![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Duniho wrote:
Due to the additional failure modes, it could just as easily reduce the odds. I'm not sure how you're seeing this. All additional failure modes are independent of anything that exists w/o the tower. That is, any way that the tower can fail has no impact on the "see & avoid" technique that would be present with or without a tower. At least, this is what I see. What do you see differently? - Andrew |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com... [...] I'm not sure how you're seeing this. All additional failure modes are independent of anything that exists w/o the tower. That is, any way that the tower can fail has no impact on the "see & avoid" technique that would be present with or without a tower. A tower failure mode can introduce a situation where a pilot who would otherwise have been more diligent about "see & avoid" might wind up relaxing their efforts, resulting in a crash. Mid-airs in Class D airspace very likely almost always involve at least to some degree this effect. The failure modes are NOT independent. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Indiana National Guard pilot killed in midair collision | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | June 17th 04 08:08 PM |
F-15 Midair Collision Video | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 0 | March 20th 04 11:42 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
"China blamed in '01 air collision" | Mike Yared | Naval Aviation | 8 | September 15th 03 05:07 PM |
"China blamed in '01 air collision" | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 2 | September 14th 03 06:08 PM |