A word on looking out the window.

[Garfly]

The recent NTSB report on the 2019 Alaskan Otter/Beaver midair (see below) got me to thinking again on this issue.  

 

It seems conventional wisdom continues to insist that pilots' eyes inside the cockpit - seduced by shiny 'modern' gadgets - poses the biggest threat of mid-air collisions and, conversely, that eyes outside - along with a healthy distrust of devices - are, by far, the best defence.

 

Well, according to the NTSB, in the Alaska case, it was not a lack of looking outside that caused it but insufficient attention paid to what the installed gadgets [ADSB] were showing (though not telling).

 

That conventional attitude, of which I speak, gets a bit of run here in the Safety Focus section of the RAAus website  

 

Alerted See & Avoid

 

In the modern age of electronic flight bags (EFBs), GPS, TCAS, and other electronic devices, pilots are more distracted inside the cockpit than ever before! Combine this with inconsistent radio communications, increased traffic density, and more frequent RPT traffic in regional areas, and the holes in the swiss cheese start to align!

 

Near miss and loss of separation events are the fourth most common occurrence type reported to RAAus. Now, more than ever, it is important that pilots maintain regular and consistent radio calls and look out techniques in order to maintain situational awareness.

Pilots must avoid the temptation to become dependent on position information displayed on EFB or TCAS displays - This technology relies on the fitment of similar equipment in other aircraft, often resulting in inconsistent traffic displays and the potential for traffic to go unnoticed. Whilst this technology is valuable in assisting situational awareness, it must not replace the requirement for pilots to maintain a constant lookout and the need for regular radio calls for efficient alerted see and avoid principles.

 

Head of Training Development, Neil Schaefer, recently observed the importance a maintaining a visual scan when conducting a flight review with an RAAus pilot. The pilot, who was using a SkyEcho ADS-B receiver, showed signs of complacency by relying on traffic information displayed on their iPad. During the flight review Neil visually spotted two aircraft in the local area which were not identified by the pilot in command - Neither aircraft was displayed on the pilots EFB.

 

https://members.raa.asn.au/safety/safety-focus/alerted-see-and-avoid/?

 

 

Well, you might say there's not much that's flat-wrong in the above but I do find the underlying attitude a bit strange. It's almost begrudging in its acceptance of new tech; as if held back by ideological inertia - notwithstanding that even official orthodoxy has long since moved on, as in the ATSB 1991 white-paper  'Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle' 1991, (attached)

 

But I find the little anecdote in the last paragraph sort of revealing. For a start, this 2nd hand account of what actually went on is not totally convincing, but anyway, in specifying in the story that it was a "SkyEcho ADSB-B receiver" and casting it as (mainly) a distraction, it does a couple of things. First it goes against official CASA and, I believe, RAAus policy of encouraging the use of conspicuity devices in the GA fleet.  Also by calling it a 'receiver' it misrepresents the device which also happens to be an ADSB transmitter. You'd think that the 'complacent' pilot-under-review might, at least, have earned a brownie point for spending money to make himself conspicuous to other aircraft - including RPTs many of which already have displays capable of seeing him.

 

Well, okay, it's possible the this fabled flyer might have been over focusing on his iPad at times, but the evidence offered in support of that: 'Neil' spotted two aircraft that the pilot flying didn't; plus the fact that neither target showed up on the device. This should surprise no one and proves little.  After all, it's likely that several passengers on the ill fated Alaskan flights would have been able to see the other craft nearby (without knowing that their pilot hadn't). 

 

And, back in the local context, it's only when all aircraft are equipped (like Mr. Complacent's was) with at least some kind of ADSB in/out that we could might expect to see on the iPad just what our eagle-eyed pilot-not-flying did in the story.

 

But if it's a case of 'competing anecdotes at 20 paces' then how about this:  I was flying recently with an instructor along part of the coast when we heard via radio that a helicopter was operating close to us and near our altitude. We got on the blower attempting to self-separate, all the while hving all four eyes busy scanning the world ahead. Nada. It was getting a bit tense when I just happened to notice - without really looking - a blue target quite near us on OzRunways.  It'd already passed and was clearly no threat. This 'sighting' then only took a short radio call to confirm.  Not a great story and, by itself, doesn't prove much either.

 

In his own analysis of the Otter/Beaver accident Juan Browne (Blancolirio on YT) puts it this way  "If you think the old FAA regulation of 'See and Avoid' in visual flight conditions is adequate to avoid mid-air collisions, you're sadly mistaken. And the accident record proves this."  He goes on to relate an anecdote of his own.  "Me and a handful of others fought hard to get TCAS equipment into the air-tanker industry. And the industry fought that tooth and nail, as that's very much an 'eyes outside the cockpit' sort of flying program."

 

My own paltry aeronautical experience ain't much to go on, but even I can recall half a dozen moments where I've been surprised by another aircraft zipping by a bit close for comfort.  In all cases, though, I had been looking outside - not necessarily in exactly the right spot - and each time, the time-gap between traffic-sighted and traffic-gone would've been mere seconds. Hardly time for any reaction.  Evidence supporting this really piles up if you're given to trawling the YouTube.  I must have watched dozens of airprox vids online where the threat aircraft has come and gone in four seconds or less.  (Even when you rewind and you know where to look).

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be looking outside - that'd be like declaring against motherhood - only that new technologies that do the job better should not be belittled but rather embraced and encouraged.

 

 

Some info on the Alaskan mid-air crash of 2019:

 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ntsb-report-cites-failure-of-see-and-avoid-in-alaska-mid-air/

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/mr20210420.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

see_and_avoid_report_print.pdf

[pmccarthy]

People have varying eyesight ability, or visual acuity. Some can see a speck in the distance, others not. When people argue in favour of see and avoid, they do not acknowledge this. Anything that can help should be embraced.

[cscotthendry]

The limitations of the “see and avoid” bring to mind those who steadfastly refuse to have a radio in their aircraft, yet insist on flying into high traffic situations like the drifter pilot who flew into the middle of the mustang's demonstration flight at Evans Head a few years ago.
Also, I've seen too many comments along the lines of “I don't want no stinkin' radio in my plane” in the forums here.

[Thruster88]

Very well written Garfly, you should submit this to sport pilot. Lots of flying in loose formation with other aircraft on long trips or searching for aircraft in the circuit after hearing a radio call makes one very aware of the limitations of see and avoid. 

At a recent casa avsafety seminar the presenter basically said the SkyEcho2 was useless, yes there are limitations but I will have all the help I can get thankyou.

[walrus]

I fitted a Dynon ADSB-IN receiver a few weeks ago. I already have a transponder.

 

First flight with the new unit, I saw a target on the Dynon screen.

 

I was going North, the target was heading South. It was on screen for no more than three seconds. Passing distance was about half a mile. I was surprised by the speed of closure and lack of time to respond. I didn’t have a hope in hell of seeing it. i suspect it was an RV whatsit and the closure speed must have been 200

+ knots.

 

More technology please.

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

 

At a recent casa avsafety seminar the presenter basically said the SkyEcho2 was useless, yes there are limitations but I will have all the help I can get thankyou.

Actually, had the Otter in the Ketchikan accident been equipped with a SkyEcho2 (or similar) it almost certainly would have triggered the aural traffic alert in the Beaver's Foreflight system because it does transmit Pressure Altitude as well as WAAS GPS position data. 

 

'Useless'!?  Yeah, it ain't the gear that's useless ...

Edited April 23, 2021 by Garfly

[facthunter]

Vertical separation  can be an  effective tool. Everyone flying right on a level and  accurate track put's more in a collision situation   Note the other aircraft may stay in the same spot pretty much in  the windscreen making it harder to see without relative movement. Think to yourself what (as one of the pilots) you would have done to avoid the other plane. Just 40 feet of vertical change would stop contact IF the other didn't change height the same way.. Even at high levels when seeking a descent clearance you may need a "confirm sighting and passing" another aircraft below. With  2 jets in opposite directions the closing speed is about that of most bullets. Blink your eye and you will miss it. You also need to be trained to do a "Proper" scan  . Your brain can fill in areas where you didn't "look" properly. Nev

[Methusala]

Please comment:

We were "Shootin' the breeze", in the clubhouse the other day. Actually discussing see and avoid scenarios. Someone mentioned overtaking or passing another aircraft and spoke of conditioned reactions. My mind was confronted with the fact that circuits are most commonly left handed whereas the accepted avoidance manoeuvre is to turn right in a descending turn. Which one is going to be the "conditioned reaction"?

[facthunter]

I hope you won't rely on a conditioned reaction as when WE are walking or driving we keep to the left. BUT Most of the world is left hand drive. The PIC usually sits in the left seat in a plane. The preferred circuit direction is LH circuit for THAT reason. If a collision is likely BOTH pilots turn right. You also PASS on the right That's the rule but as always there's the over riding rule the pilot MUST ALWAYS operate the aircraft in the safest manner possible... That's why we are soo clever.  Nev

[Garfly]

One piece of advice I remember collecting along the way was if you catch sight of another aircraft that poses a collision threat, if you turn away be sure not to lose sight of it.  Anyway, I think those gentlemanly 'rules' about stepping right if a head-on collision seems imminent, would have been a direct translation from the days of ocean going clippers, when anyone on the bridge would have seen the opposite-direction vessel at a good many miles distant, closing at a stately pace and, most certainly, on precisely one's own level. But since 'aero' long since put its slant on 'nautics' the threats we face are more like the ones shown in this small collection of vids.

 

In my humble opinion, all of these dangerous/deadly situations could have been avoided had even a minimalist traffic awareness system, such as an iPad/SkyEcho2 combo, been generally available, carried and included in the pilots 'scan' (assuming ADSB was universal).  

 

Radar replaced ear horns on the cliffs of Dover for a reason. I would love to know what arguments were put forward by the CASA speaker (as reported by Thruster above) in support of the notion that such devices were 'useless'. 

 

What is useless - just from the evidence presented below - is thinking that eyes outside the cockpit alone - even when 'alerted' by radio - is going to save us from the threat of midair collisions.

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding this one below, there's a link to a Flyer magazine article about it underneath:

 

 

https://www.flyer.co.uk/instructor-saves-day-jetmicrolight-near-miss/

 

 

 

 

The following one is a good example of the limitations of 'Alerted See and Avoid' if by 'alerted' one mainly means radio comms.

 

 

 

This clip is a bit long winded.  Jump to 01:00 to cut to the chase:

 

 

 

There's a bit of info on this one, below, in the link underneath:

 

 

https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/10/italian-authorities-release-video-footage-showing-moment-of-deadly-mid-air-crash

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Garfly

[facthunter]

Try to be where other's aren't If everyone flies a GPS track climbing and descending while on it is very risky.. You can't rely on seeing and being seen by itself.. . Nev

[Methusala]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Try to be where other's aren't

Great replies you blokes!!! Agree that any additional information is a plus to "see & be seen". Nev, I agree with"pass on the right". Just that, as has been said in this thread, Things can and often will happen within seconds. That's why I have mentioned the dichotomy of *turn left for circuits* and *pass always on the right*. As you say,Nev, we have to be soo clever.  Never stop learning (and thinking too).

[Thruster88]

One thing the "I can see all the traffic" pilots need to consider is that numerous collisions have occurred on final approach. How is the possible?  Simply neither pilot could see the other aircraft because it was not possible due to structure.

 

Conflicting aircraft don't just drift up in front, they come from below, above,  behind or in front at 5,6 miles a minute closing speed even for two bug smashers.  

[facthunter]

I leaned early with U'/Ls , most without radio, that you must know where every aircraft in the circuit IS at all times.. To say He's over there somewhere (I think) is akin to Russian Roulette. . I've never aspired to the "BIG Sky" theory. Nev

[walrus]

“GPS Assisted” collisions are real. Never, ever fly “direct to” using airports as waypoints because by definition anyone on the reciprocal will track within 50 metres or less of you. Hemisphere]ical altitudes aren’t much help either. Always use offset waypoints or “wander” a bit.

[pmccarthy]

Do autopilots have an offset function, say 200m to the right, when following a track?

[Bennyboy320]

5 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Do autopilots have an offset function, say 200m to the right, when following a track?

Yes they do, I can’t speak for Australian ATC as I haven’t flown commercially here this century but in Asia it was very common to be a given a 3-5nm right offset by ATC, it was never pleasant in RVSM airspace being 1,000 below opposite direction traffic especially when it was a wide body, the 777 was the worst in coping dirty air when the conditions were unfavorable, ie wind direction.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Bennyboy320

[Yenn]

One of the reasons that the circuit is dangerous is that we become fixated on where we are going and don't see what is happening off to the side.

In my Corby with good visibility i was on final and suddenly another aircraft came on a base leg from my right. With LH circuits the norm I was not really looking for another aircraft coming from the right.

It may have been luck that i saw him before we collided, or it may have been my good lookout. I don't know which, but he had not seen me although he would have been expecting aircraft on final being to his left.

[facthunter]

Safety is only as good as the weakest link. . You also shouldn't have to look for people driving on the wrong side of the road, either. Nev

[Garfly]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You also shouldn't have to look for people driving on the wrong side of the road, either. Nev

 

Except when ...  ;- )

 

 

[Garfly]

This chap offers a lengthy analysis of his (not very) near miss in the circuit at Sleap airfield, Shropshire.

If you don't have 20 mins to give it, there's a brief discussion of Electronic Conspicuity devices (Pilot Aware /SkyEcho) at 11.30 for a minute or two.

 

 

 

 

[F10]

“Look out” will never get old! Scary stuff, I remember flying back from a UN deployment to Burundi, mate invited me to the cockpit of our B707 tanker. We heard another aircraft calling up, close to us and because of GPS accuracy, we looked out. Saw this 747, going in opposite direction, the closing speed was terrifying. You have mere seconds....

[facthunter]

If you blink you will miss it. Frightening speed of closure. Just imagine a head on.   Nev

[Garfly]

I guess that was the era after GPS but before TCAS.

 

Interesting that Juan Browne - as quoted in the original post - seems to have been flying similar "tanker" ops:

 

 "Me and a handful of others fought hard to get TCAS equipment into the air-tanker industry. And the industry fought that tooth and nail, as that's very much an 'eyes outside the cockpit' sort of flying program."

[facthunter]

"We had a fight to get weather RADAR into transport planes. It took the Viscount crash into Botany Bay that secured that. It flew into a storm off the end of Rwy 16. Nev