by
Darryl Phillips
Peter Bradt wrote a letter criticizing a previous THE OTHER WING column on collision avoidance equipment (GAN&F, Dec 1992). His letter was published in the First February issue. I'm taking this opportunity to reply.
Dear Peter,
Thank you for writing, while the tone was rather anti-Darryl, the sentiments are right on target. You and I have little disagreement, believe it or not.
I too believe in keeping the head on a swivel. Although I make my living in Avionics, when I go flying it's for enjoyment and often I don't even use the black boxes. Going to Oshkosh, Sun'n Fun, and such trips I sometimes don't turn on the VOR or Loran, just keep a thumb on the sectional. Why? Because to me, it's more fun. I admit it was easier when watertowers said Podunk or Centerville, not Tigers or Rams! Times do change.
You are obviously an experienced pilot, and we both know that legal requirements have little relationship to the real world. I scud run when I feel it's appropriate. On the other hand there are conditions where I refuse to fly, even though legal, because I don't like what's out there. It's my body, and it's my airplane, they don't belong to the lawyers.
True, the pilot shouldn't run into anything and shouldn't let anything run into him. It's easy to say it, not always so easy to do it. Suppose our streets had no stop signs, and we simply made a rule that no driver should ever hit another car. I'm sure you are a careful driver, just as you're a careful pilot. But if nobody had to stop at the intersections, don't you think your safe driving would be threatened? My point is that we need more than good intentions and a swivel neck.
I have taillights on my car, even though I can't see them. I run position lights on my plane at night, although they don't do a bit of good spotting other traffic. We have these things because See and Be Seen includes BE SEEN. Likewise in Mode T, if a black box transmits my 3D position automatically once per second, other aircraft can SEE me. In any direction, in any visibility.
The FAR requiring See and Avoid is like all the other FARs, there are times when it is reasonable, and times when it's a joke. It is not humanly possible to look throughout the 360 degree sphere. Many midairs involve a low-wing aircraft descending into a high-wing. Or a slower plane is overtaken from below and behind. You can't always see these guys coming. Even in a helicopter with a bubble canopy, there is a fair part of the sphere that couldn't be seen if the pilot had the neck of an owl. And most of us don't. The typical lightplane has only a fraction of the glass of the copter, and airliners (as viewed from the perspective of the crew) have much less that that. A typical example of the gap between theory and the real world.
And all this assumes clear air, no glare from the sun, et cetera. It also assumes that in poor visibility we should give up and fly IFR. Our world is moving ever closer to eliminating VFR completely, an idea I don't relish. After that, single-pilot operations will be eliminated, then single engine, then.......
If we are to turn things around, we have to come up with a way to extend the concept you are defending, the idea of See and Avoid. Extended up, and down, and behind, and all the other places where there isn't a window. Extended, not just in three dimensions, but also in time. Aircraft are moving at speeds undreamed of when See and Avoid began. We need to see traffic sooner than the human eye permits. And we need to see through cloud as well. I agree completely with you, the responsibility is (and should be) with the pilot. I want to keep it there. But in the real world, we can't beat something with nothing. It is difficult to argue against safety, and when Big Brother makes another requirement that promotes "safety", we can't just stand there and shake our heads. General Aviation has been doing that for the 30 years I've been flying, and we've lost airspace and privileges in each of those years. It adds up.
So, to turn things around, we have to fight something with something better. And that is the beginning of Mode T. The point of the column was that collision avoidance requires each aircraft to look for other aircraft, and not rely on Air Traffic Control. The ATC equipment (transponders, radar) and ATC procedures (flight following, IFR, whatever) do not point the way to collision avoidance. We need to do it ourselves.
The world changes, whether we like it or not. Airliners have tiny windshields, and they often have crews who believe (rightly or wrongly) that ATC will always keep little airplanes out of their way. Mid-air collisions make bad press for general aviation, never mind who hit whom. Congressmen ride airliners home every weekend, they know where their interests lie.
Sooner or later there will be another mid-air like the tragedy at Cerritos. We almost lost general aviation that time, if a plane goes down with a Johnny Carson or a Madonna or some football hero aboard, we can kiss private flying goodbye forever.
Beginning with the ELT, most new equipment requirements haven't come from FAA, they have been mandated by Congress. If it is ready when the next disaster happens, perhaps we can sell Congress on Mode T rather than on destroying aviation. Maybe. At least Congressmen have another election looming, civil service employees never do.
I just finished reading a book by Fred DeLacerda, an aerobatics pilot and instructor of some renown. The title is SEE AND AVOID. The book delves deeply into the human factors involved in accidents that should have been Seen and Avoided. (Fred has a Ph.D. in human factors.) The book contains a lot about the human eye, how focus is affected when one eye can (or should) see the traffic but the other is blocked by a post or whatever. Drawings of specific aircraft windows, from the perspective of the pilot and co-pilot, showing the position of the traffic in 15-second steps for the two minutes prior to the actual mid-air. He dissects accidents from NTSB reports, and also from the viewpoint of common sense. Excellent reading, every pilot would benefit from this information. He is not suggesting an electronic solution at all, he makes persuasive arguments for proper pattern entry and standardized procedures.
SEE AND AVOID is a good book. But when you read it you realize that real live human people simply cannot see everything. FAR or no FAR, it just isn't possible. (SEE AND AVOID is available for $8.00 from Fred DeLacerda, Box 1963, Stillwater OK 74076.)
So we're left betwixt and between. On the one hand, flight rules left over from a time long past. On the other, a bureaucracy bent on controlling our every move from the instant we walk through the security gate. If we are to preserve our freedom to fly, we'd better come up with something better than looking out the window once in a while.