4 ms·

After the mid-air collision over Brazil in 2006 (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.html

After the mid-air collision over Brazil in 2006 (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.html) I corresponded with a well-known pilot columnist. We didn't agree. I revealed myself to be a mathematician, and he revealed himself to be exactly the conformist one hopes a pilot following rules will be. 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.

jacobreg 9y ago
Altitudes flown aren't independent of heading. Depending on whether you are VFR, IFR, flying magnetic east or west, you will fly at specified 500 foot increments. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.159 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.
lutorm 9y ago
It does not address the altitude issue, but there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lateral_offset_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lateral_offset_proce... which addresses aircraft on the same route.
godelski 9y ago
Your suggestion would kill GA (general aviation) if you had to fly a specific altitude for a given direction. A good gust and a rusty pilot could rise or fall a couple hundred feet pretty easily. Size of the plane matters a lot too. Plus, what altimeter setting are you using? (What is 2000 ft? AGL? MSL? Pressure altitude?) You would also frequently be required to violate these altitudes to maintain VFR conditions because clouds are moving into your airspace. And how do you do something like circling a point? How do you enter a traffic pattern? You would hit task saturation in no time. 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.
- lutorm 9y ago
  Presumably this would only apply in class A airspace above 18,000 MSL. No one hand-flies there anyway.
  - _s 9y ago
    Recommended above 3000’ in all airspaces unless you’re in a pattern or CTA then you follow ATC.

jacobreg 9y ago

Altitudes flown aren't independent of heading. Depending on whether you are VFR, IFR, flying magnetic east or west, you will fly at specified 500 foot increments. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.159 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.

lutorm 9y ago

It does not address the altitude issue, but there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lateral_offset_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lateral_offset_proce... which addresses aircraft on the same route.

godelski 9y ago

Your suggestion would kill GA (general aviation) if you had to fly a specific altitude for a given direction. A good gust and a rusty pilot could rise or fall a couple hundred feet pretty easily. Size of the plane matters a lot too. Plus, what altimeter setting are you using? (What is 2000 ft? AGL? MSL? Pressure altitude?) You would also frequently be required to violate these altitudes to maintain VFR conditions because clouds are moving into your airspace. And how do you do something like circling a point? How do you enter a traffic pattern? You would hit task saturation in no time. 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.

lutorm 9y ago
Presumably this would only apply in class A airspace above 18,000 MSL. No one hand-flies there anyway.
- _s 9y ago
  Recommended above 3000’ in all airspaces unless you’re in a pattern or CTA then you follow ATC.