What are people's views on this? (PCAS)

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

Originally Posted by Deano777

I can't see that CFIT arguments can be used when flying VFR unless you inadvertantly enter IMC, (I know it happens) but then you have to question why you are flying in the first place?

Another case would be VFR night flying over a non-flat terrain even with good weather, especially if the area is very sparsely populated.

To get back to the topic, I think the most dangerous phases of flight considering midair collisions are approaches and departures to and from active nontowered airports. In places like this the density of traffic is already pretty high, so even if you had such a device, its usefulness would be quite limited - wouldnt it scream all the time anyway?

[IO540]

I have been developing electronic products for about 30 years; done hundreds of them, hardware and software. But this

is designed as a complement to your lookout, not as a replacement

is really interesting. How does one design a product to do that? Must be a new technique I have missed out on for all those years. Can anyone please elaborate?

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by gasax

There are some really good things out there in terms of improving lookout and actually spotting other traffic.

How do you assess your "improved" lookout? The problem is that you only see the ones that you see. And the vast majority of those, because they're not on a collision course, are easier to see than the one that will actually hit you.

Most of us who use radar services or TCAS are used to the situation that Deano777 describes: a contact that gets frustratingly close that we never actually see. Sighting tests conducted in the US 15 years ago with GA pilots came up with the result that about 50% of potential collisions were never seen, and of the remainder a large proportion were seen too late to take reliable evasive action.

We delude ourselves into thinking that better lookout is the answer. While it undoubtedly has a role to play in managing risk, the fundamental limitations of human perception mean that we should be using all the effective tools we can.

Of course not every electronic gadget is as effective as another, as drauk points out. Azimuthal (relative bearing) information is critical, and is an essential part of TCAS. I'd be interested to see whether the azimuthal information provided by the PRX is truly valuable. My impression of flashy-light boxes is similar to his -- more of a distraction than a help.

[wsmempson]

Crossing the channel yesterday pm via the VFR route through DA036 and approaching 50 deg N, I became aware that Plymouth Military were talking to someone on a reciprocal heading to me who I couldn't see for the life of me. I told Plymouth that I was going to switch my landing light on to give the other chap a chance to see me, and the other pilot did the same and, low and behold, we could both suddenly see each other.

We were surprisingly close and although the vertical seperation would have been fine, neither of us had seen each other because we had both been more or less stationary from one anothers point of view.

At the risk of suggesting that we ape 1970's Volvo drivers, I have a suspicion that the most useful thing we could do as pilots would be to turn our landing lights on...I know they burn out quickly and are relatively pricey, but anything that helps the Mk1 eyeball can only be a good thing.

[IO540]

Very true about lights, and their short life.

There is a solution to this

http://www.speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/b...am_systems.htm

(and others, e.g. Nelson)

Just try to get the CAA/EASA approval to fit this great safety aid to a G-reg

Ok for an N-reg.

[englishal]

What amazes me is the amount of traffic you don't see, which suddenly pops up on the screen, draws your attention to, and then you do see it. I have flown in G1000 aeroplanes with TIS in america, and it is the best thing since sliced bread in my opinion.

You know, if someone came up to me and said "here, buy this GPS unit, it has a built in transmitter and re-transmitts your position for about 10km. It also has a display in and receives all transmission from aeroplanes within 10km and displays them relative to you, and it only costs £500".....I would buy one. I wonder how many other GA aeroplane owners would stump up £500 for a device like this (in our group of 4, it'd only cost us £125 each)....?

The technology is cheap, and very feasable. However, I think there would be real trouble marketing this to 90% of UK GA.......Shame really.....It'd be a good little earner for an electronics firm as well

[scooter boy]

TIS

Englishal, you are absolutely right about the beauty of TIS/TCAS. Sometimes our visual cortex is unable to register the presence of a moving target until it becomes uncomfortably close and this demands our full concentration and creates distraction in the cockpit.

So why don't Eurocontrol or EASA or whoever has the power to do so switch on the TIS so that those of us with mode S equiped aircraft can at least see eachother.
Personally I value my own life far more than the price of a mode S transponder.

SB

[IO540]

So why don't Eurocontrol or EASA or whoever has the power to do so switch on the TIS

I suspect they would need to spend money on some equipment.

Also you would not be able to see it unless you have something the size of a GNS530, or a reasonable MFD, and the group of pilots that have that sort of kit in Europe is very very small, and not very vocal. They go about their flying quietly. A lot of them fly in CAS, under radar control, and then the need is that much less.