They're working on multiple technical upgrades already, and some airports have been upgraded. I think better information distribution is one thing. Large craft could have ADS-B (or ATC's view) tracking of a 1-3 mile bubble displayed to them. This would add a check to being blindly told what to do and blindly trusting that others are doing what they're told. You could change certain procedures such as the military having one pilot use NVG while the other not when flying in high traffic and high illumination airspace. No reason we can't add better sensors to planes when you think about all the collision detection we are adding in cars. I'm sure there are many other things that can be changed as well. Some of it's the pace. Stuff that's already been piloted and shown to be effective is still taking forever to roll out at the other airports.
> Large craft could have ADS-B tracking of a 1-3 mile bubble displayed to them. This would add a check to being blindly told what to do and blindly trusting that others are doing what they're told.
TCAS shows nearby aircraft on a map. It generates a Traffic Alert (TA) to warn of nearby aircraft when certain parameters are met. If they get closer then it generates a Resolution Advisory (RA) which gives climb/descend instructions to avoid a collision. RAs are disabled below 1000 feet.
So there's already tracking on a map that's available to the pilots. During landing, pilots are looking outside and not glued to their instruments.
The real issue is trying to cram too much aircraft in such a small space and time.
Yeah, so similar to what I said, the transponder didn't work with that system as that article speculates the UH-60 didn't have it. My suggestion was that you could display what ATC has, hence the data distribution part of my comment. But I guess we could just accept what the article tells us that it would be too dangerous to display that info at lower altitudes and allow pilots to make the call and that we just have to live with these incidents then...
