the thing; but as it happened to be dead up-sun from me, a small point that the approach controller had overlooked, I could not see it no matter how hard I tried. I was flying a Bonanza, so the 727 was naturally overhauling me, and at about my 9 O'clock position at that moment. An ADSB overlay would have allowed me to be aware of it long before the controller called, and would have prevented about 20 seconds of frantic scanning and radio calls - which does not aid one's general situational awareness of other matters. The Mk 1 eyeball is an essential part of the apparatus, but it is far from being the complete answer.

 

If you have ever watched for gliders approaching the finish line at a gliding competition - especially in the days before the lower altitude limit was raised for finishes - it's an education in the limits of the Mk 1 eyeball; you know exactly where to look, but look as you may, the gliders are invisible until they are about 200 metres away, because they are coming straight at you and so present a very small cross-section area. They suddenly blossom into view exactly where you were looking, just above the horizon, and whistle overhead a couple of seconds later. The implications for a mid-air are quite terrifying.

 

I had a somewhat similar experience on a cruise-descent into Sydney in the Bonanza; I was doing about 3 miles a minute and glanced down to check the EGT - as one has to do about every minute, on a descent - and when I glanced up again, a Victa Airtourer was coming at me, backwards, at about 100 knots closing speed. I was approaching him from dead astern, and the same phenomenon as for the gliders, had prevented me from spotting him against the Sydney smog. The resulting manoeuvre was fairly lively; nowadays it would have warranted an incident report. I doubt the occupants of the Victa were aware of my proximity; they were turning gently to the left, so I passed outside their field of view.

 

I'll be putting strobes on our Blanik, pointing aft and forwards; but all they can do is give another couple of seconds warning, if you happen to see them.

 

A properly-designed traffic overlay should show the position of the relevant traffic AND a line extending forward of the target, showing where it's likely to be in 30 seconds. You can see where to look for it in an instant; so it does NOT act to keep your eyes inside. However it is NOT affected by whether the target is directly up-sun, or just below the horizon, or in cloud, or approaching from behind or below. Roll on, ADSB; the sooner it becomes affordable, the better.

 

 

[frank marriott]

OCTA there will be many [read most small] aircraft without ADSB for many years to come no matter what the cost.

 

Only works well when BOTH aircaraft have ADSB out AND turned on and calibrated transponders. I would suggest, in RAA, the only calibrated transponders would be the ones being used in CTA [thats an assuption but I would be surprised to be proven wrong.]

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Nev - I completely agree with everything you say. No point beating a dead horse as it seems like most people here are saying the same thing. I will certainly be doing everything I can to keep myself (and others) safe. Really my only point was that from an outsiders perspective, it's surprising that with all the technology available, this is the system we're happy with. My post was originally designed to get some feedback on what solutions were out there in case I was missing something.

 

 

[facthunter]

The points you raised are valid and it is often that a relative newcomer will see the picture with a different emphasis. Let me assure you that the problem has always been with us, and constantly raises concern, all round the world. Flarm is used with Gliders and they all are fitted with it when it is used. There won't be a simple answer.

 

Enroute ADSB or something like it could do a good job. I feel in the circuit it won't, and that is where most of the near misses happen. Lack of discipline will be an ongoing factor unless we get a bit more serious.

 

Attitude refers to the drivers as well as the fuselage. "Everyone makes mistakes" doesn't quite do it in aviation. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

OCTA there will be many [read most small] aircraft without ADSB for many years to come no matter what the cost.Only works well when BOTH aircaraft have ADSB out AND turned on and calibrated transponders. I would suggest, in RAA, the only calibrated transponders would be the ones being used in CTA [thats an assuption but I would be surprised to be proven wrong.]

Yes, it will take at least a decade - and I won't be flying by then. But if one is setting up an aircraft, it's stupid not to make provision for it; so I'll be putting a transponder in the Blanik - probably a mode C; I doubt it warrants mode S. AND FLARM, since it's a glider.

 

 

[Oscar]

Many years ago, gliding. 500k attempt out of Narromine, heading for my first turning point of Coonamble. Big patch of what looked like potential sink area around the silo at Coonamble, so a quick 'in-turn-photo-out' routine the best option. Popped out of a nice cu-nim cloud atopping a strong thermal at around 7,500 (ahem, I know..) and headed for the turning point at around 100 kts.

 

Radio squarked into life (this was WAY before ABSD).. and with my knowledge of German, it might as well have been: 'Viennaschnitzel doberman eich bein ein Hamburger Coonamble'. I knew there was a German visitor attempting a task in the Narromine Janus that day, but I didn't know his task - I'd left some 20 minutes later. I assumed he was reporting his presence at the Coonamble waypoint, so I started watching out like a hawk. About two minutes later, we saw each other - on reciprocal at the same height, closing speed around 200 - 220 kts - from about 3 - 400 metres, if that. We both moved right and passed by close enough to wave acknowledgement from the cockpits. He was heading for the thermal I'd just left...

 

The point? Simply being aware of the presence of another aircraft in the immediate vicinity is enough to get your head out of the cockpit and into the airspace. The accuracy of commercial GPS devices is quite sufficient to provide that information, and more. It's a completely false and potentially dangerous position to take, that situational awareness reporting that isn't accurate to within - let's say - 20 metres vertically or horizontally isn't of value. Cheap commercial devices can already give us that level of accuracy.

 

With the sophistication of modern electronics, a cheap ADSB In-Out device could surely provide a warning of accuracy: let us say, a symbol that appears as a jet aircraft for ADSB Mode S transmissions and a red circle for 'commercial, non TSO'd' position and heading broadcast. There are probably a dozen or more different solutions that could work - but denial of the utility of 'warning' accuracy information as opposed to 'avoidance planning' accuracy information is a piece of technological sophistry that should be ruthlessly put down.

 

 

[Stoney]

I think I will put a red and blue flashing light on the dash of the Jabiru (with a siren). I'll bet everyone will see me then.

 

 

[Yenn]

I agree that a cheap ADSB would be good. just let me know when someone finds one. Cheap is relative and nobody is cheaper than my relatives. There is a new CAAP out from CASA CAAP 161-2(1), but it is only very basic info.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Yenn

 

Would that be 166-2(1) ?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Oscar]

I agree that a cheap ADSB would be good. just let me know when someone finds one. Cheap is relative and nobody is cheaper than my relatives. There is a new CAAP out from CASA CAAP 161-2(1), but it is only very basic info.

There's a horse-and-cart thing here: nobody will bother to produce a cheap ADSB 'out' device if it can't be used unless it's a TSO'd instrument. Which makes it NOT cheap, by definition. What is needed, I think, is acceptance by the authorities of such a 'second-tier' class of device; we are already seeing that authorities world-wide are moving to acceptance of commercial-grade electronics for EFIS; the FAA has suddenly found out about AoA devices and embraced them, what we need is an LSA-industry push for an affordable 'awareness-level' ADSB and suitable regulations that allow it to be incorporated as a secondary instrument. That would mean that a standard would be needed (naturally) and that takes time to develop, but it has to be something that has potential customer support.