Scared of mid-airs

On Fri, 05 May 2006 15:09:40 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

The big sky theory WILL protect you a lot away from airports.

That notion is absurd. I disagree completely.

It does not seem absurd to me.

Well, I respect your opinion, Todd. But...

I'm reasonably confident that I'm in more danger of a midair near an
airport than far away from one.

Of course, that's true, as is the fact that you are more likely to
experience a MAC at a lower altitude. These facts are a result of the
degree of air traffic congestion encountered. No argument from me.

It strikes me as absurd to think the opposite.

Agreed.

However, it appears that you have failed to discern my issue with
Doug's assertion. It's not that less congested airspace poses less
probability of a MAC; it's the notion that the 'big sky theory' is
able to _protect_ a flight from a MAC. It is the word 'protect' with
which I take issue, not to mention the lack of validity of the 'big
sky theory' in general.

The 'big sky theory' is good at lulling pilots into a FALSE feeling of
security.

I don't see how a feeling of "insecurity" would help any
pilot.

When one is complacent, he is less likely to be vigilant. When his
level of apprehension is raised, the prudent person increases his
attention to the factors producing his insecurity. But you knew that.

I try to manage the risk. Part of doing that is
keeping the best scan going that I can all the time.
However, like other pilots, I have to occasionally look at
charts. I don't do that near airports (or VORs) because I
think it's safer to do that farther away - where the big sky
theory gives my vigilant scan a boost.

I'm not comfortable with your choice of words above. In any event,
there is NO REAL PROTECTION occurring, only a change in PROBABILITY.

Anyone who fails to understand the difference between 'protection' and
'probability' is sure to encounter more problems than the one who does
understand the difference.

Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.

I take it you don't like his choice of the word "protect."
He modified it with the phrase "a lot," which to me shows he
knows it's not a perfect shield.

You are free to infer what you will, of course. But given the
definition of the word protect:

Main Entryrotect
Pronunciationr*-*tekt
Function:transitive verb
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover more at PRO-,
THATCH
Date:15th century

1 : to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction :
GUARD
2 : to maintain the status or integrity of especially through
financial or legal guarantees: as a : to save from contingent
financial loss b : to foster or shield from infringement or
restriction *salesmen with protected territories*; specifically
: to restrict competition for (as domestic industries) by means of
tariffs or trade controls
synonyms see DEFEND
–protective \-*tek-tiv\ adjective
–protectively adverb
–protectiveness noun

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. Do you
disagree?

If that is what Doug had written, I would not have found his assertion
absurd. However, that is your inference, not what Doug wrote.

It's just the odds. The density of airplanes is a LOT smaller in areas
not near airports, airways, and VOR intersections. There is maybe one
or two midairs a YEAR not near an airport (if that). I don't have the
exact stastistics. But it is small. Near an airport, yes, there are
more collilsions. But unfortunately (and I am NOT knocking them, I wish
I had one), the devices that warn you against collision, although they
work near airports, there are SO MANY planes nearby, you pretty much
have to ignore it and use traditional techniques.