When I was training for my pilot license, my instructor was very clear about this point:
"Your responsibility is to NOT get into an accident. It doesn't matter what the air traffic controller said, what I told you to do, or what the other guy did. If you collide with another plane - IT IS YOUR FAULT. You are the PIC."
This absolute responsibility is well placed when even a "fender bender" is death for all.
It sounds like the military pilot didn't get taught that concept.
Same here. My instructor was very clear that I, as the PIC, was responsible for maintaining clearance from other airplanes at all times regardless of what ATC says. Even if I am operating in controlled airspace, ultimately, the authority over what happens to me and my airplane is my responsibility alone.
While traffic callouts are nice to have and I really appreciate ATC giving me heads up when I'm flying, I still spend the majority of my flying time looking out the windows for other airplanes. Especially before making any turn or other maneuver where I might have limited view, always dip the wings to check the area first.
Unfortunately, I know some pilots who fly as if they've never seen a radio. Used to do a lot of flying out of a semi-uncontrolled field (it's untowered, but right under the 2,000ft shelf of a nearby class C). I would be doing pattern work, turning base and some yahoo would do a straight-in without a single call on the radio. If I hadn't seen him it and turned early it might have ended badly.
So... just a thought as a non-pilot. It's 2015 - we have collision camera's on cars. Given you need to be looking literally every direction to see if something is going to hit you, why aren't planes equipped with similar technology. I feel like at cruising altitude, there aren't really enough false-positives out there that the system would be unusable.
Not necessarily expecting you personally to know. But I feel like the incremental cost to the price of a plane should make this a no-brainer. Did I just come up with a ycombinator 2016 idea?
>It monitors the airspace around an aircraft for other aircraft equipped with a corresponding active transponder, independent of air traffic control, and warns pilots of the presence of other transponder-equipped aircraft which may present a threat of mid-air collision (MAC).
> The next step beyond identifying potential collisions is automatically negotiating a mutual avoidance manoeuver between the two (or more) conflicting aircraft.
For gliders, FLARM is a radio-based system that also takes turning rates into account. It alerts the pilot visually and audibly 20 seconds before a possible impact would happen. In my experience it works great even in very congested airspace such as when circling in a thermal. it's not perfect, but it's a very good complement to looking out the window.
It only tells you about other FLARM-using aircraft, though. (Some also look for transponder-carrying aircraft).
They do. Its called EODAS [0] and fitted to F-35 fighters (and not F-16s) It provides near 360 degree spherical coverage. The 6 imaging sensors are relatively cheap, but the system integration is expensive. It would still cost at least $250k-1m to install a similar system in GA and business jets.
The imaging sensors are available for limited civilian use.
ADS-B [0] is going to be required equipment in all airplanes by 2020. The problem is there are a LOT of general aviation aircraft out there.
Drive by a GA airport and look at all the planes; many of them are 30, 40, sometimes 50+ years old. Now, this is not a big deal in the aviation world. Airplanes are pretty simple compared to most modern cars. They are also required to be inspected once a year by a mechanic (an "annual"), engines are replaced or rebuilt after a certain time interval has passed (usually around 2000 hours), extensive documentation is required to be kept, etc.
But there are just a LOT of them out there, so refitting all of them takes time. Unlike the car world where, if you make a change in the law, you can reasonably expect in 10-15 years the majority of cars would be compliant just because people buy new cars. In the aviation world that isn't the case. New airplanes can easily run $200k+, so people hold on to airplanes for decades.
It's also expensive. Anything involving airplanes is hellishly expensive. :)
You're looking at probably about $5k for equipment + installation costs (which must be done by a mechanic, pilots generally aren't allowed to work on their own aircraft [1]). And that only broadcasts your position; a separate ADS-B receiver must also be purchased if you want to actually see other airplanes around you. The cheapest one I can find is $500, and that also requires a tablet and software.
So yeah, we're going to get there. But it's going to take some time.
You CAN, and that might be suitable for a ground station that's not moving and just providing interesting information to the Internet.
It's an entirely different matter to take that into an airplane and use it in such a way as that my life depends on the accuracy of the information. Has it been extensively tested in actual airplanes in real-life flying? Does it work with and not interfere with other aircraft systems? Does it work with the software I already use and know well?
Yes, $100 < $500. Now, if I built my own airplane (something I've given some thought to doing), I might be a little more willing to experiment with it. But the majority of pilots are not hardware hackers. They're average, everyday people.
I will happily pay $500 for a tested piece of hardware that is guaranteed to provide accurate information and work in my airplane over something I homebrewed using instructions I found on the Internet. My safety is worth the extra $400.
My cousin is an air controller in a little French airport and she told me that when military jets are coming in, everything is more tense. They fly so fast that she has far less time to react and to redirect other airplanes.
So even if you are on a collision course and know it, you might not have time to avoid the collision.
I was in a similar situation once. Untowered field that lay just outside of Class C airspace, though the pattern passed under it.
One afternoon I was departing east, climbing and preparing to turn crosswind at 1000 AGL. I had announced my departure like usual, but otherwise the channel was quiet. I was maybe 750 AGL when I noticed a tiny sparkle directly in front of me (fortuitously, the sun was at my back). After observing it for a couple of moments and realizing that it didn't appear to be moving relative to my position, I re-announced my departure and angled to the right (SOP in head-on convergence is everyone turn right, immediately). Sure enough, about 20 seconds later the inbound aircraft zipped past on my left. Hard to estimate distance in the air, but way less than a mile and equal altitude. Fucker never said a word, just landed straight in, with the wind, completely ignoring the pattern. Blows my mind to this day.
So in case of contradictory information, the pilot always has the final word, provided he takes the safest path possible ? Aren't there times where his judgement might be clouded or controllers better informed ?
For most bizjets and regional airliners, they have TCAS [0]. The rule is that pilots follow TCAS resolution, even if the controller gives them contradictory instructions.
There has only been one crash[1] where TCAS was used on both aircraft, and functioning. One of the aircraft followed the controller, ignored the TCAS resolution and a mid-air collision occurred.
Yes, although if you go against ATC and it's not an emergency, they may tell you to call a special number and answer some questions (get in trouble with the FAA, have your license suspended, etc). The general idea is to listen to ATC and do as requested unless doing so would put you, your airplane, another airplane or the ground in imminent danger.
ATC are humans too, just like pilots, so mistakes sometimes happen. ATC has a larger picture, but pilots are on the scene up close. The important thing is that we work together to keep everyone safe.
It seems terribly unfair that in this situation the person behaving recklessly had the best tools for surviving after the crash happened. Just how things go I guess.
This is actually part of why the United States Air Force skips over a lot of 'important' general aviation training. The Air Force goal is to quickly train people for very specific and demanding roles and the tools to be say a great glider pilot are considered relatively unimportant.
Unfortunately, AF pilots often confuse the ability to excel in specific very demanding roles as far more general aviation experience.
This is actually fairly untrue, as the AF is one of the only curriculum that enforces glider training. An ATP (air transport pilot) needs 1500h at least, but none of them in a glider :)
This is incorrect. The USAF put great emphasis on airmanship, to a level beyond what it expected for a GA pilot in a Cessna.
Also, the USAF Academy is famous for their gliding program. One of the glider pilots who trained at USAFA subsequently flew as US Airlines 1549 and glided into the Hudson.
There are two main tracks in the AF, bomber/cargo/tankers get have a much larger emphasis on gliding as fighter’s really can't glide for crap. "Approximately 50 percent of cadets are enrolled in a soaring course during their third-class year." http://www.academyadmissions.com/the-experience/military/air...
The AF does promote people learning more general skills in their free time, but fighter jets are very special aircraft and that tracks focus is defiantly on becoming a better fighter pilot not just a well rounded pilot.
In VMC, yes. If you're in IMC in certain air spaces, it is the ATCs responsibility to maintain separation, not yours (because you might not have the information needed to avoid a collision, but the ATC will).
If course, you're still responsible for following instructions, but you can't necessarily blame an IMC mid-air on the pilots.
"Your responsibility is to NOT get into an accident. It doesn't matter what the air traffic controller said, what I told you to do, or what the other guy did. If you collide with another plane - IT IS YOUR FAULT. You are the PIC."
This absolute responsibility is well placed when even a "fender bender" is death for all.
It sounds like the military pilot didn't get taught that concept.