On 30 Apr 2004 15:16:05 -0700, (Finbar) wrote:

We've tried "look out the window." We still have collisions. Since
human capabilities change only over evolutionary time, and training
programs that encourage good use of existing capabilities have been in
place for some time, we should assume that training and exhortations
have achieved as much improvement as they ever will. The remaining
collision risk must be reduced through some other means.
efl

Insisting that a technology is useless unless it can solve the whole
problem makes perfection the enemy of the good. It's also, in this
case, blind to the imperfection of the current technology - the Mark I
Eyeball - which plenty of science has shown is, in most near-miss
scenarios, far less valuable than the sheer size of the sky.


Finbar, I think that post sums it up nicely. The Swiss FLARM would
appear to be a good start.

Having something say " traffic, 5 miles. closing, level" would give
you something to look for and would essentially be an automated and
autonomous flight following service.

Unfortunately we won't get sensible ADS-B anytime soon at any
reasonable price for the rest of aviation. Take a look at the system
specifications and you'll soon see it is over specified by about 3
orders of magnitude. Politics again.

A simple GPS/VHF based system was demonstrated in Australia a few
years ago but the authorities didn't follow through because there were
no ICAO standards for such a system. Even now ADS-B looks like
operating on different frequencies in different countries.

Mike Borgelt