On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:35:16 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:52:49 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
: :

Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
is misguided."

That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.

Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

You are still missing the point.

Actually, I believe it is you who are missing a very important point:
the inadequate time available to deconflict at high rates of closure.

I think several people in this forum with extensive experience over
several decades of operating high performance aircraft worldwide have
expressed the well founded opinion that visual deconfliction is not
significantly degraded or inadequate at operational speeds. You seem
to be unwilling to acknowledge experience of others in areas in which
you have no familiarity beyond your own opinion.

It is "wetware" not "hardware" this is the critical component.

Agreed. But if the 'wetware' isn't up to the task, it would seem
logical to augment its abilities through technological means. After
all, isn't that what you claim occurs on military flights when they
use radar for collision avoidance?

My point is that you think a hardware gadget will solve the problem.
It might help, but it won't be the total, fail-safe solution. TCAS is
an aid when other already-installed systems don't provide similar or
better information. Look out the window! That's basic. After that,
listen to controllers and try to get the "big picture." If you've got
radar, use it. If you want advisories, ask. If you demand
deconfliction, go IFR, but recognize that unless you are in IMC
someone might be there to threaten you.

TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a panacea. Looking out the window
and recognizing, whether you are GA, commercial or military, that there
is always the possibility of mishap is the essential element.

Given the fact that the Cessna 172 hit by the F-16 in Florida (for
example) was in a right bank at the time of the left-on-left collision
impact, it would seem that there is insufficient time available for
human capabilities to successfully accomplish see-and-avoid separation
at high rates of closure. Visual separation failed in the other
military/civil MACs I mentioned in earlier posts also.

At the most basic, "**** happens." There is no perfect system. Someone
somewhere will find a way to get into an accident.

This is not an indication of operations in excess of human
capabilities. Before turning left in a slow moving aircraft, it is
prudent to look left and clear. It is equally prudent to look right
and clear prior to turning to make sure that the train doesn't hit you
during the period you are involved in the turn.

Given this information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.

It would seem like 17 seconds in inadequate time for non-military
trained pilots to successfully deconflict, not to mention the
deconfliction failures of the military pilots in the afore mentioned
MACs.

Apples/oranges. The F-15 pilot cycle was determined as 20 seconds, but
that relates to the rate at which deviations from desired/required
flight conditions occur. Your non-military trained pilot has
considerably more time in his/her focus cycle to search. Note also,
that with full-bubble canopies, HUDs and multi-sensory data input in
modern tactical aircraft, simple visual scan is much more efficient
than that of the high-wing C-172 pilot.

You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.

Agreed. Of course, I never claimed equipping GA aircraft with TCAS
capability would be 100% effective.

I think we've had a break through here!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com