If all midair collisions were eliminated...

writes:

Translation YOU DON"T FLY IN THE REAL WORLD. Try flying at KMBO with
4 school planes in the pattern as well as NORDO CAF planes working the
pattern.

I've flown at other airports that were quite busy, but not with NORDO aircraft
about. Because it is so difficult to remain aware of traffic with NORDO
aircraft in the vicinity, I tend to avoid places where I might have a good
chance of encountering such aircraft. Staying withing Class A, B, C, or D
airspace helps.

You DON"T FLY IFR. YOU SIMULATE FLYING IFR in MSFS.

In both simulation and real life, if you are flying in IMC, you generally
cannot see other traffic.

What part do you not understand. YOU DON"T HEAR NORDO traffic.

You listen to the radio to keep track of aircraft that are using the radio.
The fact that NORDO traffic may be nearby does not mean that you stop using
the radio.

ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. HOW DO YOU PREVENT A MID AIR in that
situation. YOUR RADIO IS USELESS. and YOU CAN"T be situationally
aware on something you didn't see or hear!!!

You do the best you can. Keep your eyes open, your head on a swivel, and
listen carefully to the radio. Fly in a way that others will be able to
predict, and try to anticipate what other people may do. This will not prevent
a midair collision, but it will reduce the risk.

What method(s) do you suggest?

On Feb 11, 2:09*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Fly in a way that others will be able to
predict,

I DO. My videos support what I say.

and try to anticipate what other people may do.

YOU CANT ANTICIPATE SOMETHING YOU DON"T SEE OR HEAR.

This will not prevent
a midair collision, but it will reduce the risk.

CANT REDUCE THE RISK OF SOMETHING YOU DON"T SEE OR HEAR.

What method(s) do you suggest?

NONE, you can't prevent mid air accidents when you don't see or hear
the other airplane to avoid them in the first place.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 11:15 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Jim,

Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in
an occurance?

For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3
accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality
rate based on takeoffs. (97 percent safety rating)

Second example, if you had 100 planes and 1 accident that had 9 people
in the plane, you would have a 1 percent fatality rate based on
takeoffs. (99 percent safety rating)

I am not sure what the survival rate in a mid air is but to assume
everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you
had survivors in any of your cites.

-------------begin new post---------------

I don't recall the cite, but have read that a very high percentage of mid
air collisions are actually fender benders. It is not at all unusual for
both of the accident aircraft to land safely.

Peter

Peter,

You bring out a good point that I didn't even consider. I just
figured the worst case scenario

So, if this is the case, then pretty good chance his 99 percent of GA
fatal accidents sans mid air would be right?

--------------begin new post----------------

He could very well be right. Actually, a high percentage of all GA
accidents don't involve deaths or injuries.

Peter

writes:

NONE, you can't prevent mid air accidents when you don't see or hear
the other airplane to avoid them in the first place.

The fact that you cannot definitely prevent such accidents doesn't mean that
you should not continue to keep your eyes and ears open.

On Feb 11, 3:09*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The fact that you cannot definitely prevent such accidents doesn't mean that
you should not continue to keep your eyes and ears open.

I never said you shouldn't keep your eyes and ears open.

But SOME accidents ARE NOT preventable as I just demonstrated to you
in a see and avoid environment like the pattern of an uncontrolled
airport.

Pushing arrows on a keyboard to look left and right is not the same as
having your head on a swivel dodging metal AND flying an airplane.

Until you exit the world of MSFS and enter the real world of flying,
you will never understand this.

I have been (and still) in both worlds (MSF SIMULATION and real world
flying) so I talk from experience.

Enuf said.

writes:

I never said you shouldn't keep your eyes and ears open.

But SOME accidents ARE NOT preventable as I just demonstrated to you
in a see and avoid environment like the pattern of an uncontrolled
airport.

Okay. So what is your point? The best practices are the same whether the
accidents are absolutely avoidable or not.

On Feb 11, 3:52*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
I never said you shouldn't keep your eyes and ears open.

But SOME accidents ARE NOT preventable as I just demonstrated to you
in a see and avoid environment like the pattern of an uncontrolled
airport.

Okay. So what is your point?

My point is you cannot eliminate mid air collisions no matter what
training is given that you insist will eliminate mid airs. .My point
is we don't live in a sheltered world of MSFS, human factor will
contribute to UNAVOIDABLE collisions or errors in flying an
airplane.

The best practices are the same whether the
accidents are absolutely avoidable or not.

Yes, which we have currently in place and works remarkably well
considering all the variety of equipped airplanes we have around
airports like KMBO.

But you don't know this since you sit behind a desktop simulator USING
TCAS that most of us don't have.

Could there be a better process to improve safety, possibly and
probably, but I don't have that answer.

I DO KNOW THAT WHAT WE HAVE works very well in the REAL WORLD for 10
years for me and I am closing in on 1000 flight hours. Could
something happen tomorrow? Absolutely, but odds are in my favor of
something NOT happening.

"Peter Dohm" wrote:
I don't recall the cite, but have read that a very high percentage of
mid air collisions are actually fender benders. It is not at all
unusual for both of the accident aircraft to land safely.

Per my other recent post, very roughly half of all midairs could be
considered non-fatal fender-benders. I presume ~100% of all midairs are
harrowing to survivors of the initial impact, with about half the accident
participants living to tell the tale.

He could very well be right. Actually, a high percentage of all GA
accidents don't involve deaths or injuries.

Out of 1431 reported fixed wing GA accidents, 296 yielded fatalities, for a
~21% fatal rate and of course ~79% nonfatal. On the other hand, the number
of permanent injuries is unknown and those definitely have an impact on
remaining quality of life and lost earnings potential. So more than 21% of
the accidents would be considered by the victims and their relatives to be
classified as life-changing in a negative way.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:59:13 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
justification for eliminating midair collisions?

If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
resources.

The restrictions on flying that an effort to completely eliminate
midairs would mean that pretty much everybody stays on the ground.


--
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Dana wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:59:13 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be
alive, based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a
sufficient justification for eliminating midair collisions?

If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
resources.

Thank you.

I had originally included that very assessment in my original post but
decided to remove it to allow the statistics to "speak for themselves."

More opinion:
In fact, a review of the Nall Report statistics indicates that a large
majority of fatal fixed wing GA accidents could be categorized as due to
fundamental "improper use of flight controls." I.e. inadequate or rusty
flight skill (or one-time fatal mistakes of otherwise experienced pilots.)
Furthermore, since those causes appear to have dropped to a plateau below
which they appear not to be improving, and considering the high cost of
maintaining and improving those skills, the way I see it the following are
probably true:

1) Improvement in skill level of GA pilots is unlikely to improve in the
future in any cost-effective way. It seems reasonable to assume that the
pilot population already practices its skills as much as it can now afford.
Further improvements in piloting can probably only be made if GA becomes
more "elite" by raising the skill level required. (Though this winnowing of
the pilot population would run contrary to efforts to "Grow GA".)

2) If the GA pilot population is to improve its safety record or to grow in
number without compromising its existing safety record, then given what is
known of the current pilot population capabilities, the current design of
fixed wing aircraft controls must be changed in some fundamental ways.

For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
regimes. The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
in the accident rate. On the other hand the cost aspect is unknown.