Why cant light planes have foot windows?

[saaby93]

The Waddesdon plane/chopper crash

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...
The Cessna and Heli were heading on the same course with the Cesna closing on the Heli from behind
The Heli had no idea the Cessna was behind it
The Heli was in the Cesnas blindspot ahead and below
Why cant there be a couple of windows at foot level so you can see ahead and below?
(some small trucks have similar low level cab windows)
Or surely these days a hastily set up dash cam could point below front and maybe rear too?

[TheRainMaker]

Some planes do.

Cost is probably the main reason.

[Equus]

I'm moderately astonished, in these days of parking sensors and adaptive cruise control on all but the most basic cars, that aircraft aren't fitted with some sort of simple proximity warning device against near misses.

Article says such a device is 'under development'. Sounds like they need to pull their finger out...

[IforB]

Equus said:

I'm moderately astonished, in these days of parking sensors and adaptive cruise control on all but the most basic cars, that aircraft aren't fitted with some sort of simple proximity warning device against near misses.

Article says such a device is 'under development'. Sounds like they need to pull their finger out...

I’m guessing you don’t know how parking sensors work and their range limitations, nor have you thought about the closing speed of aircraft and how long it takes to respond to a threat.

Collision Avoidance systems do exist and have existed for donkey’s years. It is called TCAS and uses the aircraft transponder signals to build up a picture of what is around you. The only issue with light aircraft is that the cost of the equipment, the size of it and the fact that not everything has a transponder fitted in the first place and so cannot be detected.

[Mr Pointy]

IforB said:

Collision Avoidance systems do exist and have existed for donkey’s years. It is called TCAS and uses the aircraft transponder signals to build up a picture of what is around you. The only issue with light aircraft is that the cost of the equipment, the size of it and the fact that not everything has a transponder fitted in the first place and so cannot be detected.

But having aircraft crashes is an extremly expensive business & even a fatal RTA is said to cost in the millions so surely there's an overall cost advantage to society? Maybe not to the owners of the aircraft though but I guess society covers the cost for them.

[saaby93]

I still cant see why a £50 front rear dashcam wouldnt do the trick
What are the air worthiness implications?

[Equus]

IforB said:

I’m guessing you don’t know how parking sensors work and their range limitations, nor have you thought about the closing speed of aircraft and how long it takes to respond to a threat.

Collision Avoidance systems do exist and have existed for donkey’s years. It is called TCAS and uses the aircraft transponder signals to build up a picture of what is around you. The only issue with light aircraft is that the cost of the equipment, the size of it and the fact that not everything has a transponder fitted in the first place and so cannot be detected.

You'd guess wrong.

My point is that the motor industry has progressed light years in the development of cheap, adaptable, reliable and lightweight electronics. Similarly, my fishing boat is fitted with electronics that give me an almost photographic view of the seabed below me and can identify individual fish, yet cost a few hundred £.

....whereas, as you say, the aviation industry seems to be stuck with expensive, complex and bulky systems like TCAS that has its roots in the 1950's.

[IforB]

Mr Pointy said:

IforB said:

Collision Avoidance systems do exist and have existed for donkey’s years. It is called TCAS and uses the aircraft transponder signals to build up a picture of what is around you. The only issue with light aircraft is that the cost of the equipment, the size of it and the fact that not everything has a transponder fitted in the first place and so cannot be detected.

But having aircraft crashes is an extremly expensive business & even a fatal RTA is said to cost in the millions so surely there's an overall cost advantage to society? Maybe not to the owners of the aircraft though but I guess society covers the cost for them.

Different budgets though. The aircraft equipment comes out of the aircraft owners pocket whereas the accident investigation is picked up by the state and/or insurers.

There's also the fact that these accidents are fortunately rare and there is very little in terms of technology that is available that would make a significant difference to the stats anyway.

TCAS in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flying is essential and well proven. For General Aviation in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) then the old Mk1 eyeball and using the radio to get situational awareness around you is still about as good as it gets.

It is not infallible and every aircraft has blindspots and needs discipline from the pilot to minimise these, but it is still extremely effective.

[IforB]

Equus said:

IforB said:

I’m guessing you don’t know how parking sensors work and their range limitations, nor have you thought about the closing speed of aircraft and how long it takes to respond to a threat.

Collision Avoidance systems do exist and have existed for donkey’s years. It is called TCAS and uses the aircraft transponder signals to build up a picture of what is around you. The only issue with light aircraft is that the cost of the equipment, the size of it and the fact that not everything has a transponder fitted in the first place and so cannot be detected.

You'd guess wrong.

My point is that the motor industry has progressed light years in the development of cheap, adaptable, reliable and lightweight electronics. Similarly, my fishing boat is fitted with electronics that give me an almost photographic view of the seabed below me and can identify individual fish, yet cost a few hundred £.

....whereas, as you say, the aviation industry seems to be stuck with expensive, complex and bulky systems like TCAS that has its roots in the 1950's.

Your fishing boat uses either a single or multi-beam sonar to get bathymetric information and display it to you. That would not work in the air at any decent range. Even synthetic aperture sonar systems are only in their infancy when it comes to working in air and at any sort of range that would help an aircraft.

Ultrasonic imaging in air is at a very early stage and the power requirements for sonar with a decent range is astonishing, then you have the whole issue of target detection and processing which is phenomenally complex. It is not workable no matter what you may think.

The aviation industry (and especially GA) is stuck in its ways on many things, but on this, not so much. TCAS has developed massively over the years and is an extremely useful and reliable tool nowadays. TCAS is available for small aircraft and it is effective, but in uncontrolled airspace, it can never been seen as infallible due to the fact that not everyone has to carry a transponder.

[PixelpeepS3]

Lets go the air crash investigation formula route.

way up the cost of making the changes to all aircraft
calculate the amount of lives lost as a result of this issue
Multiply the amount of deaths by $1.1 million

if the cost to fix is greater than the lives lost figure, forget it.

[williamp]

...but forward facing cameras from the car industry (reversing cameras) with a screen which can be switched on would work? The whole setup wont weigh more then a few kg, is reliable, all weather and good enough definition.

Even a bit of extra software to scan the image for obstacles would be possible

[Equus]

IforB said:

Your fishing boat uses either a single or multi-beam sonar to get bathymetric information and display it to you.

My fishing boat (and indeed my car) also uses GPS that tells it exactly where it is to within a few metres, and incidentally talks to the sonar and the onboard mapping data.... and could just as easily talk to a transponder.

I was not suggesting the use of sonar in the air, obviously, but we've got this thing called RADAR that's been around for a few years now, too...

You're obviously one of those people who is good at finding problems, but less imaginative when it comes to finding solutions?

The problem isn't the technology, it's the bureaucracy entrenched in the aviation authorities.

[TheRainMaker]

williamp said:

...but forward facing cameras from the car industry (reversing cameras) with a screen which can be switched on would work? The whole setup wont weigh more then a few kg, is reliable, all weather and good enough definition.

Even a bit of extra software to scan the image for obstacles would be possible

Just don’t think cameras would work tbh, the closing speed would be to fast, the screen would be to small and the camera angle would be to wide.

A plane would go from a tiny tiny dot to crash in a blink of an eye.

[IforB]

Equus said:

IforB said:

Your fishing boat uses either a single or multi-beam sonar to get bathymetric information and display it to you.

My fishing boat (and indeed my car) also uses GPS that tells it exactly where it is to within a few metres, and incidentally talks to the sonar and the onboard mapping data.... and could just as easily talk to a transponder.

I was not suggesting the use of sonar in the air, obviously, but we've got this thing called RADAR that's been around for a few years now, too...

You're obviously one of those people who is good at finding problems, but less imaginative when it comes to finding solutions?

Ahahahahahahaha.

Would you like to see something I've been heavily involved in to try and solve a little problem we have on this planet? Namely what on earth is down at the bottom of the ocean...



Here's a link to an article about it, you may recognise my username in the article. https://www.rina.org.uk/crewfree.html

The world's first long range, long endurance (200+ days at sea) unmanned surface vessel.

Oddly enough, it also has an experimental sonar system on the bottom to get bathymetric data at extreme depth.

Now, would you like to explain how a radar system would be applicable to a light aircraft in the circuit? Especially given that there are often a lot of targets around you that are moving constantly. Would that be a help or a hindrance?

[saaby93]

TheRainMaker said:

williamp said:

...but forward facing cameras from the car industry (reversing cameras) with a screen which can be switched on would work? The whole setup wont weigh more then a few kg, is reliable, all weather and good enough definition.

Even a bit of extra software to scan the image for obstacles would be possible

Just don’t think cameras would work tbh, the closing speed would be to fast, the screen would be to small and the camera angle would be to wide.

A plane would go from a tiny tiny dot to crash in a blink of an eye.

We're not talking about that though, in those the MK1 eyeball can pick it out
Here it's two craft in reasonably close proximity travelling for a while on similar course

[TheRainMaker]

I still think a screen which is of a practical size in a small cockpit would still not be able to have enough detail on it.

[anonymous-user]

Equus said:

IforB said:

Your fishing boat uses either a single or multi-beam sonar to get bathymetric information and display it to you.

My fishing boat (and indeed my car) also uses GPS that tells it exactly where it is to within a few metres, and incidentally talks to the sonar and the onboard mapping data.... and could just as easily talk to a transponder.

I was not suggesting the use of sonar in the air, obviously, but we've got this thing called RADAR that's been around for a few years now, too...

You're obviously one of those people who is good at finding problems, but less imaginative when it comes to finding solutions?

The problem isn't the technology, it's the bureaucracy entrenched in the aviation authorities.

What works in your car and boat doesn’t work in an aircraft at 40,000 travelling at Mach 85. Or even a light aircraft at 4,000 travelling at 160 kts.

It’s not about bureaucracy at all.

[Equus]

IforB said:

Now, would you like to explain how a radar system would be applicable to a light aircraft in the circuit?

Perhaps that's where GPS would help?

I'm glad I wasn't paying your bills - you are obviously one of those consultants who is a firm believer in the old saying that where you don't know the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem!

[CrutyRammers]

Here you go, op

[IforB]

Equus said:

IforB said:

Now, would you like to explain how a radar system would be applicable to a light aircraft in the circuit?

Perhaps that's where GPS would help?

I'm glad I wasn't paying your bills - you are obviously one of those consultants who is a firm believer in the old saying that where you don't know the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem!

How would GPS help in that instance? How would it help detect a threat that can come from any direction? How would it be better to have your head down looking at a small screen rather than outside looking around and spotting close targets visually?

As for your last comment about me, it doesn't even make sense. We know the solution, hence why we've built and developed the thing...