 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
The article seems pretty sure that these simulation studies prove that different cruising altitude rules would prevent crashes. Do the simulations include the effect of cruising altitudes on see-and-avoid operations (I'd be surprised, since there'd be a ton of work in modeling the human factors aspects)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.36.132 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Patlovany Risk Analysis article does address see-and-avoid operations. Midair collisions are the result of a three step process: (1) Failure to avoid being on a collision path, (2) Failure to detect the threat, (3) Failure to evade the threat (given successful detection of the threat). See-and-avoid is specifically addressed in Patlovany's original derivation of the probability formula for calculating the success (or failure) probability of a see-and-avoid response. For example, the probability of successful detection in the Denver midair collision between the Cheyenne and the Cessna 172 was about 28 percent. The probability of detection in the Amazon midair collision was zero percent within the uncertainty of the input variables used for the calculation. The unfortunate critical failure of the hemispherical cruising altitude rules and RVSM is the fact that they totally ignore the governing physical equation, the mean free path formula. Imagine a world of flight safety were 45 minutes of reserve fuel was required upon every landing, but not one pilot or regulator had any knowledge of or interest in applying the critical formulas: (1) velocity X time = distance; (2) consumption rate X time = fuel quantity. The authors and defenders of the hemispherical cruising altitude rules, by systematically promoting an airspace safety system that totally fails to optimize performance by failing to optimizing the critical variables in the mean free path formula, have inadvertently created a global technical error in the current safety system implementation. This error rewards inaccurate flight with improved safety. Even in Werfelman, Linda, "Sidestepping the Airway," AeroSafety World March 2007, pages 40-45, Flight Safety Foundation[1], there are numerous quotes from experienced airline pilots alluding to their recognition of the navigation paradox and the fact that accurate navigation has severe hazard increasing implications. However, not one expressed the next quantum leap in recognition of the problem, that is the very obvious solution applying the mean free path formula--that artificially high density air traffic slabs at cardinal altitudes between forbidden layers of intermediate adjacent vacant airspace is a tragic waste of a finite resource--the available volume for minimizing midair collisions. The Risk Analysis analysis uses two independent methods of analysis which correlate precisely with each other: Monte Carlo collision simulation, and mean free path formula variable sensitivity analysis. Subsequently, Paielli's independent code totally corroborated Patlovany's conclusions, while providing a slightly different formula for a linear cruising altitude rule, which works exactly like ACCAR, except over a different altitude interval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpatlovany (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Added an original research template. Not completely sure if it applies. Nevertheless, the page is rather lengthy in comparison with the amount of literature it cites (basically a couple of paper from rather obscure authors). Also, a few research papers do not, in general, represent the current consensus: an encyclopedic article of such size should be based on something more. 194.117.6.7 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)