Link to personal training material

[Guest Decca]

Many of you probably already know but I just discovered a mine of research information in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) website www.atsb.gov.au . The link for these reports is on the home page; place cursor on AVIATION SAFETY then click on AVIATION RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS.

 

One of the publications which could be of interest is titled “Limitations Of The See & Avoid Principle”. It is certainly an unbiased view on how limited this system is, & could be a real leveler in the great debate about TCAS and lower level collision avoidance systems versus See & Avoid.

 

I am NOT posting this to extend that debate here, just advising you that a wealth of information is available at the ATSB site, based on research conducted on many accidents. It’s all relevant to Australian flying conditions & events.

 

The most enlightening aspect of these reports is, quote “As ATSB believes that safety information is of greatest value if it is passed on for the use of others, copyright restrictions do not apply to material printed in this report. Readers are encouraged to copy or reprint for further distribution, but should acknowledge ATSB as the source.”

 

Regards, Decca.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

cheers Decca... i couldn't find anything saying aviation safety publications?? im probably going blind..

 

 

[Guest Decca]

My error mate. Original post edited to correct it to place cursor on Aviation Safety, then click on Aviation Research Publications. If I was clever I would have given a direct link. Doh!

 

Decca.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ahhh....there it is...exellent stuff to mate, thankyou for the link....i been reading for a couple of hours now....eyes are sore...hehe:;)3:

 

 

[Mazda]

The document was actually amended by ATSB/CASA some years ago to state that see and avoid could be used satisfactorily for separation.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

really??...do you have a link??...its strange that they would back pedal on such a thurough report...i mean did they just say that all the statistics they used were wrong??

 

strange

 

 

[Mazda]

Yep, here it is.

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/recommendations/2004/R20040015.aspx

 

They removed the "never" associated with unalerted see and avoid.

 

 

[vk3auu]

I would respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks he doesn't need a radio should read the above mentioned report which can be found at

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/1991/limit_see_avoid.aspx

 

David

 

 

[Mazda]

Obviously "alerted" see and avoid is better than "unalerted" see and avoid. Alerted see and avoid is when you have a radio can hear calls.

 

The problem is that you can never rely only on radio because someone in the circuit might not have a radio, or they might be on the wrong frequency etc. There is a danger that when people fly into airports with mandatory radio they assume the only aircraft are ones transmitting on frequency. Without a UNICOM or AFRU, there isn't even any confirmation that your radio is working and you are on the correct frequency.

 

Having a radio is better than not having one, but relying only on radio and not see and avoid is problematic.

 

Even military pilots use see and avoid and they fly much faster than us.

 

In the USA they don't even have published enroute VFR frequencies and they don't have transponder requirements in Class E, but for the density of traffic their mid-air statistics are better than ours. I think the issue is that they have so much traffic it wouldn't be possible for everyone to talk to each other. I guess it would be like trying to communicate by radio to cars on the road when there is lots of traffic.