Professional Pilot Testimony

[Mike_c130]

That's how I read it. Not only closer in altitude, but at the time when the other plane was close enough to pass under while they were in (or recovering) from the dive.


That's how I read it too.
I think the difference with planes is that it's quicker to dive than to turn. Also; I've heard in the past some simulations of collision avoidance systems that know which plane should dive and which should "pull up". (any aviators out there that can confirm that or slap me for saying it?)

The main reason that it is quicker to avoid another aircraft by climbing or descending is that we don't consider airspace to be a "true 3D" environment, but rather a series of stacked 2D layers. Separation by 1000' vertically is in most cases considered well clear, but 1000' laterally is considered to be a near miss. This is because aircraft generally maintain a given altitude during most phases of flight, and change altitude much more slowly than they move laterally. So long as you have a fairly precise instrument for determining that vertical separation, you are good to go.

The most modern TCAS systems do indeed "know" whether the best maneuver is to climb or dive to avoid collision, and if both aircraft have the system then they communicate and issue coordinated instructions. If only one aircraft has TCAS, then only that aircraft's crew will receive instructions to climb or descent. If one aircraft has no transponder, or doesn't have altitude reporting, then no avoidance directions can be given, since there is no way to determine the relative positions.

Mike

[HenrikOlsen]

Ergo ... then most pilots observations re: ufo's should be taken as credible .... or at least more credible than the average person.

There is a very large difference between peo0ple describing something they're familiar with and people describing something they don't know. Pilots have no more training in observing UFO's that anyone else and their testimony has as little weight as anyone else's.
They have as little frame of reference as anyone else to estimate distance, size and velocity, all of which are interlinked and none of which can be estimated without knowing some of the others.

[NEOWatcher]

Ergo ... then most pilots observations re: ufo's should be taken as credible .... or at least more credible than the average person.

No; it's not the credibility that differs, it's the frequency.
All people are on equal footing when they can't identify something.
The difference with pilots (, astronomers, etc) is that they can relate sightings more often with something that they have seen before. When they do (which is magnitudes more often than the average Joe), there's no story. When they don't, it's reported as credible when they are just as baffled as anyone not being able to relate it to something.

[John Mendenhall]

Ergo ... then most pilots observations re: ufo's should be taken as credible .... or at least more credible than the average person.

No.

[Gillianren]

Pilots should be taken to be just as credible as everyone else. Unfortunately for the argument, "everyone else" isn't necessarily very credible.

[Waarthog]

Descending is always a good idea when one thinks they are about to collide, and yes, we are supposed to each break to the right on collision approaching head-on. TCAS would not have been a factor in INITIALLY telling the pilot where to go, as TCAS isn't terrible concerned about Venus. Once the manuver was made, then TCAS will put up one heck of a racket if the Venus escape manuver now interdicts another aircraft's flight path. As to our being more credible observers than non pilots, not so much. One of the things i learned in flight training and accident investigation school was that pilots when describing an accident they SAW got the details wrong based on what they thought was happening. Aircraft accidents cvome from myriad causes and whatever the observing pilot thought was wrong, their eyewitness testimony bore that out, even though that testimony could be and was contrasted against the physical wreckage whcih told a different story.

[Strange]

got the details wrong based on what they thought was happening.

And that is the key point. Too many people think our visual system is like a video camera, just recording the images it receives.

Most of what we "see" is created by the brain from the poor quality, jerky and intermittent data it gets from the optical system. It has to interpolate and construct a coherent image or we wouldn't know what was going on. When unusual things happen, it is hardly surprising that it sometimes gets it wrong.

Unfortunately, when this is pointed out, some people people see it as an ad hominem attack on the intelligence or honesty of the witness.

[Tog]

I've mentioned this before, but it's fitting here, as well.

I worked for many years on the night shift in a grocery store where beer theft was common. Part of my job was (and actually still is) to watch people for suspicious activity and to be able to pass on those descriptions if needed.

One night a guy ran out the door with a case and I followed as far as the door. You can't see outside at night and it's not unheard of to find yourself in a bad spot.

My description of the guy was from the back and what little of his face I saw. It included his hair length and color, his proto-beard, and his white shirt. The police found a guy that matched my description, but I didn't really see his face.

His shirt was also not exactly white. It was a white shirt, but with a huge color graphic that covered about 2/3 of his back. When I replay that chase in my head, I cannot see that graphic. The odds of this being the person I chased are as close to certain as possible, but the fact that I can't recall that graphic means I had to tell them I wasn't sure.

[Swift]

brilongstaff's posts and the responses to them have been moved to their own thread