There’s a debate raging on a FB GA group in the wake of the just published Coroner’s report into the mid-air at Waddesdon Manor between a C152 and Calibri Heli. 4 people died. It was severe clear so ideal VMC. The C152 descended onto the back of the Calibri so both were in each other’s blind spot, neither had any EC kit onboard.
The coroner recommended that EC be mandated for all aircraft and CO detectors too. Many on the FB thread seem to think that EC will make everyone see everyone else. I have my doubts having seen how difficult it can be to pick out a TCAS target in a huge sky, even with relatively good bearing, distance and relative altitude information. I agree that some EC is better than no EC but it’s still possible to have a midair with EC onboard.
I took three key CAA decision makers flying yesterday, VMC, VFR in Class G.
We saw many things on TCAS that we didn’t see with our eyeballs, and every aircraft we did see, we were alerted to by TCAS first.
On one occasion, TCAS warned of a head-on, same altitude. We couldn’t see it, but I took a turn to the right. It whizzed past our left wing, not very far away.
I imagine that the pro-EC lobby will have been somewhat strengthened by the experience.
The lookout debate (same as moving maps, EC…) has been closed decades ago in the gliding community, as benchmark: they have 360 windows, unpredictable flying in super vmc, head outside with few tasks…and they still think EC is the way to go, so something does not add up in the GA scene 
If one thinks lookout is effective than EC, try spotting a small cross-section white glider on head-on collision with no Flarm, luckily we do see them when they spend their time turning in thermals
For those of us with experience of EC, especially TCAS, there is no debate to be had. 90% of what you see on TCAS within 5 miles, even within 1 mile, you never see directly, and TCAS often causes us to make precautionary changes in heading or altitude to avoid conflict.
I can only think that the “heads out at all costs” brigade have never shared the experience, because once seen, never forgotten.
Timothy wrote:
I imagine that the pro-EC lobby will have been somewhat strengthened by the experience.
And the lobby that finds it impossible to get clearances through controlled airspace?
And the lobby that finds it impossible to get clearances through controlled airspace?
Why are they? Sorry, I don’t get the humour, if there is some
Anyway, welcome back, bookworm
I can only think that the “heads out at all costs” brigade have never shared the experience, because once seen, never forgotten.
Indeed, but they dominate social media.
Not wishing to start another ADS-B thread but presumably that is the only route this can possibly go. And many many problems there with inter-operability.
Peter wrote:
Why are they? Sorry, I don’t get the humour, if there is some
My guess is that @bookworm, who was originally going to do this flight before subcontracting to me, has looked at FR24:
and is being a little sardonic about those who say that they cannot get access to Class D.
That’s in a twin though, no?
Special permission? NSF?
I think you are missing the point. Yes, you need a twin for Central London, that is nothing to do with the Class D access.
And he may have looked at the previous flight:
..and subsequent flight
..or the one before that:
and drawn the conclusion that Class D crossing is not painful
I used to find it not painful, but last saturday (morning) was told to standby for (City EGLC) transit (southbound). There seemed to be another aircraft doing the same, and they only seemed to call me back (a good 5 minutes after my initial call) once he left the zone. By then, I had already done an orbit North of their zone.
They said it would be a 5 minutes wait, in case the airliner had to do a go around. Had they given me the transit staight away, there would have been plenty of time for me to have cleared their zone by the time the CAT arrived to the airfield.
