My only reservation about a parachute system would be a pilot's tendency to do things he wouldn't because he has the parachute.

I sometimes fly single engine at night. I sometimes fly single engine IFR. I sometimes fly single engine over rugged terrain. If my engine failed under these conditions, I would definitely use and be thankful for a parachute if I had one.

A couple of months ago, I was curious enough to contact BRS about whether a chute could be installed in my airplane. First, it's not in the STC--too old, I guess; second, it's really, REALLY expensive; and third, it would take up just about half of the baggage area on the right side, not to mention the extra weight. So not that it wouldn't be a good idea, but it's impractical, for many reasons, for many small airplanes, including mine.

A friend survived a mid-air, and exactly what has been described happened to her. Her airplane was hit from behind by the other airplane, mangling her controls. She successfully nursed it to within a short distance of the Longmont airport before hitting trees and power lines--she was banged up, but she's OK--other than after some 7000 hours of flying, instructing, being a DPE, etc., she gave up flying. The other airplane pinwheeled down, and both occupants died.

Cary

GumpAir wrote:Chutes are cool, and there's no reason not to embrace that technology. But a more dangerous and immediate problem is getting so called pilots to look outside their f**king airplanes, and quit thinking they are the only ones in the air.

Your claim is common - I've seen it posted often on other aviation forums. But no evidence ever seems to be submitted to prove that any particular mid air collision was due to pilots not watching for other traffic. Apparently it is a "given". Mid air happened? Well then, one or more of the victims wasn't watching properly - or so it is implied.

It is at best a nonsense claim. It is trivially easy to press the keys on a keyboard to form sentences that indict broad groups of people for actions they may or may not have taken. Aircraft can and do fly in directions that take the aircraft in a direction that the pilot can't see. There are limits to human vision and reaction times that are easily over-reached in these situations. But these vital factors are often dismissed out of hand.

Consider gliders - most offer excellent visibility because the pilot sits ahead of the wings and is under a bubble canopy. Because electrical power is limited, there are few gadgets to distract from outside viewing. And yet glider-glider and glider-other-aircraft collisions happen - too often for many of their tastes. It would be difficult to accuse them of "thinking they are the only ones in the air" because some of those collisions occur in contests where everyone is on maximum alert for other gliders. And yet they still collide. The situation has been bad enough that a technical solution was sought to augment the inherent limits of human visual abilities. I'll quote just a couple paragraphs from the following article that discusses the proposed technical solution:

http://www.flarm.com/news/presscoverage/SSA_MainArticle_201405.pdf

These two accidents culminated a twelve-month period in which glider-involved midairs took six lives. It led to a ground-swell of interest in doing something to address the problem of midair collisions.

FLARM to the Rescue

FLARM was developed in Switzerland by Urs Rothacher, Andrea Schlapbach and Urban Mäder. According to Urs, FLARM was born of frustration with persistent glider midair collisions year after year. “In the Alps where we flew, every year we were having one or two midair collisions. We thought there ought to be a technical solution that could be particularly effective in reducing these types of accidents.” In late 2003 they set about developing the technology that would become FLARM.

while we are on the topic, does anyone have firsthand experience with ADS-B in? I am wondering if it has the resolution to prevent airplanes that are already close together (say one taking off or landing and the other one in the pattern somewhere) from a midair collision. I know it doesn't work unless everyone has one.

Was out flying a few weeks ago and heard a guy chatting with his buddy as he saw me on his TCAS... meanwhile I saw him about a minute earlier (no factor) by just looking out the window. We need to remember to use all our tools in our toolbag.

Have experienced resolution of adsb-in of less than 200 feet. Seems to work well.

JimLogajan wrote:Aircraft can and do fly in directions that take the aircraft in a direction that the pilot can't see. There are limits to human vision and reaction times that are easily over-reached in these situations. But these vital factors are often dismissed out of hand.

I don't think you're suggesting that we resign ourselves to fate, because everything in a pilot's power should be done every second of the flight to maintain vigilance. So I assume you're appealing for better radio communication? Better procedure?

Sometimes when driving around the city, I think about the miracle that is traffic convention-- cars are passing within feet or inches and avoiding running into each other purely by virtue of a white or yellow stripe painted on the ground. It's amazing. The big sky theory allows us a lot of flexibility but we live by good eyes and convention, patterns and reasonable expectation of position from our training.

Cary wrote:?....First, it's not in the STC--too old, I guess; second, it's really, REALLY expensive; and third, it would take up just about half of the baggage area on the right side, not to mention the extra weight. .....

Cary, where are you getting this information?

1. What airplane? They have many STCs for several planes and many field approvals.

2. REALLY expensive?! Less that 5k is cheap. Bushwheels cost more than a chute.

3. 29 lbs. I believe that ounces grow into pounds. That said, show me something that will save me after I have been hit mid air - at any weight.

Zzz wrote:I don't think you're suggesting that we resign ourselves to fate, because everything in a pilot's power should be done every second of the flight to maintain vigilance. So I assume you're appealing for better radio communication? Better procedure?

I bought a Zaon MRX shortly after they came out. I recently bought a SkyGuardTWX ADS-B transceiver. My previous post pointed to an article about FLARM. That background should tell you I'm suggesting electronic augmentation of human senses, not resignation to fate, as the best way to reduce the chance of collisions. (Frankly, I'd rather my own on-board radar similar in capability and cost to some of the low power output maritime radar units now available, but none of them can legally be used in an aircraft.)

As to better radio communication and procedure - it isn't clear yet that there was any gross violation of those in the accident between the SR22 and R44. Vigilance is exhausting and I suspect is more often breached than continuously executed. My own observations of online videos that show pilots flying seem to show most pilots aren't scanning the skies around them. I humbly suggest that constant appeals to better visual scans, better procedures, and so on have reached the point of diminished returns - one may as well be pushing on the proverbial string.

Technology is helpful but can not, nor should it, replaced the human brain-eye system. I think the reason we old guys fuss about visual reconnaissance is that we have seen too many iterations of it not happening. From the back seat of tandem trainers, I have more than a few times maneuvered to prevent imminent collision with final traffic. At least two sets of eyeballs had missed traffic on collision course at right angles. I taught student that they "must believe" that he is there and not be satisfied until they find him or he would no longer be a factor.

Concerning midair from impossible to see angles, I suggest staying off the centerline extended, both takeoff and landing, in slow aircraft. Because I operated low for thousands of hours, I avoided long (more than 1/8th mile) finals and I never turned final without taking a long look out the centerline extended for traffic, lights, anything out there that could overtake and kill me. I also gave way to all traffic, but that is not practical for those who fly normal patterns.

Zzz wrote:

JimLogajan wrote:Aircraft can and do fly in directions that take the aircraft in a direction that the pilot can't see. There are limits to human vision and reaction times that are easily over-reached in these situations. But these vital factors are often dismissed out of hand.

I don't think you're suggesting that we resign ourselves to fate, because everything in a pilot's power should be done every second of the flight to maintain vigilance. So I assume you're appealing for better radio communication? Better procedure?

Sometimes when driving around the city, I think about the miracle that is traffic convention-- cars are passing within feet or inches and avoiding running into each other purely by virtue of a white or yellow stripe painted on the ground. It's amazing. The big sky theory allows us a lot of flexibility but we live by good eyes and convention, patterns and reasonable expectation of position from our training.

Where's that thread about people ignoring the left hand patterns at their local airports for convenience sake?

Oregon180 wrote:From "How to Avoid a Mid-Air Collision" by the FAA: http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/alc/libview_normal.aspx?id=6851

Statistics on 105 in-flight collisions that occurred from 1964 to 1968 show that 82 percent had convergence angles associated with one aircraft overtaking another. Specifically, 35 percent were from 0 to 10 degrees - straight from behind. Only 5 percent were from a head-on angle. These numbers, plus the fact that 77 percent occurred at or below 3,000 feet (with 49 percent at or below 500 feet) imply accurately that in-flight collisions generally occur in the traffic pattern and primarily on final approach. Collisions occurring enroute generally are at or below 8,000 feet and within 25 miles of an airport.

In many if not most cases of mid-airs in this survey, one of the aircraft could not have seen and avoided the other, overtaking aircraft. I'd love to be able to shake the gnawing feeling that luck and the relative sparseness of aircraft in the air are major factors in keeping mid-airs from being more common.

A great tip I got from my dad (oldtech) is to keep an eye on your shadow on final.. Make sure there is only one of them!
I have adopted it as part of my scan when in the patern at controlled airports as well as backcountry strips.

I have flown with ADS-B, and that system can work. The problem I see with ADS-B for traffic conflicts is that it requires the user to be head down in the cockpit for a significant amount of time to determine where to look for the alert traffic. And, this is typically where the risk of mid air is highest--the terminal area.

ADS-B In itself is NOT a traffic resolution system like TCAS.....it just shows you traffic, and it's up to you to deal with the resolution of potential conflicts. There may be more advanced systems that will provide conflict resolutions, the systems Ive used were Garmin, portrayed on Avidyne MFD. And, in busy traffic, I can't imagine trying to actually sort out conflicts on a screen any smaller than a very large MFD.

Again,, the problem is, you have to be head down, studying that screen to LOOK for traffic, to figure out where it is, and all that is time you are head down, and NOT looking out the windows. There were a lot of times when I'd find myself studying that stupid screen, trying to read the altitude and vector of traffic. For a two pilot crew, that may work, but for single pilot airplanes, you would need a full out TCAS system in my opinion, for the system to really work, without offering more distraction than its worth.

Another problem with ANY of these kinds of systems is that they only see aircraft equipped with some sort of emitter, such as a transponder. There are still a fair number of airplanes without transponders. ADS-B only provides complete data from ADS-B Out equipped airplanes as well, not ones with just a transponder. For example, in the area where I used ADS-B, there was a lot of sprayer activity in summer, and none of those airplanes were transponder equipped. We operated from an uncontrolled field. The sprayers offered an excellent illustration to students of the limitations of ADS-B.

Search this site for a thread called "Show Us Your Instrument Panel". Take a look at some of the panels (not many, but....) and tell me that some of us are installing a lot of equipment that further limits our ability to scan for traffic.

I have a friend, ex F 16 pilot, with a Cessna, and he has THREE large portable devices, all mounted ABOVE his instrument panel, blocking his view of the world....and he's a short guy. That kind of setup is a recipe for disaster.

But, that's all opinion, of course.

As to the cost of an all airplane parachute, I suspect the cost of the parachute is minor compared to the cost of the installation. If the parachute costs $5 K, I'd bet installation would run you $10 K plus on top of that. It's a huge installation.

I think the parachutes are a great idea, and I give Cirrus a lot of credit for going there, but the cost and weight is going to be a hard sell for most folks.

MTV

JimLogajan wrote:

GumpAir wrote:Chutes are cool, and there's no reason not to embrace that technology. But a more dangerous and immediate problem is getting so called pilots to look outside their f**king airplanes, and quit thinking they are the only ones in the air.

Your claim is common - I've seen it posted often on other aviation forums. But no evidence ever seems to be submitted to prove that any particular mid air collision was due to pilots not watching for other traffic. Apparently it is a "given". Mid air happened? Well then, one or more of the victims wasn't watching properly - or so it is implied.

It is at best a nonsense claim. It is trivially easy to press the keys on a keyboard to form sentences that indict broad groups of people for actions they may or may not have taken. Aircraft can and do fly in directions that take the aircraft in a direction that the pilot can't see.

Absolute bullshit. If you move your airplane in a direction you can't visually clear, you risk hitting something. In the air or on the ground. Anytime one aircraft midairs another, one or both pilots are at fault for not looking where they're going.

TCAS and ADS-B is cool stuff, as is I assume all the new technology coming out. It's truly frightening sometimes "seeing" all the other aircraft light up the screen in busy airspace, given that when you look where the box is pointing you can't see anything. But, airplanes 1/2 mile away don't kill you, it's the ones 50 yards behind and below that get you, and the pilot climbing up into you had better have his head out of his ass and be looking up and forward as he climbs. Not playing with the GPS or changing channels on his XM Radio.

In 44 years flying and over two years worth of hours in the air I've flown with lots and lots of different pilots. It is really troubling to me to fly with what seems an increasing regularity, guys (and gals) who are almost totally oblivious to what is happening outside the cockpit. They don't look outside. Call bullshit all you want, and maybe your experience is the opposite of mine. But I have more that a sneaking suspicion that what I'm seeing is becoming the norm for a lot of the GA fleet.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:

JimLogajan wrote:

GumpAir wrote:Chutes are cool, and there's no reason not to embrace that technology. But a more dangerous and immediate problem is getting so called pilots to look outside their f**king airplanes, and quit thinking they are the only ones in the air.

Your claim is common - I've seen it posted often on other aviation forums. But no evidence ever seems to be submitted to prove that any particular mid air collision was due to pilots not watching for other traffic. Apparently it is a "given". Mid air happened? Well then, one or more of the victims wasn't watching properly - or so it is implied.

It is at best a nonsense claim. It is trivially easy to press the keys on a keyboard to form sentences that indict broad groups of people for actions they may or may not have taken. Aircraft can and do fly in directions that take the aircraft in a direction that the pilot can't see.

Absolute bullshit. If you move your airplane in a direction you can't visually clear, you risk hitting something. In the air or on the ground. Anytime one aircraft midairs another, one or both pilots are at fault for not looking where they're going.

TCAS and ADS-B is cool stuff, as is I assume all the new technology coming out. It's truly frightening sometimes "seeing" all the other aircraft light up the screen in busy airspace, given that when you look where the box is pointing you can't see anything. But, airplanes 1/2 mile away don't kill you, it's the ones 50 yards behind and below that get you, and the pilot climbing up into you had better have his head out of his ass and be looking up and forward as he climbs. Not playing with the GPS or changing channels on his XM Radio.

In 44 years flying and over two years worth of hours in the air I've flown with lots and lots of different pilots. It is really troubling to me to fly with what seems an increasing regularity, guys (and gals) who are almost totally oblivious to what is happening outside the cockpit. They don't look outside. Call bullshit all you want, and maybe your experience is the opposite of mine. But I have more that a sneaking suspicion that what I'm seeing is becoming the norm for a lot of the GA fleet.

Gump

+1

MTV,

Thanks for the explanation of ADS-B.

I have been a part of the problem with TCAS. Flying pipeline right beside and across many large airports at the center of Class B I have set off a large number of TCAS. This concerns the airline pilot when he has more important things to do than look for a C-172 at 200.' Tower controllers would tell them I was not traffic, but they had more important things to do as well.

I agree that screen complexity and spray and pipeline false positives could contribute to an already increasing problem. There is no question that we need the technology at busy airports. Could further technology actually aggravate the problem at uncontrolled airports?

The FAA loves technology and pilots: not so much. Yet the rule "see and avoid" is still in the book, I think. I hope that doesn't change until I am gone.

Jim

I have a question....how many of you have been trained and regularly practice good scanning techniques?

I flew in air-to-air intercept fighters in a previous life. We had a class on proper visual lookout. One of the things I remember from class was the eye will naturally focus to about 18-36 inches from your face if it has nothing to look at. You have to force your eyes to focus on a distant object (cloud, mountain peak, distant tower) then look in one spot for a moments then shift to a sector next to that...refocus out in the distance and continue. Still to this day, I see traffic first (called or otherwise) way more often than the other pilot in the cockpit.
When I first went to the C130, guys were amazed at how good I was at spotting traffic. Then I realized, they were never taught how to scan for traffic. Most would move their eye side to side sweeping the sky without pausing and staring with a distant focus in order to pick up movement.
Humans, like most binocular predators key on relative movement. (This is why most prey freeze before running) One reason for mid-air collision is...when on a collision course, the target doesn't move...it just slowly gets bigger so it is harder to pick up vs a moving target that you wouldn't hit anyway. Now hide that non moving object behind a strut, cross brace, deceased insect on the windshield, above your wing, below your nose and you have a recipe for disaster.

How many of you have been stunned at how close you were when you first saw an aircraft you were not expecting....they seem to appear out of nowhere some times don't they. Like a Klingon battle cruiser uncloaking. The "Big Sky" theory has saved me more than once.

Human physiology is fighting you in your goal to avoid mid-air collisions and I didn't even talk about your natural blind spot. Use every tool at your disposal...radio calls, proper traffic patterns, TCAS, ADS-B, ATC, clean windows, good glass, good glasses, clear your flight path vector, good visual look out with proper scanning techniques, never fixate inside the cockpit etc.

Fly Safe Kids,

Jake

C130jake wrote:I flew in air-to-air intercept fighters in a previous life. We had a class on proper visual lookout. One of the things I remember from class was the eye will naturally focus to about 18-36 inches from your face if it has nothing to look at. You have to force your eyes to focus on a distant object (cloud, mountain peak, distant tower) then look in one spot for a moments then shift to a sector next to that...refocus out in the distance and continue.

Thank's for the info Jake, good to know.

Use all available means to avoid a mid air. Look outside, use technology as a tool, not a replacement, lift your wing and clear your turns, enter the pattern on the 45, not on the crosswind, base or what ever just to save a couple of minutes, install LED lights and actually turn them on, listen on the radio not just talk, pay attention and so on….

It can still happen but you sure can increase your odds of it not happening to you if you do the things listed above as well as other things.

C-130 Jake,

Same with NOE and visual recon training. Also, we see only what we intend to see. If your neck isn't sore, you're not intending hard enough.

Jim

I remember seeing the YouTube video referenced in this new story when it first came out. The airplane involved in the mid-air is a Rans S6 just like mine (well, tricycle gear version). I remember electing not to put the parachute in my plane because the chance of the wings coming off were negligible, and I would never be involved in a mid-air. I'm rethinking that now.