How aircraft avoid mid-air collisions
economist.com
economist.com
I see a paywall. I close the tab. No news is too important that I can't go without or find it somewhere else.
But they call us "pirates" and "thieves" for using adsblocker.
Holy sweet mother of ....
I'm sure there's an article in there somewhere.
[Edit] Actually, no, I've reached my limit and been cut off.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2u3o216xe8fho4o/Screenshot%202018-...
I would hope that once publications have normalized into subscriber supported services they will no longer be compelled to play these games. But my expectations are low.
It is a tough problem and I don't have an answer.
OK, now define advertising.
(Also, just get an ad blocker and pay for the media you consume, but that's another issue.)
As a pilot, I have had to avoid large birds more often than drones. They tend to actively avoid planes, which helps. Some sort of active avoidance, even super-minimal, on the part of the drones is likely to be more effective in reducing accidents.
Just my 2 cents.
Only a tiny percentage of the US airspace will require ADS-B transmission (only; not reception) starting in 2020.
Even if it was a technically bulletproof system, it's still not a solution due to non-equippage.
My experience with ADS-B has been incredibly positive, I fly frequently in-and-out of the Tampa bravo, being my home airport and love the situational awareness. Sure it's not perfect but seems to be reasonably solid.
The biggest risk of having ADS-B is probably assuming there is nothing else out there if it's not showing up on traffic.
I'm not an expert on this matter, simply a consumer of the tech as a pilot myself. Regardless, it's interesting to listen to other pilots take on ADS-B. = )
A counter argument I can anticipate is that with all those drones in the air, broadcasting ADS-B, they will clog up the system with too many signals. Those who make the argument aren't wrong. I propose a solution for that as well: reduced transmission power on drone ADS-B transceivers. Small craft have a minimum transmission power of 75W, and craft that can fly over 15000 ft or faster than 175 kt have to transmit at at least 125W. Few drones are going to be moving that fast or that high. So why not make them have say, a transmission power of 1W? I'd think that would be enough power to warn planes on approach to an airport to watch out for nearby drones, without clogging up the system with useless noise about drones the next city over.
ADS-B out is only mandated in an extremely limited subset of the airspace where drones will be likely flying (and then only after Jan 1, 2020).
ADS-B out is only mandated[1] in cylinders around class C and the 30nm ring around class B airports, in class A airspace (at/above 18000' MSL), and in class E airspace that is both above 10000' MSL and 2500' AGL.
In practice, that means that most of the volume of drone-navigable airspace does not require other aircraft to have ADS-B out transmitters.
In none of the airspace are other aircraft required to have ADS-B in receivers.
"See and avoid" is therefore both practically and legally[2] required.
[1] - 14 CFR § 91.225 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.225
[2] - 14 CFR § 91.113 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113
I observe planes holding their assigned altitudes to very close tolerances. It strikes me as completely idiotic to quantize these altitudes independent of heading, rather than scaling 360 degrees to 2000 feet (or pick your favorite modern units) and adding one's heading to base altitudes. Then planes won't cross each other's paths on a giving heading, avoiding accidents like Brazil.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.159
Edit: I read up a little more about the accident, and it happened above where these rules apply. In any case, with problems like this where one plane isn't where it should be, I think the solution is to come up with better ways of ensuring clearances are complied with, not coming up with a system that is more tolerant of people violating clearances. Airspace is only going to get more congested and the only way do accommodate that safely is to have planes follow clearances to stricter and stricter tolerances.
I say this as a math lover (physics degree holding) and a pilot. Currently we have a rule; "Odd pilots fly East", so you could be 3500,5500,7500, etc. Going west at 2500,4500,6500, etc. Everyone should also be using flight following for anything but a really short flight. And flight following is really going to help with collision avoidance.
All of them would just fold their wings and drop until they came out the bottom of the cloud. The conclusion was that birds can't fly in a cloud.
The two movies Sully and Deepwater Horizon, which both came out in 2016, are near mirror images of each other in many ways.
Sully is partly the story about a pilot who has spent his entire career landing failing airplanes, effectively training him to do it again with higher stakes, where its never happened before. But its also the story of all of the regulation that has prevented all commercial aviation disasters since 2001. Sully may stay calm under pressure, but he's standing on the shoulders of giants. The flight attendants stick to their training. The port authority and the captains of the boats that rescue all of the passengers stick to their training. The NTSB even sticks to their training in certain ways. Plans were set forth, and followed. Even at the end of the movie, it is made clear that the NTSB's flaw was to control for all of the time constraints Sullenberger faced, all of the stress, and hid the fact that it was something like the 20th attempt in the simulator that was the first successful landing.
Deepwater horizon is the story about a company that has successfully captured their regulatory framework. There was inadequate training, inadequate safety measures, inadequate equipment to properly measure the specifics of the well. And so when the shit hits the fan, does everyone stay calm and exercise the plan to effect their continued survival? Nope, they all panic, and they nearly all die.
Planes and Trains are far safer than automobiles because of ratio of humans to engines.
I even knew going into my final retort to /u/dang that he'd swing the banhammer. But something in the back of my mind just said "hold my beer".
I fully agree that honey kills more flies than vinegar. But I'm also a Lord of the Rings fan. Pip and Merri only convince the Ents to go to war through forcing them to confront the clear cut forest. It was the Ents position, much like the US before WWI, that this too shall pass, and we shouldn't involve ourselves in the affairs of men/europe.
I'm not saying confrontation is always defensible, but its also not always indefensible.
I guess I struggle at picking my battles.