Scared of mid-airs

On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:17:02 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
wrote in
::


Larry Dighera wrote:
Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.


Easy enough. As an old environmental biology professor once said to me:
"Dilution is the solution to pollution".

With all due respect, while that may be true for pollution, I don't
believe it is applicable to PROTECTION from a MAC.

What are the chances of another aircraft occupying the exact same airspace
at the exact same time as mine?

What are the chances of the cylinder containing a bullet? The only
way a Russian Roulette participant can be PROTECTED from blowing his
head off is if the cylinder is empty or the safety is on. Neither
analogy is available to airmen; there are always aircraft in the NAS.

That deems the 'big sky theory' irrelevant, in my opinion.

The odds go way up near natural collecting points ...

[Interesting antidotes snipped]

What you describe has nothing to do with PROTECTION and everything to
do with PROBABILITY. Thanks for the effort.

My point is, that there is no PROTECTION; if there were, there
wouldn't be any MACs.

And the 'big sky theory' is a fallacy. It's akin to the Tooth Fairy,
Easter Bunny, imaginary friends, ... Those who rely upon the 'big sky
theory to PROTECT them from a MAC are playing Russian Roulette.

-------------------

To further constrain the discussion of 'big sky theory,' here's a
definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_sky_theory

In aviation, the Big Sky Theory is that two randomly flying bodies
will likely never collide, as the three dimensional space is so
large relative to the bodies. Certain aviation safety rules are
based on this concept. It does not apply (or applies less) when
aircraft are flying along specific narrow routes, such as an
airport traffic pattern.

So the BST seems to have everything to do with probability, but very
little to do with protecting, guaranteeing, or indemnifying against a
MAC.

Additionally, the BST is flawed in that (as defined) it fails to
consider more than two aircraft in the air simultaneously.

Larry Dighera wrote:
[Interesting antidotes snipped]


"Antidotes"? Well, I am a nurse. G


What you describe has nothing to do with PROTECTION and everything to
do with PROBABILITY. Thanks for the effort.

My point is, that there is no PROTECTION; if there were, there
wouldn't be any MACs.


Then it would be best for you to stay on the ground. Probability has everything
to do with my actions. I think about the probability of a good or bad outcome
and act accordingly. If I was looking for certainty then I would do nothing.
But I prefer to live a somewhat richer life than that.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

The events in the world have a LOT to do with luck. It is a tough thing
to accept, being taught that we are the captain of our ship, the master
of our soul. But a LOT of what happens to you is due to plain luck. If
there was ONE plane in the sky, then there could be NO MAC's. With MORE
than one plane, the chance of an MAC is now greater than zero. Such is
life...

You odds of being in a head on car collision are most likely much
higher and yet you drive. Be vigilant and live.

Ron Lee

While flying this morning two aircraft were pointed out to me by
direction only. I don't recall hearing an altitude. Never saw
either. After scanning close to my altitude I gave up. A Lear jet
5-8 miles from me was not seen until it was on final. Several days
ago I picked up a Cessna 2-3 miles out 15-30 seconds before ATC
advised me of it. This is in an area of 50 mile plus visibility.

Ron Lee

Doug,

But a LOT of what happens to you is due to plain luck.


"Luck" is nothing but an expression for the probability of something to
happen.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Larry,

Those who rely upon the 'big sky
theory to PROTECT them from a MAC are playing Russian Roulette.


IMHO, your view of risk management is seriously flawed. You are asking
for zero risk, everything else is Russian Roulette, you say. However,
nothing in flying (and life) is 100-percent-risk free - there's never a
probability of zero for something undesirable to happen. The only way
to manage this risk is to look at the probability of something
happening and then decide if that probability is low enough for you to
live with it. And I guess we can all agree that there are many much
higher risks in GA flying than MACs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 07 May 2006 17:27:45 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
::

Larry,

Those who rely upon the 'big sky
theory to PROTECT them from a MAC are playing Russian Roulette.


IMHO, your view of risk management is seriously flawed.

If that were my view, I'd agree with you.

But if you had read Doug's article to which I had originally taken
exception, you'd know that it was his fallacious use of the word
'protect' that I was attempting to expose as implying the Big Sky
Theory had some ability to indemnify or guarantee any exposure to a
MAC.