Scanning vrs electronics

[WAVEGURU]

I do not have any anti collision devices in my sailplanes so I scan and scan and scan. Our airspace is complicated, so I do intend to get at least a transponder. In all my scanning, I almost never see a target in the 4 o-clock, or even 3 0-clock position as hard as I try. I don't see them until they are crossing right in front of me. The need for electronic help is definitely there, but I hesitate to get something now, not knowing what will be required in the near future.

Boggs

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:56:44 AM UTC-5, Waveguru wrote:
> I do not have any anti collision devices in my sailplanes so I scan and scan and scan. Our airspace is complicated, so I do intend to get at least a transponder. In all my scanning, I almost never see a target in the 4 o-clock, or even 3 0-clock position as hard as I try. I don't see them until they are crossing right in front of me. The need for electronic help is definitely there, but I hesitate to get something now, not knowing what will be required in the near future.
>
> Boggs

Having spent many years soaring out of Turf, I know exactly what you mean - it can get REALLY busy around there. I would suggest trying a PowerFLARM portable (you can probably rent one somewhere) and see if it helps.

Funny about all the people who subscribe to "see-and-avoid" as the cure-all to avoiding midairs. In the most demanding, lethal environment (WW2 air-to-air combat), it's an axiom that almost all pilots who got shot down never saw their attacker. And this in planes with bubble canopies designed for visibility, young eyes, training, and lots of motivation to see the guy about to shoot you! See-and-avoid didn't work particularly well there - it took lots of training and multi-ship formations covering each other's blind spots to cut down the unobserved kills. And even then, by 1944 or so US fighters were being equipped with a simple tail-warning radar (google AN/APS-13 - the Flarm of the day!).


Yes, flarm is just a tool, not a cure all. So is a transponder, or a parachute, or a hi-viz paintjob, or strobes. Or even listening to the radio. They are all part of the toolkit needed to fly safely as long as there is more than one plane in the air at one time.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[BobW]

The post excerpted below is fair and accurate, so far as my reading and
experience lead me to believe - still, it perhaps deserves some additional
context, which I'll try and provide a part of below...

<Snip...>

> In the most demanding, lethal environment (WW2
> air-to-air combat), it's an axiom that almost all pilots who got shot down
> never saw their attacker. And this in planes with bubble canopies designed
> for visibility, young eyes, training, and lots of motivation to see the guy
> about to shoot you! See-and-avoid didn't work particularly well there - it
> took lots of training and multi-ship formations covering each other's blind
> spots to cut down the unobserved kills. And even then, by 1944 or so US
> fighters were being equipped with a simple tail-warning radar (google
> AN/APS-13 - the Flarm of the day!).
>
>
> Yes, flarm is just a tool, not a cure all. So is a transponder, or a
> parachute, or a hi-viz paintjob, or strobes. Or even listening to the
> radio. They are all part of the toolkit needed to fly safely as long as
> there is more than one plane in the air at one time.

1) The WW-II air-to-air kill "visual context" also applied to WW-I.

1a) It should be pointed out that while most informed observers from those
times (i.e. surviving combat fighter pilots!) agreed that many/most of their
kills were of pilots who never saw death approaching, in most cases the
victors also strove to not be seen! (Consider this the "4 O'clock fast twin
approaching Joe Scanning Glider pilot" scenario.)

2) I'm in complete agreement with the philosophy of the 2nd paragraph above,
except that I might re-write (for nuance's sake) the ending sentence to be:
They are all part of the toolkit needed to fly [increasingly, theoretically]
safely [from a mid-air collision perspective] as long as there is more than
one plane in the air at one time.

I think what Dan N. (and others, me included) wish to convey consists of an
admixture of ideas, including: a) there are no panaceas at all protecting Joe
(Glider) Pilot from mid-airs; b) self-preservation arguably should be based
primarily/fundamentally upon a good scan and "general pilot-centric
situational awareness," with electronics (voluntary or mandated) being
considered supplemental; c) "all those other electronic gee-whizzy-doodads"
serve useful (varying, supplemental) purposes but - arguably, except for
certain very-limited situations (e.g. near concentrated "heavy
iron"/commercial traffic locales) - ought *NOT* to be mandated by governmental
minions (if Joe Sport Pilot wishes to reasonably maintain healthy optimism for
the future of sport aviation in this country); d) there is-no/can-never-be-any
such thing as "absolute safety" to be found in the sky. No form of electronic
whizbang envisioned/available today can hope to provide such, nor should sport
pilots even be leaning in the direction of hoping that
"universally-accepted-to-be-perfect" safety *can* happen (unless you happen to
be in favor of a never-ending slippery slope of increasing costs for
ever-decreasing marginal additional utility).

In short, safety is a relative concept. If you find the idea of (say) Flarm
worthy, by all means, get it, but don't be trying to force your idea of
"relative safety" on the rest of the piloting community. (And, yes, I
recognize Flarm's efficacy depends to some extent upon "universal acceptance"
so please don't trot out that particular "justification" for mandating it.
Heavens! Even the [by nature, hugely risk averse] FAA still recognizes the
existence [and legality] of powerplanes without electrical systems.)

Bob - OK with risk, both as a pilot and airline traveler - W.

[[email protected]]

Thanks BobW nicely spoken. My sentiments exactly.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 10:56:44 AM UTC-6, Waveguru wrote:
> I do not have any anti collision devices in my sailplanes so I scan and scan and scan. Our airspace is complicated, so I do intend to get at least a transponder. In all my scanning, I almost never see a target in the 4 o-clock, or even 3 0-clock position as hard as I try. I don't see them until they are crossing right in front of me. The need for electronic help is definitely there, but I hesitate to get something now, not knowing what will be required in the near future.
>
> Boggs

My response addresses only this one line (by Boggs), "but I hesitate to get something now, not knowing what will be required in the near future."

By getting something now, you improve the chances of being around to find out about the future.

Raul Boerner

[WAVEGURU]

> By getting something now, you improve the chances of being around to find out about the future.

But do I want to spend thousands to increase the chance from 99.9997 to 99.9998?

Boggs

[JS]

That's pretty obvious, Gary. NO.
Using the same logic, most Annual inspections could be thought of as the most expensive few drops of LPS1 on Earth.
Jim


On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 9:26:13 AM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
> > By getting something now, you improve the chances of being around to find out about the future.
>
> But do I want to spend thousands to increase the chance from 99.9997 to 99.9998?
>
> Boggs

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:56:44 PM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:
> I do not have any anti collision devices in my sailplanes so I scan and scan and scan. Our airspace is complicated, so I do intend to get at least a transponder. In all my scanning, I almost never see a target in the 4 o-clock, or even 3 0-clock position as hard as I try. I don't see them until they are crossing right in front of me. The need for electronic help is definitely there, but I hesitate to get something now, not knowing what will be required in the near future.
>
> Boggs

Get Trig T22 and PowerFlarm and you will be ready for anything.