Every now and then my personal opinion does not match with the majority. This is the case for the recent fatal aircraft and helicopter accident over the Hudson River. Two bloggers I appreciate and respect, Max Trescott and Rob Mark, both conclude that collision avoidance systems shall be mandated for light aircraft. They nuance about not having a full TCAS-II implementation, which is simply not possible for light aviation.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with this option, or we have to change a lot the VFR rules. Some are old and could require an update but one must be careful because of the possible impact. It is still possible and legal to fly VFR without a transponder and without a radio. Only flights for which pilot enter controlled airspace and must receive precise instructions from an air traffic controller require them. But in any case, VFR remains based on the “see-and-avoid” rule.
Flying in busy airspace requires a lot of attention. I used to fly around London and Frankfurt, which are not exactly deserts. Egelsbach (EDFE) manages to pack up to 80 movements per hour on a single. I was lucky enough to fly there with a G1000 equipped aircraft, with traffic information. Definitely helpful, but shall it be mandated ?
These systems rely on the transopnders in the other aircfraft. The accuracy is not always good and could be improved if the other aircraft were transmitting their GPS position via ADS-B. So the possibility is here. The main problem is that all aircraft shall be equipped. If pilots start to heavily rely on this for traffic avoidance, what about the non equipped aircraft ? And what to do in case of failure ? Does it make sense to require that from all aircraft owners ?
The IFR rules mandate such equipment under certain circumstances (airline operations, above certain altitudes, …). But under IFR the “see-and-avoid” principle is replaced by a shift of authority to the controller. The TCAS system is in this context an ultimate safety net, not the tool used for maintaining separation.
So sorry Max and Rob, but in my humble opinion, traffic avoidance systems for VFR shall remain an optional help to cautious airspace watch by the pilot. As usual, comments are welcome.
Vincent Lambercy is a Swiss private pilot now living in Germany. He holds a private pilot certificate with single-engine, multi-engine and instrument ratings and has logged more than 430 hours of flight.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Couldn’t agree more Vincent. Maybe the air corridor through the Hudson needs to be modified, maybe controllers need a more active role? I can’t really speculate as having never flown in an area like that I am barely knowledgeable. Yet mandating TCAS is not the answer, VFR is based on see and avoid, there are large areas of airspace that planes fitted with TCAS are no more useful than the Mark I Eyeball due to lower traffic density, hence why I think the Hudson airspace may be the problem rather than TCAS.
On that note, who’s to say there is a problem? Yes a very tragic accident and there are always things to learn, better procedures to coordinate take offs and so on maybe but does one tragic, yet unusual accident warrant a complete rewrite of the rules?
I agree with you both (Vincent and Rob) and I especially agree with Rob’s statement about this not really being a problem at all. It is tragic and a lot of people wish the crash had not happened, but midair collisions are simply not a regular problem in aviation. Sure they happen a few times a year, but requiring TCAS systems on aircraft makes about as much sense as requiring every car on the road to be built like a NASCAR stock race car. It probably would be worse cost-wise to aviation and may lead to a lot more accidents with people becoming complacent with the collision avoidance units.
The safety first mentality is great, but you always have to analyze the cost of things and what kind of impact you can expect. I know a lot of poeple get upset when they hear someone put a price on a life, but when decisions are made about laws there is always an economical cost to the loss of lives that is balanced against the cost on the industry and I don’t see TCAS being mandatory simply because it would only be detrimental to an industry that is already being battered by the current economic environment.
The truth is even with TCAS there are a lot of near mid-air collisions between TCAS equipped aircraft and I can remember at least one such collision between TCAS equipped planes that led to way more deaths than this Hudson river accident.
I fly a lot (VFR) around Paris (France…). The typical french answer would be : just make a class A. Just take a look at the map and you’ll see there’s no way you can get close to the city flying VFR. Let alone flying above the Seine abeam the Eiffel Tower
Let’s hope for the american pilots that the FAA will not follow the french examples.