 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / Homebuilt / March 2010If all midair collisions were eliminated...
If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities would still happen. From Nall Report analysis of U.S. NTSB records: Total fixed wing GA fatalities: 2002: 518 2003: 555 2004: 510 2005: 491 2006: 488 Total: 2562 Fatalities due to midair collision: 2002: 5 2003: 7 2004: 6 2005: 5 2006: 4 Total: 27 http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities > would still happen. 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? Is there are threshold of deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified? What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets the loss of life that they entail? >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities >> would still happen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets > the loss of life that they entail? Oh man... Excuse me for biting a troll, guys. mx? Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair? The ONLY way I can see is to ground everybody. That'd work!  SignatureRichard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour... Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will. Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still." > Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair? Training, standardization, caution, discipline, and other techniques can greatly reduce the incidence of midair collisions. >> Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair? > > Training, standardization, caution, discipline, and other techniques can > greatly reduce the incidence of midair collisions. Well, if you have been following the other posts in this thread you'd understand that they already ARE doing just that. SignatureRichard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour... Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will. Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still." > Well, if you have been following the other posts in this thread > you'd understand that they already ARE doing just that. Yes. Who said otherwise? > >> Exactly HOW do you think you can prevent ANY midair? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will. > Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still." Not only doing it but have done it down to the point of not only _diminishing_ returns but almost zero additional benefit. Harry K > > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities > > would still happen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets > the loss of life that they entail? Where exactly in his post did he suggest we should be satisfied with low numbers of fatalities due to mid-air collisions? I find that information extremely interesting and I'm glad he posted it. Thanks Jim! I also find this interesting. I wonder if the ratio of 100/1 would be the same if one only considered glider-involved accidents. My guess is we have a disproportionate number of mid-airs. Any way to check? Matt > I also find this interesting. I wonder if the ratio of 100/1 would be > the same if one only considered glider-involved accidents. My guess > is we have a disproportionate number of mid-airs. Any way to check? > > Matt Matt You can do the research... http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx You can select on Injury Severity and Category (Glider, etc.). Play with trying "collision" etc. in the event details box (but obviously you need to check the results/misses). Darryl > You can do the research... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Darryl According to my hand count of accidents in the database, over the past 10 years there have been 60 fatal glider accidents in the US with 68 total fatalities. Three of the accidents and 9 of the fatalities were due to mid-air collisions, so the numbers are higher for gliders - 5% of the accidents and 15% of the fatalities. Still, you are 20 times more likely to die in a single glider crash than a midair - if that is any consolation. It is worthwhile looking at the reports as a reminder for extra care in certain areas. Lots of accidents were on approach (maybe half), either coming up short or a stall/spin turning base or final. The next biggest cause was collision with terrain during flight (not always possible to determine controlled versus uncontrolled). Next came loss of control/structural failure in flight. There were also a number of cases of assembly errors, control problems on takeoff and several where pilot incapacitation was suspected. The rank ordering of causes is my rough impression. Unfortunately, too many on the list were friends or people I'd met along the way. Too many. Fly safe. 9B >I also find this interesting. I wonder if the ratio of 100/1 would be > the same if one only considered glider-involved accidents. My guess > is we have a disproportionate number of mid-airs. Any way to check? > > Matt Whereas I don't see any position in this thread that is inherently better or worse to place this comment, I have chosen this one on the basis that no trimming is necessary or usefull. I really see 2 points that need to be made: 1) Any time that a major factor is eliminated from a statistic, the proportions will increase for the previously minor factors. Simply by talking about glider operations, we have eliminated either all or most cases of fuel eshaustion/mismanagement, crashes during instrument approaches, collisions with approach light supports, and a lot of other causes when aircraft are used for training and/or transportation. 2) Any life lost is NOT 1 too many! In the United States alone, about 4 million people have to die--simply due to the statistics of human lifespans. The remark that 27 people would still be alive is simply an assertion that it is somehow better to die by wasting away in a hospital or hospice than in the course of doing something productive, entertaining, or even (horrors) courageous. We should and do try to perform as safely as is prcatical in our work, our play, and even in our wars. But we most certainly do not need to justify our actions to anyone who chooses to experience only simulaton and then chooses to criticize those who take real action. There are only 2 reasonable courses of action in dealing with such trolls: ignore them or push back HARD! Peter > We should and do try to perform as safely as is prcatical in our work, our > play, and even in our wars. But we most certainly do not need to justify [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are only 2 reasonable courses of action in dealing with such trolls: > ignore them or push back HARD! Peter; While I agree, most whole-heartably with your well thought out and written post, I disagree with your last 4 words. Past experience with this particular troll is that he is a somewhat rare species. Not human, if you get my drift. Pushing hard is not effective, up until you push hard enough to make him physically unable to operate a computer. That leaves ONLY ignoring. Everyone read that again. Here, I'll make it easy for you: That leaves only ignoring. It is the only logical and effective solution to this problem. SignatureJim in NC >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities >> would still happen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets > the loss of life that they entail? If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile? We have apparently decided NOT. Brian W > If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps > 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile? > > We have apparently decided NOT. Keywords in your sentences are 'perhaps' and 'apparently'. You might even claim all roadkills would be saved if US road speed were to reduced to zero. In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited, in neighbouring Belgium the max speed is 120 kph. However in Germany there are less than half as many killed per 1000 km of highway than in Belgium. Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does. Tom De Moor >> If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps >> 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does. Infrastructure? Maybe 5% tops. Try Inattention and intoxication first. Matt > > Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does. > > Infrastructure? Maybe 5% tops. > > Try Inattention and intoxication first. Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer. http://www.katchuptv.com/?video=4781 The video shows what happens if a driver gets knocked inconscious at 250 kph. Tom De Moor Speed differential is what kills. hit a wall that is stationary when you are doing the speed limit and its going to hurt. hit granny who is doing 40 mph in a 60 while you're doing the speed limit and it will hurt, but not as bad as the wall. > Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer. Infrastructure cannot compensate for driver incompetence or impairment. > > Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer. > > Infrastructure cannot compensate for driver incompetence or impairment. Then you live not in a technical world. http://boingboing.net/2010/01/14/crash-test-1959-chev.html Tom De Moor > Then you live not in a technical world. True. I live in the real world. > > Then you live not in a technical world. > > True. I live in the real world. So you claim. Two video-links were given: Massa's knock-out-crash at 250 kph and another showing evolution in infrastructure over a 50 years period. The last one is a middle-finger-up-statement to those stating speed is dangerous: on impact both cars were at the exact same 30 MPH. Your 'real world'-idea seems so strong that there is room for doubt nor improvement. One parameter to rule them all. Never imagined the real world so... simple , so dull. I could never survive in your real, one-dimensional world, even less make a living there. You are quite lucky. Tom De Moor > > Then you live not in a technical world. > > True. I live in the real world. No you don't. Do you turn your head to look out the SIDE window on MSFS. Answer NO. In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane COULD fill up your windscreen. Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation? > Do you turn your head to look out the SIDE window on > MSFS. Yes, if I need to watch for traffic. > In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window > to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane > COULD fill up your windscreen. Highly unlikely if your situational awareness is good. > Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation? See above. > Yes, if I need to watch for traffic. You have a monitor at your 9 and 3 oclock to turn your head to look out the window?? Post a picture of your MSFS setup or you just spewing your typical bull again. Using arrow keys to turn the view of MSFS is NOT turning your head. Digital cameras are cheap and plenty of free picture hosting sites. You have a website, put it on your website. > > In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window > > to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane > > COULD fill up your windscreen. > > Highly unlikely if your situational awareness is good. WRONG. Did you read the NORDO part. I don't hear him talking on the radio, how can I be situationally aware? Oh, I forgot, you don't have NORDO traffic on MSFS. > > Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation? > > See above. See above. > You have a monitor at your 9 and 3 oclock to turn your head to look > out the window?? No, I have a control that lets me swing the view in either direction. I usually only look for traffic when it is pointed out to me or when I see something on TCAS, since sim traffic is very light. And I fly a lot IFR, in which case I can't see traffic, anyway. I do look around more when flying a pattern, just for orientation rather than for traffic. > WRONG. Did you read the NORDO part. I don't hear him talking on the > radio, how can I be situationally aware? Do the best you can. Look for other traffic, and listen to the radio. NORDO traffic nearby makes me very nervous. > Oh, I forgot, you don't have NORDO traffic on MSFS. You can, but it's rare. Traffic in general tends to be light except at important gatherings. It can get fairly busy at some airports. NORDO is not allowed on the network I prefer, which is an easy way to get around the NORDO issue (I disagree with it, but it's not my network). > atl...@gmail.com writes: > No, I have a control that lets me swing the view in either direction. I > usually only look for traffic when it is pointed out to me or when I see > something on TCAS, since sim traffic is very light. 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. >And I fly a lot IFR, in > which case I can't see traffic, anyway. You DON"T FLY IFR. YOU SIMULATE FLYING IFR in MSFS. > Do the best you can. Look for other traffic, and listen to the radio. What part do you not understand. YOU DON"T HEAR NORDO traffic. Again I ask, please answer the question I ASKED ON MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU. >>In the split second you turn your head to look out the the side window >>to look at the airport environment (I.E wind sock), some NORDO plane >>COULD fill up your windscreen. >>Pray tell, how do you prevent a mid air in that situation? 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!!! > 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? > atl...@gmail.com 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. > 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. > atl...@gmail.com 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. > 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. > atl...@gmail.com writes: > > I never said you shouldn't keep your eyes and ears open. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. > My point is you cannot eliminate mid air collisions no matter what > training is given that you insist will eliminate mid airs. I don't recall insisting that any training would eliminate midair accidents. Training is likely to reduce them, however. > ... human factor will > contribute to UNAVOIDABLE collisions or errors in flying an > airplane. Human beings who become careless or reckless and rationalize it by saying that it's impossible to eliminate accidents, anyway, will surely be involved in new accidents. "Unavoidable" is a strong word. There haven't been many incidents that were truly unavoidable. Just because a human being messes up doesn't mean that the messing up was impossible to avoid. > But you don't know this since you sit behind a desktop simulator USING > TCAS that most of us don't have. One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However, only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and 1000 times cheaper for the sim version). > Could there be a better process to improve safety, possibly and > probably, but I don't have that answer. Safety improvements tend to be incremental, not revolutionary. > ... Snip ... >. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ... Snip ... "... available to anyone with a small aircraft ..."????? I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an electrical system? The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly? Wayne HP-14 "6F" http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F >> ... Snip ... >> . [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > HP-14 "6F" > http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F Trying to hold a logical conversation with mxmanic is futile. If you want a giggle ask him to fly one of his simulations then try the real thing. I assume no one would risk a real airplane on him so a real simulator would suffice. Throw a few emergencies or weather problems at him and watch what happens. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired >>> ... Snip ... >>> . [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Just the thought made my day! :-))))) Peter > I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I > did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS > on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an > electrical system? I don't think battery operation is an option. Besides, the instrument has to be connected to other devices that also require electricity, such as GPS units, VOR receivers, etc., not to mention TCAS hardware itself. > The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the > simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly? It depends on the purpose of the simulation. Some pilots do indeed simulate the exact aircraft that they fly in the real world. But simmers who do not fly are free to choose the aircraft of their choice, and in my case, I have several dozen aircraft to choose from. The Baron has TCAS, and it could also accommodate TCAS in real life, so it's not unrealistic. The Cessna 152 doesn't have much of anything. So I may be generous with the avionics on a few of the aircraft, but it's not unrealistic. An instrument costing $35,000 isn't much on an aircraft that costs well over $1 million new. >> I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I >> did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > aircraft, but it's not unrealistic. An instrument costing $35,000 isn't much > on an aircraft that costs well over $1 million new. In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of the aircraft cockpit. Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures, crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety. If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots. Respectfully, Wayne HP-14 "6F" http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader definition then the term "airplane." > In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of > the aircraft cockpit. An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that feature. The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its purpose. Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage). > Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures, > crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety. Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies? > If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation > related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots. You're entitled to your opinion. > P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader > definition then the term "airplane." Yes, I know, thank you. > > In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of > > the aircraft cockpit. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Yes, I know, thank you. I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring. > I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and > emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring. Frank, We are in agreement on this one for sure!!! Wayne This is my last post on the subject. I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system. If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince you that you were experiencing high Gs. Without flight experience the G suite inflations merely caused discomfort. The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat would increase, palms would sweat, etc. A non-pilot didn't relate the flight conditions with death; therefore, did not experience the same physiological symptoms; therefore, gaining little form the training other then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress. This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing a game with only minor aviation training relevance. Respectfully, Wayne, USN Retired. >> In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of >> the aircraft cockpit. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Yes, I know, thank you. > I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit > simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of > the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system. That depends on what you're simulating, as I've said. And desktop simulators offer unmatched value for the price. A $35 million simulator would probably offer a better experience than a desktop simulator in most ways, but it costs $34,999,960 more than the desktop simulator--so it had _better_ provide a vastly superior experience. > If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one > or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince > you that you were experiencing high Gs. Certainly some simulators can simulate this (thanks especially to various defects in human perception). I wouldn't want to simulate that, however; I like placid, ordinary flight. I've never had any interest in aerobatics or extreme maneuvers. > The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated > weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually > caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress. That would depend on the "pilot." Profiting from simulation requires that one take it seriously, whether it be on a desktop or in a multimillion-dollar full-motion simulator. People who constantly dismiss simulation as unrealistic tend not to profit from simulation. Chess is just a very abstract simulation of combat, and yet some chess players react strongly and physiologically to the evolution of a game. > This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing > a game with only minor aviation training relevance. You're entitled to your opinion. <snip> >That depends on what you're simulating, as I've said. And desktop simulators >offer unmatched value for the price. A $35 million simulator would probably >offer a better experience than a desktop simulator in most ways, but it costs >$34,999,960 more than the desktop simulator--so it had _better_ provide a >vastly superior experience. <Snip> Have you flown anything other than a PC? (being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count) SignatureSurfer! > Have you flown anything other than a PC? I have only piloted simulators. > ... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ... Doesn't count for what? > > Have you flown anything other than a PC? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doesn't count for what? One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight. He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten minutes. > One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight. > He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell > him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick > and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten > minutes. How was his flying? OK.... Last summer.... I took up a 17 yr old that had a LOT of time on MS Sim.... He took about 5 min to get the "feel " of the plane... Then proceeded to NAIL turns to a heading, NO PROBLEM with turns up to 30 degrees bank, had researched the departures we use here, had studied the chart, knew where the training areas were (we have 12) , KNEW where the CYR was, did a couple of stalls (HEY, the yoke shudders JUST LIKE my "force feedback stick!") Kept his head up, looking out, only checking the instruments (did NOT expect that,- frankly, I was prepared for him to have his eyes inside most of the time) Did pretty good on steep turns too , best was 100 ft loss, 4th 360. This was this kids FIRST time in a "real" aircraft. And I was thoroughly impressed..... Our flight school here as an extensive sim dept., (a whole building) It is a vital part of the training. You guys can beat up on MX all you want for what reasons you wish, but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate. Did you know you can get an instructors cert for ground school instructing without ever crawling into an aircraft? And that is where you are dudes, ON THE GROUND TYPING ON YOUR COMPUTERS LIKE I AM NOW. So you guys know "more" about flying than he does? OK... I have never recall him ever contesting that. - But until he and you actually step into a couple of like aircraft and have at it your superior prowness as a pilot will never be demonstrated.... In this venue, (on the ground , on this forum etc.) his comments are measured, ON TOPIC, and accurate a lot of the time. In comparison, _some_ of the posts of others are looking , umm, well, maybe somewhat silly..... ? This has been great entertainment tho! :) Some of these posts are a hoot! Now before you turn the darts toward me, read this again.. 0 insults. 0 personal attacks. 1 "slight" rant only.. Maybe an opinion? Cheers! Dave >> > Have you flown anything other than a PC? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten >minutes. > You guys can beat up on MX all you want for what reasons you wish, > but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate. You have to look at the whole package he brings to the table. He has major psychological problems, and overall is insulting to the very people he seeks to converse with. He will not accept an answer given to him when it does not fit with his view of the world. Asberger's. Look it up. It fits. Again, you can not only look at part of the package he brings, but take it all. You can not take all of what he brings. Too much bad blood. He is not worth it. I don't care how on topic he is, at times. Eventualy, he will turn every conversation upside down, to his view. > And that is where you are dudes, ON THE GROUND TYPING ON YOUR > COMPUTERS LIKE I AM NOW. But he has no desire to EVER go flying. Repeated many times. Too dangerous, but yet he wants to emulate flying. Ever seen his list of aircraft he "owns" in his make-believe world? Way out of touch with reality. How about his logs of his flights, with his make-believe passengers that he sometimes has to wait for. I don't have the links for those documents, but perhaps someone here can provide them. The dude needs serious help. You would agree if you read some of these pages. > So you guys know "more" about flying than he does? OK... I have never > recall him ever contesting that. - But until he and you actually step > into a couple of like aircraft and have at it your superior prowness > as a pilot will never be demonstrated.... Never happen. He has no desire to ever step in an airplane. He has had offers to go flying. Refused. > In this venue, (on the ground , on this forum etc.) his comments are > measured, ON TOPIC, and accurate a lot of the time. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. He is still only a broken clock, that does not deserve the attention he has stolen here. It is time for ignoring. He will go bother someone else, if we do. I guarantee it. Never happen, though. You represent the few who find him entertaining. I seriously doubt your ability to make rational judgments, dude. Either that, or you have not been around long enough to get the full measure of his pile of crap. It has to be one or the other. SignatureJim in NC >You have to look at the whole package he brings to the table. Not really Jim.. I have personally met some people I have met "on line" , and have found them to be (fortunately AND unfortunately) to be very different from their "online" personna. In all cases so far, there was MUCH more to the person when I have met them in person. >But he has no desire to EVER go flying. And thats OK, _ I have a very good friend who will NEVER get in an airplane, unless it is an air ambulance and he has nothing to say about it! :) The >dude needs serious help. Maybe, but he stil posts some pretty rational thoughts, and has started some interesting discussions . >Even a broken clock is right twice per day. He is still only a broken >clock, that does not deserve the attention he has stolen here. Agreed.... but when (he) IS CORRECT..... that should be aknowledged, as it should be with anyone of us...... not blazed away at just because he happened to hit the "send" buttton... >You represent the few who find him entertaining. Ahhh, my bad. I should have been clearer. I don't find MX all that entertaining, but some of the RESPONSES to his post certianly are! I >seriously doubt your ability to make rational judgments, dude. Either that, >or you have not been around long enough to get the full measure of his pile >of crap. It has to be one or the other. It must be my ability...I have only been here since about , oh, 1993..... I guess that depends on if 17 years is "only a newbe" or "that's long enough" :) (Dave hangs head and shufles feet) Dave > OK.... > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten > >minutes.- Hide quoted text - Dave I expressed a similar view of Mxs some years ago, much to my later embarrassment when I found out what a jerk he really was. Of course much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to sound like he actually knows what he is talking about. To get an idea of his modus operandi, have a read of his first 2 posts in the impossible turn thread, namely the first sentence in each, and tell me what you think his motivation for posting is. Terry . >> OK.... >> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > Terry > . Mx has done that in several groups. He gets his jollies being an irritant. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Hi Dan! If thats the case, he sure has learned whose buttons to push and how huh? :) How long have you been retired Dan? Dave Of course >> much of what he says is accurate, because he will read stuff straight >> out of a book and post it here to try and get an argument going, or to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > Hi Dan! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dave Since 1994. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired >> Hi Dan! >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired You have been retired one year longer then I. Wayne, U.S. Navy, retired >>> Hi Dan! >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Wayne, U.S. Navy, retired I was in special operations and played on Navy boats. The ones I played on, Iwo Jima class helicopter assault ships, are all gone. The odd part is the C-130 we had in addition to helicopters were built around the same time as the boats, but are still operational. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired >>>> Hi Dan! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Dan, I served on five aircraft carriers. All have been decommissioned except the USS Enterprise. If you want to see the aircraft I flew (A-3B Skywarrior and A-6A Intruder) you must visit a museum. Wayne A-3B (http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Navy_Photos/VAH-10_A3_On_Cat.jpg) A-6A (http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Navy_Photos/VA-196_Officers_1969.jpg) Hmmmm... OK.. first sentence of his first post referrs to the 27 potential lives saved based on the OP's post.... Second post referrs to the potential of increased training etc. reducing the deaths.. I am OK with that. His motivation? Who really knows? And it does not really matter to me. What is _my_ motivation for even being here? To offer insight, to learn from others? To "stirr the pot"? To offer news? To ask a question? Does anyone out there really care what MY motivaton is? Actually, my motivation varies, - right now, its Sunday AM, cold outside, I worked late last night installing a door, and have some time on my hands, now and for the next 45 minutes. (Sorry, best I can do for this session) :) Does MY motivaton really matter to anybody? .....and I have quoted from books in my posts here as well... to get feedback on the content, or to question the content.... No doubt , some here will question my motivation to defend MX, but I have none other to comment on the entertainment value of the RESPONSES his posts get, and I am not defending him at all. My only comment is that I think that to blast away with multible cannons and machine guns at a gopher just because it popped it's head out of the hole seems a little silly.. (IMHO) Who was that cartoon character anyway... "Yosemitie Sam" ? The one with the big hat, mouth and shotgun that blasted away at anything that moved? Long time ago, I guess my age and immaturity is showing... Buggs Bunny Show ? :) Cheers! D >Dave >I expressed a similar view of Mxs some years ago, much to my later [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Terry >. > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:21:23 -0800 (PST), terry > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think you missed my point Dave. The first sentence of his first post is " I dont understand the point of this story" and I dont have a problem with that, but its asked in a way that makes him sound like an innocent schoolboy wanting to learn something from the experts ( or at least those with some practical knowledge) But then as soon as he gets a response from real pilots, he suddenly becomes the expert and goes into the I know better than you mode. Note first sentence in next post " The point of this presentation is to attract viewers" so how did he suddenly understand? I dont question your motivation to defend Mxs at all , as I have admitted previously I have done the same. He will bite your hand eventually. Terry > OK.... > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > /snip/ I'm with you on this one. Brian W Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment.................. We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment (>100,000 operations /yr) I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking trafffic around us For $1500 ! Dave >> My point is you cannot eliminate mid air collisions no matter what >> training is given that you insist will eliminate mid airs. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Safety improvements tend to be incremental, not revolutionary. Dave schreef: > We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment > (>100,000 operations /yr) > I cannot begin to tell you how useful this tool is in tracking > trafffic around us > For $1500 ! But it will only show planes with certain non-mandatory equipment, if I got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice extra source of info but nothing to really count on? In rec.aviation.piloting jan olieslagers <adelco_gene_zever@skynet.be> wrote: > Dave schreef: >> We have the ZAON XRX on board our Cherokee in a VERY busy environment [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > got it right? Is it not like radio at a non-controlled aerodrome, a nice > extra source of info but nothing to really count on? If by "certain non-mandatory equipment" you mean a mode C transponder, yes. However, there is hardly any place in the US with significant traffic that most people don't have a mode C transponder. The places were there are few transponders tend to be well removed from major urban areas and full of things like gliders, sky divers, ultra lights and such. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment.................. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > For $1500 ! The Sandel ST3400 is a TAWS/RMI display that also includes TCAS capability, with a fancy back-projected LCD display. That's probably why it is so expensive. I suppose TCAS alone is a lot cheaper. I looked at the ZAON XRX on their Web site and it looks like a pretty practical gadget. > > Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment.................. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I looked at the ZAON XRX on their Web site and it looks like a pretty > practical gadget. The Sandel ST3400 is a display for TCAS. The Sandel does not "include TCAS" as seems to be implied here. TCAS I systems start at ~$20k for GA aircraft, not including displays and other critical components, and for TCAS II in a transport category aircraft can go to prices you can buy a nice house. The Zaon MRX and XRX are quire different than TCAS so I'm not sure why this thread was renamed TCAS. They are examples of PCAS (Portable/ Passive Collision Avoidance Systems) systems not TCAS, i.e. to start with they don't actively interrogate transponders, instead relying on listening to replies to interrogations from ground SSR, and airborne TCAD and TCAS systems. TCAD systems (e.g. the L3 Skywatch) do active interrogations but are less sophisticated and capable than TCAS systems, although some of the newer high-end versions of what have traditionally been TCAD systems are meeting TCAS I requirements. Of all these systems only TCAS II issues a resolution advisory (RA) (i.e. instruction to climb/descend to avoid traffic, which override ATC clearances/instructions). PCAS, TCAD and TCAS I and II acronyms are pretty much widely accepted (TCAS I and II have very specific meanings), quite different in technology/capabilities are usually worth carefully differentiating between. To the previous post, I agree that PCAS systems are very useful low cost ways of improving traffic awareness, and I fly with a Zaon MRX (and transponder) in my motorglider. However as with all systems it helps to know of their limitations. For PCAS this starts with (1.) they can only detect Mode C or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft, (2.) that are actively being interrogated by another source (luckily there are usually lots of those interrogators out there). Darryl Hi Darryl! You have described the differences very well.. A full TCAS is simply not in the budget, and the ZAON is serving us well in a very "target rich" environment. We have added pulsing wingtip landing lights, Comet strobes and the ZAON to our Warrior in the our best attempt to avoid conflicts. Our little airport has over 100,000 "operations" /year.. Not unusual to have two circuits in operation on the same rny, with 3 - 4 airplanes in each, with a regional jet and some military flights tossed in for good measure. One nice afternoon 2 wks ago they were launching or receiving an aircraft every 20 seconds or so. They gave us the option of the cross rny , from the intersection, with an alt restriction of 700 ft until clear of the circuit, so we took it and got out of Dodge.. :) The controller was especially sharp, and was coreographing the whole thing very well, and the pilots, mostly students, were right up with him. The ZAON is a great tool to show us where to lok. It has its limitations as a passive device, but for the $$$$$ spent, it is very helpful in our intense traffic situation here... Dave >> > Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment.................. >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >Darryl > > > Just to throw in .02 re your TCAS comment.................. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Darryl And I forgot to mention Mode S TIS (which is not the same as ADS-B TIS- B). Which is SSR derived traffic position sent over Mode S to each TIS capable aircraft. Only available where there is terminal radar with TIS support. Area radar would update too slowly, so it's limited to terminal radar coverage and then only if that terminal radar facility has the extra smarts to do TIS. The TIS ground processor calculates threats to each aircraft and uplinks that to that aircraft over Mode S. Obviously the threat aircraft need to have Mode C or S transponders and be within coverage of that terminal radar. TIS works well if you have the coverage, and its relatively cheap, in many GA panels if you already have an MFD and a Mode S transponder it is often almost "free". Unfortunately the number of terminal facilities in the USA with TIS has reduced since the FAA did not want to pay to keep TIS when they upgraded some terminal radars. With ADS-B taking a very long time to get deployed, I wish they had not done this (and some vendors had proposed relatively low cost TIS ground stations that would have reduced the costs of keeping TIS). Still if you have coverge today, TIS can be a great service. I deliberately did not mention Flarm that is great technology, but mostly for gliders (and towplanes) - and unfortunately did not get to the USA early on when it could have really grown like it has in Europe. And I deliberately did not mention ADS-B, since it is not really here yet, but it is starting, but it is the long-term future in traffic awareness systems, although it does not replace transponders/TCAS II for the most demanding collision avoidance (a common misconception). There are already some interesting low-end systems that combine things like PCAS, Flarm and an ADS-B 1090ES receiver that are just shipping or shipping soon, like the TRX-1090, TRX-2000, PowerFLARM and others. Darryl /snip/ > And I forgot to mention Mode S TIS (which is not the same as ADS-B TIS- > B). Which is SSR derived traffic position sent over Mode S to each TIS [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and be within coverage of that terminal radar. /snip/ > Darryl Which reminds me: I fly out of a civil field in a notch of the zone round a military base - where a digital radar upgrade has recently appeared. I notice that with my mode C active, I seem to be able to hear an interrogation as a click as well as see a visual interrogation flash. These days, I don't get a repetitive once a revolution style interrogation, but rather a string of clicks when I am inbound (i.e a threat to military types which do have squitter) in my headset tuned to the CTAF Brian W > /snip/ > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Brian W The click is most likely your transponder replying to an interrogation and likely just coupling though the avionics power supplies, but it might also be RF coupling. Also just FYI on interrogations, each click you hear is likely not a single interrogation. For an radar/ATCRBS (I just wanted to throw in another acronym) interrogator the beam will hit your transponder with an alternating pattern of Mode A and Mode C interrogations at ~few hundred Hz as the beam sweeps over your aircraft. The exact number and pattern depends on the type of radar/ATCRBS system. There is also a remote possibility that what you hear if it is synchronous with a radar antenna rotation (not this case it seems) is RF interference picked up from the high-power primary radar beam. Which is much more powerful than the ATCRBS/transponder interrogator and usually on a quite different frequency than the 1030MHz interrogator - usually a few GHz and up. The 1030Mhz interrogator beam is such low power it's not going to cause interference directly, only by triggering your transponder to fire. If you are hearing clicking of order once per second or so then it is possibly TCAS (and/or TCAD) related. These do a clever Mode C interrogation sequence (the "Whisper-Shout" sequence) at about 1 Hz. Each TCAS equipped aircraft close enough will hit you independently with interrogations each at about 1Hz (and technically each interrogation may fire rapidly several times but you would only hear one click). Another possibility if this is only correlated to changes in military ground infrastructure is that the higher frequency interrogations not correlated with a radar rotation could be from ground based Mode C interrogators that are part of a multilateration (MLAT) systems for surface or airborne tracking. Maybe that got deployed with the new radar (or maybe the new "digital radar" is an MLAT system). And all of these interrogations help paint the position of transponder equipped aircraft for those passive PCAS systems. Darryl >> Which reminds me: I fly out of a civil field in a notch of the zone >> round a military base - where a digital radar upgrade has recently [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and likely just coupling though the avionics power supplies, but it > might also be RF coupling. When I had a Terra transponder and a Narco Escort II in my Fly Baby, I got similar click. The click actually distorted the audio on the radio, making it difficult to understand received transmissions. It was an RF coupling. The Escort's wiring harness connected to an edge connector that poked through the metal case of the radio, with a ~1/8" gap around the connector. The noise went away when I wrapped the whole back end of the radio with aluminum foil. Ron Wanttaja > .... the noise went away when I wrapped the whole >back end of the radio with aluminum foil. A significant change in the "Reynold's" number ?? <grin> >> .... the noise went away when I wrapped the whole >> back end of the radio with aluminum foil. > > A significant change in the "Reynold's" number ?? <grin> Curse, foiled again. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired >>> .... the noise went away when I wrapped the whole >>> back end of the radio with aluminum foil. >> >> A significant change in the "Reynold's" number ?? <grin> >> > Curse, foiled again. And thats a wrap! >>> Which reminds me: I fly out of a civil field in a notch of the zone >>> round a military base - where a digital radar upgrade has recently [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> and likely just coupling though the avionics power supplies, but it >> might also be RF coupling. =-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-= :0) All the more reason to safeguard your head from "RF COUPLING". You can thank Julian Huxley (1927) and Wikipedia for the following: A tin foil hat is a piece of headgear made from one or more sheets of aluminium foil or similar material. Alternatively it may be a conventional hat lined with foil. Some people[who?] wear the hats in the belief that they act to shield the brain from such influences as electromagnetic fields, or against mind control and/or mind reading; they also serve to attempt to limit the transmission of voices directly into the brain. Scientific basis The notion that a tin foil hat can significantly reduce the intensity of incident radio frequency radiation on the wearer's brain has some scientific validity, as the effect of strong radio waves has been documented for quite some time.[2] A well-constructed tin foil enclosure would approximate a Faraday cage, reducing the amount of (typically harmless) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation inside. A common high school physics demonstration involves placing an AM radio on tin foil, and then covering the radio with a metal bucket. This leads to a noticeable reduction in signal strength. The efficiency of such an enclosure in blocking such radiation depends on the thickness of the tin foil, as dictated by the skin depth, the distance the radiation can propagate in a particular non-ideal conductor. For half-millimetre-thick tin foil, radiation above about 20 kHz (i.e., including both AM and FM bands) would be partially blocked, although tin foil is not sold in this thickness, and numerous layers of tin foil would be required to sustain this effect > All the more reason to safeguard your head from "RF COUPLING". > > You can thank Julian Huxley (1927) and Wikipedia for the following: > > A tin foil hat is a piece of headgear made from one or more sheets of > aluminium foil or similar material. So that has been your problem all along? You have not been wearing your tin hat, BoB? It certainly would explain why you are able to correct "certain other" people's spelling mistakes and such. You have had your brain hooked into the machine world, and in your case, it must be hooked into a word processor. ;-)) SignatureJim in NC >> All the more reason to safeguard your head from "RF COUPLING". >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the machine world, and in your case, it must be hooked into a word >processor. ;-)) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- No hat and no heart.... That B me, sir! :o) ~ Barnyard BOb ~ Con-'TIN'-uing towards 56 years of licensed power flight! Mxsmanic schreef: >> 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. Go on dreaming, you have _no_idea_at_all_ what real flying is about. Just for one example: imagine my ground school teacher's story of a total electrical failure on his first cross-country solo. Luckily it was to a controlled airport so a flight plan had been filed. The guys in the tower were expecting him and all went well. But would YOU have observed the aldis lamp? Allow me to have my doubts. Go on playing and enjoying your little game, it is nice enough as far as it goes. But don't EVER imagine you have a dime's knowledge about flying. FYI: I have 5000+ hours on MSFS and about 80 IRL. Now just guess which was the hardest part? (and perhaps you could leave RAH out of this rant, aircraft homebuilding has nothing to do with it) >> > Even to inattention and intoxication infrastructure is the answer. >> >> Infrastructure cannot compensate for driver incompetence or impairment. > > Then you live not in a technical world. Been in the highway/road building technical world when you were peeing in diapers. > http://boingboing.net/2010/01/14/crash-test-1959-chev.html And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a tangential world where you can't keep to the topic. > And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a > tangential world where you can't keep to the topic. Sorry: I speak and write but 5 languages. And correct: there are some spelling errors, most of them due to typing too rapidely or thinking in several languages at the same time. I'll work on it. Tom De Moor On Feb 12, 12:37 pm, Tom De Moor <vipereng...@removethis.gmail.com> wrote: > In article <TLqdnRwG8YctRunWnZ2dnUVZ_oidn...@giganews.com>, > matt_bar...@coax.net says... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tom De Moor Lots of grumpy people on this thread... Surely the point of the original post was to show that flying entails risk to life. It's difficult to eliminate all risks, but working to reduce the biggest risks will likely lead to the biggest benefit in terms of precious lives saved. Midairs don't contribute much, compared with all other causes, of your chances of dying in a glider. >> And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a >> tangential world where you can't keep to the topic. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tom De Moor Mark? Is that you? >> > Speed does not kill, failing or absent infrastructure does. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The video shows what happens if a driver gets knocked inconscious at 250 > kph. What if he gets knocked outconscious? On Feb 10, 1:35 pm, Tom De Moor <vipereng...@removethis.gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > In Germany the speed on the autobahn is unlimited, <snip> Quite a lot of the autobahn does have speed limits, and some of them are not particularly fast either. > If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps 30,000 > lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile? Your "perhaps" is bogus. Since the speed limit was raised to from 65 to 70/75, fatalities went DOWN. Same thing when it went from 55 to 65. > We have apparently decided NOT. Considering that about 2/3rds of the annual fatalities (43K annually) are at intersections, not on highways/freeways, you'll have to come up with a better scenario. Matt > If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps > 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile? If speed killed, nobody would ever survive an auto race. What kills is speed that is excessive for a given set of circumstances, and that cannot easily be addressed by posted speed limits alone. Some jurisdictions with "reasonable and prudent" speed laws recognize this. > > If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps > > 30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that cannot easily be addressed by posted speed limits alone. Some > jurisdictions with "reasonable and prudent" speed laws recognize this. Yep, it doesn't matter how fast you miss things. It's hitting things that hurt. Don't hit things. > >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities > >> would still happen. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > We have apparently decided NOT. I think you meant "6.5 mph" instead of "65 mph," didn't you? The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. Mike Beede > > >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft > > >> fatalities [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I think you meant "6.5 mph" instead of "65 mph," didn't you? > The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. Not to mention that dropping the Federal speed limit to 55 a couple of decades ago didn't reduce the death toll by anything near "perhaps 30,000 lives annually". Those who blow off history, etc etc etc. > The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. Only? > > The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. > > Only? Well, that's on the order of one in 10,000 people per year. That actually sounds pretty good, considering around 140 people out of 10,000 will die of *some* cause during that year. Of course, the context of my comment was that 38,000 isn't much more than 30,000. Mike Beede >> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. > > Only? Okay,. so let's reduce it to zero and ban driving. Of course, you'd have to ban ALL transportation. Of course, sitting on your a.s watching ESPN and MTV can kill you in the long run, too. <Lemme guess: college student?> > > The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. > > Only? One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> Am 16.02.10 00:25, schrieb Alan Baker: >>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. >> >> Only? > > One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. In rec.aviation.piloting John Smith <john.smith@for.example> wrote: > Am 16.02.10 00:25, schrieb Alan Baker: >>>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. Yes, one does have to if you want to talk about possible prevention. If you just want to mourn the dead, then 1 death is too many. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Am 16.02.10 00:25, schrieb Alan Baker: > >>> The total accident deaths per year in the US is only around 38,000. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. Over 150,000 people die every day. Is that tragic? No. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > Over 150,000 people die every day. Is that tragic? No. That depends on how close you are to the people dying. > > Over 150,000 people die every day. Is that tragic? No. > > That depends on how close you are to the people dying. The overall fact isn't tragic. It's just the way the world is. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > The overall fact isn't tragic. It's just the way the world is. True. Most people are unable to retain that objectivity when people close to them die, however ... or when people die in situations in which they could imagine themselves. > > The overall fact isn't tragic. It's just the way the world is. > > True. Most people are unable to retain that objectivity when people close to > them die, however ... or when people die in situations in which they could > imagine themselves. True. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... > > No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. About the same number of people in the US commit suicide. Strangely enough 38000 is also roughly identical to the number of peole who die per day in the US... But last I looked this newsgroup was about airplanes, homebuilts etc. Not about carcrashes nor its toll. That's statistics and with that tool it is perfectly proveable that Earth is flat. Tom De Moor >>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... >> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tom De Moor I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is what's on the other side. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired >>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... >>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired The abyss, of course. Peter :-)))) >>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... >>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle. Signaturemartin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is > > what's on the other side. > Easy - four elephants standing on a turtle. visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif > > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to > know is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif > So the turtle is a giant record player? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired In article <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb45e@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, > > > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to > know is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > visual aid... http://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif Obvious heretical teaching there; it shows a tortoise, not the correct turtle swimming though the depths of space. Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys... > In article > <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb45e@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys... OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > > In article > > <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb...@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom? No bottom its turtles - all the way down >>> In article >>> <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb...@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > No bottom its turtles - all the way down Egad, an infinity of turtles. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired >>>> In article >>>> <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb...@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Egad, an infinity of turtles. Shell, yes. *GRIN* >>>>> In article >>>>> <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb...@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > *GRIN* I have to admit it makes one shell of a story. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > > In article > > <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb45e@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > OK, how deep is the water and what's at the bottom? Space has no bottom, obviously, you heretic. >>> In article >>> <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb45e@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Space has no bottom, obviously, you heretic. OK, now I'm having a problem. The Earth is flat, and I have heard space is curved, those must be some flexible turtles. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > >>> In article > >>> <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb45e@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > OK, now I'm having a problem. The Earth is flat, and I have heard > space is curved, those must be some flexible turtles. They surf when they can, obviously. >>>> In article >>>> <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb45e@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > OK, now I'm having a problem. The Earth is flat, and I have heard >space is curved, those must be some flexible turtles. Nah. Remember The earth is at the bottom of a gravity well. Now, while it may be a "bottom-less" pit, turtles are admirably suited to brace themselves against the sides of it. As long as it's big enough to reach the side with all four limbs, that is. <guffaw> > In article > <ed90e113-9617-4578-b4e9-888f751cb45e@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Time to get out the tar and feathers, boys... It's all rock and roll to me but ... let's get tar and feathers anyway: we'll build some wings with it. Has been done before and the Icarus-family claimed it worked. Might work again! Tom >It's all rock and roll to me but ... let's get tar and feathers anyway: >we'll build some wings with it. > >Has been done before and the Icarus-family claimed it worked. Might work >again! I don't like the risk/reward ratio. If anything is not *exactly* right, you'll be DEAD-alus! > >>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... > >> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired There are talks about a giant turtle and elephants. http://botainblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/paul_kidby_discworld.jpg My pal Rincewind flew around. If he can, we can too! :-) Tom De Moor Attention: reading T. Pratchett's books can hurt your health and your face can be stuck in constant laughter. But then again: there are worse things ! >>>> One does have to consider how man person-hours are spent driving... >>> No, one does not have to. 38,000 deaths are an awful lot, period. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I have always suspected the Earth is flat. Now what I want to know is >what's on the other side. Would you believe: "talf si htraE eht" ? Actually, according to one well-known story there is a turtle there. *snicker* >> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that >> offsets [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Brian W My numbers for road deaths were way high. The allowable speed would need to drop much more to provide these life saves - to perhaps as low as 15 mph?? The time series data is much more encouraging: fatalities per million cap are dropping. One supposes that belts and bags play a role. Depending on the source, the international data is not flattering for US drivers - but then - they have long distances available. Brian W >>> What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that >>> offsets [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Depending on the source, the international data is not flattering > for US drivers - but then - they have long distances available. I wonder if international road systems are built primarily for transportation, or for generating revenue from fines and/or deliberately choked to force people into mass transit like ours. http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport.asp http://www.ite.org/ http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf > >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities > >> would still happen. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Brian W Unsupported assertion even noting the weasel words. Basic fact. Speed does not kill, speed differential kills and highway design has, and continues, to eliminate as much differential as possible. Unfortunately, noone has been able to design a way to insure all drivers operate a vehicle reasonably. Harry K > >> If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft > >> fatalities [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > We have apparently decided NOT. Because it's utter bullshit. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >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. >>If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be >>alive, based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > 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. Automation has its own universe of failure modes that is just as difficult to eliminate as human error (because it is derived largely from human error), and digital systems in particular have catastrophic failure modes that human-based systems do not share. So be careful what you wish for. In any case, Airbus is trying to embrace the philosophy you espouse, not always successfully. And to a significant extent, the greater the automation, the less interesting the activity. It might be pragmatic to automate commercial flight, but flying for pleasure would probably suffer from excessive automation. > 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. There are no heavily automated systems to compare to, and existing automation systems have not been analyzed in detail, as far as I know. Interesting comments Jim. And probably quite accurate. With todays (cheap) technology, some "artifical intelligence" in the flight controlls is probably possible at an acceptable cost.. This might run contrary to some design philosophies though.. Cirrus perhaps? (flame suit on!) :) Dave >More opinion: >In fact, a review of the Nall Report statistics indicates that a large [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >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. > 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. I don't have the numbers, but you're probably right. > The restrictions on flying that an effort to completely eliminate > midairs would mean that pretty much everybody stays on the ground. True of many safety measures if they are carried to extremes. > > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities > > would still happen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets > the loss of life that they entail? There is the very obvious cost of expending a n dollars to save one life when spending it elsewhere would save more than one life. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> Correction! I wrote: > If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft > fatalities would still happen. That should be ~97%, not ~99%. Corrected number below. > From Nall Report analysis of U.S. NTSB records: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Fatalities due to midair collision: > 2002: 5 There were 9 fatalities, not 5. There were 5 accidents yielding fatalities, not 5 fatalities. My misread. > 2003: 7 Should be 23. > 2004: 6 Should be 10. > 2005: 5 Should be 14. > 2006: 4 Should be 9. > Total: 27 Should be 65. > http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf > http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf > http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf > http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf > http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf > Correction! > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 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. 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 > <atl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > 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? On Feb 11, 11:15 am, "Peter Dohm" <lefty...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > <atl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > 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 >> 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. > Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in > an occurance? The numbers I used for all the stats are number of deaths, not number of accidents. > For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3 > accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you > had survivors in any of your cites. I've gone through the Nall reports again (being lazy I used only 5 years) and have generated some stats that I hope should answer both your questions and some that other people may have about midair collisions: ======================================================================= This is a summary of comparative statistics on midair collisions involving fixed wing general aviation aircraft, from 5 years of Nall Reports: Total Fatal Num. Num. Num. Num. Year Accs Accs Fatalities Midairs Fatal Fatalities Midairs ---- ----- ----- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- 2002 1472 312 518 9 5 9 2003 1513 311 555 11 7 23 2004 1413 290 510 10 6 10 2005 1436 292 491 10 4 14 2006 1319 273 488 6 4 9 ---- ----- ----- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- Sum 7153 1478 2562 46 26 65 So the fixed wing accident rates averaged over the five-year period are: 1431 fatal and nonfatal accidents/year. 296 fatal accidents/year. 0.6% of all fatal and nonfatal accidents were midair collisions. 57% of all midair collisions yielded fatalities. 2.5% of all fatalities were due to midair collisions. Hence, while a definite majority of midair collisions yield fatalities, one may consider it roughly even odds that any given midair collision will not cause any deaths (or will cause deaths, depending on whether the glass is considered half full or half empty.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= HEADER KEY: ----------- Total Accs: Total number of aircraft accidents of all types that year. Fatal Accs: The number of accidents that year that caused fatalities. Num. Fatalities: Total number of fatalities that year. Num. Midairs: Total number of midair collisions that year. Num. Fatal Midairs: The number of midair collisions that yeat that caused fatalities. Num. Fatalities: The number of people who died in the midair collisions that year. NOTE: Later Nall reports often report slightly different numbers for previously reported years, indicating post-report adjusting has been done, but since important details of the adjustments aren't provided, I have to use the originally reported numbers. There are also some typos that appear that can be corrected for by careful reading of the reports since there is some redundancy in the text. These differences do not appear to yield results of any less comparative value. Reports used: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf ======================================================================= |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.