On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:00:56 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
::
Larry Dighera wrote:
Well, I respect your opinion, Todd. But...
I respect yours as well. ....
I take it you don't like his choice of the word "protect."
given the definition of the word protect: ...
It is clear, there is no shielding, defending nor guaranteeing
occurring as a result of the 'big sky theory'.
While I wouldn't have chosen to use the word "protect," his meaning
seems clear enough - the aircraft density is greater near airports, and
MAC risk increases as density of aircraft increases.
If that is what Doug had written, I would not have found his assertion
absurd.
Then we are in basic agreement, despite our differing
opinions on the use of the word "protect."
I think we agree, that decreasing the density of air traffic reduces
the probability of a MAC, but it is the fallacy of implying such a
reduced probability in any way provides protection or shielding, or
guarantees indemnification from a MAC that I am attempting to correct.
It does not.
I'm comfortable
with using the word for decreasing risk in both ways - 1) by
adding something that shields against the hazard (TCAS),
Of course, TCAS (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System) doesn't
'shield' against a MAC anymore than night vision goggles 'shield'
against incoming enemy fire. TCAS is only capable of alerting, not
shielding, in my humble opinion.
If TCAS were actually able to provide a _shield_ against a MAC, this
wouldn't have occurred:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkir...es_Flight_2937
or
2) by removing some portion of the hazard (decreasing
traffic density by moving it away from VORs or flying
farther from congested airports.
Removing a portion of the hazard is not protecting or shielding.
Again, decreasing traffic density surely decreases the probability of
a MAC in those areas in which reduced traffic density occurs, but
decreasing traffic density in no way 'shields' nor 'protects' against
a MAC. To think otherwise is an invitation to disaster.
To my thinking, the words 'protect' and 'shield' imply some physical
barrier to impact. Of course, reducing the probability of a MAC
provides no such barrier.
We're just reflecting the two ends of the discussion of the
phrase "big sky theory."
I don't think so.
On the one hand that phrase can be
used as a justification for not vigilantly scanning.
That is my point.
For an airman reading this newsgroup to see that his fellows rely upon
the 'big sky theory' for separation and "protection" from a MAC does
us all harm to the extent that it fosters erroneous thinking and less
safe aircraft operation, and in the eyes of the public reading this
worldwide forum who may infer that pilots trust in the 'big sky
theory' for air safety. Competent, prudent pilots don't.
I agree that's bad. On the other hand that phrase refers to a
valid method of improving safety by decreasing traffic
density.
Personally, I have not seen the phrase 'big sky theory' used to refer
to any _method_ of improving air safety; I have only seen it used as
faith in the delusion, that a lack of _perceived_ air traffic density
can be used as an excuse to relax vigilance. (Perhaps you are able to
provide a citation that supports your assertion of such a _method_?)
Take, for instance, the pilot who finds himself out in the desert,
away from Victor airways, navaids, and ground congestion. He may
think he has the sky to himself; he doesn't see any air traffic
around, nor signs of civilization, so he relaxes his traffic scan.
Then this happens:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1
These MACs occurred as a result of reliance on the 'big sky theory' of
air traffic separation; obviously the 'big sky theory' of air traffic
separation doesn't work. The 'big sky theory' of air traffic
separation only serves to insidiously entrap airmen with a false sense
of security.
Our current air traffic system funnels traffic
along designated airways from VOR to VOR to the final
airport. That method inherently increases traffic density
and does increase MAC risk.
I absolutely agree with your statement above.
Unfortunately, there is little alternative to the resulting increased
traffic density caused by defining airspace sectors.