Avoiding action

[3FallinFlyer]

Today, I had the second genuine near miss of my flying career. On both occasions I spotted a plane level, close and closing fast. One was a twin from 2:00. The one today was a cessna (or other similar high wing) from 21:00. OK maybe I should get TCAS and improve lookout but that is not the issue up for discussion here. The fact is that on both of these occasions, my instant automatic reaction has been to dive beneath the other aircraft. The worrying thing is if the other pilot see's me at the same moment and takes the same action. On both occasions I do not think I would have had time to take any different avoiding action.

Appreciate any comments - not on lookout or tcas but on other possible last second action.

btw - was on a RIS from Luton but traffic was not mentioned (although that is no excuse of course)

[tonyhalsall]

There is a general rule which states that you should turn in such a way as to pass behind the other aircraft but that theory is really and practically limited to to you seeing an aircraft on your right hand side and on a converging course a long way away.
In reality and as you have found you tend not to see the other aircraft until it is virtually on you and gut reaction takes in. Most Pilots will take a self preservation route and manoevre in whatever direction will take them away from the converging aircraft - climbing away is not generally an option so a steep bannked and propbably descending turn away from the threat is probably most people's reaction.
I had a similar occurance myself in August whilst flying steadily in a Sw'ly direction in the late afternoon / evening. Suddenly and without warning an aircraft appeared at my two o'clock blocking out the sun. I should have seen and I should have taken avoiding action because it was on my right hand side but I could not possibly have done so as the other aircraft was in effect a stationary target within the sun and it was only when it got so close that it became bigger than the sun did I see it. Gut reaction kicked in to get me away from the 'threat' and I did a violent left hand dive. I don't know if it was the 'right' thing to do - the options to do the 'right' thing become pretty limited at such close range.
You did OK - you avoided a mid air but I would suggest that you report the airprox anyway to help everyone else in the future. Remember there is no blame apportioned in Airprox reports.

[gcolyer]

I beleive airlaw states a right hand turn as avoiding action. So if both pilots have rememberd his information they would execute a right hand turn thus avoiding a loud bang and a falling sensation.

[tonyhalsall]

I beleive airlaw states a right hand turn as avoiding action. So if both pilots have rememberd his information they would execute a right hand turn thus avoiding a loud bang and a falling sensation.

In a perfect world - yes
In the real world????

Why would I turn into the direction of an aircraft that is closing on me at about 200mph (see my earlier post).
Yes it was my responsibility to see him earlier and had I done that I would probably have made a right turn in good time to avoid the conflict but as he was 'hidden' in the sun and because he was on a collision course he stayed in a fixed relative position it was only when he blocked out the sun at about 30 metres did I see him and instinct would not allow me to turn towards him. Istead I initiated a steep dive and left bank away from him.

[Pitts2112]

I beleive airlaw states a right hand turn as avoiding action. So if both pilots have rememberd his information they would execute a right hand turn thus avoiding a loud bang and a falling sensation.

True enough, but at the time, you have to do what you think is right. I usually climb and turn. I fly a Pitts and there are few things out there with the kind of acceleration and climb rate I've got so most of the time, even if we both do the same thing, it's not going to be a real problem.

In the Taylorcraft, however, it's a slightly different story. There I tended to do what made sense at the time.

Pitts2112

[the dean]

[quote=3FallinFlyer;2905277]
. On both occasions I do not think I would have had time to take any different avoiding action.


so even though air law gives you the preferred course of action ( to reduce the time of exposure to the minimum ) the urgencies of the moment may dictate otherwise...and you have to hope afterwards that your action in the circumstances will stand up to scrutiny...well thats flying for you...

and why the legislators on the ground leave it up to you in the end of the day to do what they will judge afterwards is regarded as a safe course of action...

makes you feel between a rock and a hard place...does'nt it ??:confused:

well..sorry..no quick solutions...you are the PILOT IN COMMAND...:sad:

[robin]

True enough, but at the time, you have to do what you think is right. I usually climb and turn. I fly a Pitts and there are few things out there with the kind of acceleration and climb rate I've got so most of the time, even if we both do the same thing, it's not going to be a real problem.
In the Taylorcraft, however, it's a slightly different story. There I tended to do what made sense at the time.
Pitts2112

I have to say I prefer a descending turn, mainly because of lack of climb performance, but also so that I can keep an eye on the other bloke.

I had to make a rapid change of direction to avoid an aircraft near Henley, and although I had right of way decided to play safe. That proved to be a good idea, as he never made the slightest effort to change course, even though I put landing lights on as well as the strobes.

A right turn was out of the question as it would have taken me across his bows, so I chose a descending left turn. Not something I liked, but he sailed by without even acknowledging me.

What bothered me was that he was either flying head-down on instruments, but then should have been in contact with the local service who were warning me, or he was on autopilot and reading the Daily Sport.

But thats the trouble with areas around the 'honeypots' like CPT.

[gcolyer]

In a perfect world - yes
In the real world????

Why would I turn into the direction of an aircraft that is closing on me at about 200mph (see my earlier post).
Yes it was my responsibility to see him earlier and had I done that I would probably have made a right turn in good time to avoid the conflict but as he was 'hidden' in the sun and because he was on a collision course he stayed in a fixed relative position it was only when he blocked out the sun at about 30 metres did I see him and instinct would not allow me to turn towards him. Istead I initiated a steep dive and left bank away from him.


I was not critising you..so i am sorry if it seemed that way. Your description of events sounds like the other aircraft would have broad sided you. if this is the case his look out must have ben S*it as you would have have been right in front of him!

So i agree on your particular occasion a right hand turn would be stupid. I also agree as PIC you should take whatever action you feel is needed.

In cases such as yours don't you just feel like chasing the buggers to give them some wot 4!!

[QDMQDMQDM]

No point being the stiff with the highest marks in air law in the graveyard!

(If there's enough of you to scoop into a grave, that is.)

[tonyhalsall]

I didn't take it as criticism - I can come accross quite aggresive in my posts sometimes and I don't mean to.

My incident shook me up big time because it was absolutely my responsibility to stay clear - but the realisation that something could be closing on me in the sun would never, ever had occured to me before.
I agree that he could and should have seen me as I have a shiny aluminium aeroplane and I was surely 'glinting' in the sun - but I am glad I didn't have to remonstrate with him from six feet under as to whose responsibility it was.

[S-Works]

Why is this the other aircrafts fault? You did not see him either until the last moment hence the near miss. Was your look out not sufficient either?

Assuming your aircraft would have been "glinting" in the sun enough to alert him to your presence is a little arrogant as well.

It may well have been that the vis or the sun from his angle effectivly made you invisible.

See and avoid is an onus on all parties.....

[tonyhalsall]

My incident shook me up big time because it was absolutely my responsibility to stay clear - but the realisation that something could be closing on me in the sun would never, ever had occured to me before.

Arrogant?? Did you read the whole post?

It was my fault, but I would have thought that a shiny aluminium aeroplane is easier to see away from the sun than a white one that is hidden within the sun itself

That is what I said

[the dean]

[quote=robin;2906117]
as he never made the slightest effort to change course, even though I put landing lights on as well as the strobes.


robin...

surely if you regard strobes as ' anti collision lights '....mandatory while the aircraft is in operation...

certainly a good idea to put on the landing lights...but i would keep the strobes, navigation lights and the anti collision on the tail on AT ALL TIMES irrespective of traffic...:ok:

dean...

[Andy_RR]

...as he never made the slightest effort to change course

being devils advocate, but how many times have you done this to someone else? ...and how do you know?

[Diddley Dee]

3FF

You mentioed that you were on a RIS from Luton, was it limited in anyway and did you inform them that you had just had to take AA to avoid a collision? If so what was their response?

Diddley Dee

[IO540]

A few points worth noting:

A target which is moving across your field of vision, no matter how close he is, is not on a genuine collision course. A target on a collision course will appear stationary to you. Very hard to spot, and this greatly undermines the see-and-avoid principle which is one of the treasured cornerstones of GA.

You can't assume who the target is talking to. In Class G, he doesn't have to talk to anybody, and frankly talking to anybody who doesn't provide a radar information service, or a radar advisory service, is a total and complete waste of time for any traffic avoidance purposes. "There are seven aircraft known in your area".... yeah right that's really useful (not). The reality of UK airspace management (basically, no regular radar services outside controlled airspace) is that many experienced pilots fly in Class G with just a listening watch, on London Info or perhaps some nearby unit (in case one has to make a mayday call).

I sometimes see other planes on a course that will take us fairly close. Once I have established that we are going to miss by a good few hundred yards (which looks quite close) or more, I am happy to just sit there flying a dead straight track on the autopilot (with a finger on the disconnect button) while watching the other plane. Often I see the other plane doing nothing and then in the last few seconds waking up and doing an avoidance maneuver which seems quite pointless. No doubt, he thinks I was head down and fiddling with my GPS, just like we read about in all the magazines ;)

But the vast majority of targets are never seen. If that really worries you, mandatory transponders and TCAS are one way to have a go at addressing that... the other way is to get an IR and fly in controlled airspace as much as possible (and hope that nobody infringes it).

[3FallinFlyer]

A few points:
1) I was on a RIS not 'limited' RIS
2) The controller was very busy hence I suspect he never noticed the other A/C, or did'nt have time to inform me. This is also why I never mentioned it to him.
3) Both incidents were stationary - very big - and growing fast in the field of vision. On the first incident with the twin, I had to dive so violently that everything loose in the cockpit became airbourne and I gritted my teeth for a fraction of a second as I waited for the impact on the vert stabiliser.
The one yesterday was not quite so close but I would guess 3-4 seconds to impact had I not descended.

I remember being taught during my ppl that the correct avoiding action was to increase power while inducing a 60' right bank turn. That would'nt have prevented a collision in either case here!

[robin]

[quote=robin;2906117]
as he never made the slightest effort to change course, even though I put landing lights on as well as the strobes.


robin...

surely if you regard strobes as ' anti collision lights '....mandatory while the aircraft is in operation...

certainly a good idea to put on the landing lights...but i would keep the strobes, navigation lights and the anti collision on the tail on AT ALL TIMES irrespective of traffic...:ok:

dean...

Sorry - I wasn't clear about this. The strobes were on as well as the beacon. The landing light went on to try to add to my visibility

[robin]

being devils advocate, but how many times have you done this to someone else? ...and how do you know?

Good question.

[Whirlybird]

Let's face it, see and avoid is a nice idea and sometimes works, but most of the time it's incredibly hard to see other aircraft. :( :( :(

[Diddley Dee]

3FF

First of hats off to you for preventing a collision, however I personally think that no matter how busy the controller was, it should have been brought to his attention that you came as close to the other ac as you did, either on the RT at the time or by a phone call to the unit afterwards.

Diddley Dee

[soay]

Let's face it, see and avoid is a nice idea and sometimes works, but most of the time it's incredibly hard to see other aircraft. :( :( :(
So why is there so much resistance to making transponder use compulsory - at least in all aircraft with an engine and that wouldn't fall apart if you hit them? That would encourage those who could afford it to fit TCAS, which would also reduce the risk to those who couldn't, by reducing the number of aircraft in the sky relying on eyeballs alone.

Making use compulsory would put a stop to those who have transponders but don't use mode C, so they can't get caught level busting - which is a very dubious justification, given the possible consequences.

[shortstripper]

So why is there so much resistance to making transponder use compulsory - at least in all aircraft with an engine and that wouldn't fall apart if you hit them? That would encourage those who could afford it to fit TCAS, which would also reduce the risk to those who couldn't, by reducing the number of aircraft in the sky relying on eyeballs alone.

What a stupid reply! :ugh: .... So what about those who couldn't afford it? no, hang on, you just said that making transponders compulsory would encourage those who could afford it to fit TCAS, which would also reduce the risk to those who couldn't ... of course it would, they wouldn't be flying would they???

Of course this subject hasn't been done to death recently has it? ... Let's just stick to "what's the best avoiding action"? shall we? ... please!

SS :oh:

[soay]

Let's just stick to "what's the best avoiding action"? shall we? ... please!
The consensus that seems to be forming from the posts in this thread is that there is no "best avoiding action". You're just lucky if you get it right, and most traffic around you can't be seen anyway. Shame there's no technical solution to help with this! :ugh:

[robin]

But look on the bright side. There have been very few mid-air collisions so the odds are still in your favour

[Whirlybird]

So why is there so much resistance to making transponder use compulsory

Jeeeeeezzzzzz. I make a comment that will hopefully stop people criticising those who inadvertantly get too close to other aircraft, based on flying and people as I know them. And someone has to take it and make a massive jump to a deduction which could well precipitate the end of GA flying. And....why? It's not like we're having mid-air collisions in our skies every week, is it? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[scooter boy]

This is why I love TCAS.

It might've helped - it might not.
Sure focuses the attention when you hear "traffic..traffic..traffic..":uhoh:

And as for "not being able to afford a transponder" - I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. How much money do you spend on flying per annum? Far more than the cost of fitting a small transponder I'll bet.

SB

[shortstripper]

And as for "not being able to afford a transponder" - I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. How much money do you spend on flying per annum? Far more than the cost of fitting a small transponder I'll bet.

No actually Scooter Boy I don't, besides which where do you suggest I fit one in my small single seat cockpit? My hand held icom radio even had to be fitted down between my legs in front of the stick! There are rarely simple solutions to such complex problems, so think before making such sweeping statements. This subject has been debated to death but people still bring it up again and again ... getting boring now!

SS

[scooter boy]

SS, I used to have a little terra transponder in my little taildragger.
Must have weighed less than 2lb and drawn very little current - front plate was about 8 x 4 cm and it worked a treat.
I'll bet there'll be plenty of cut price pre-loved mode C transponders coming onto the market over the next year or so.

I don't agree that everybody should be forced to have one however I do not think that finance or space are such insurmountable obstacles as you suggest,

SB ;)

[shortstripper]

Well I'm open for persuasion, but 8x4cm front face ... and how deep?

Here's my cockpit ...

http://www.ivan.pfanet.co.uk/panel2.jpg

and this is what's behind the panel ...

http://www.ivan.pfanet.co.uk/panel1.jpg


I still don't see where I can fit one? Also what power consumption? and where is the best aerial placement to avoid fried b@lls? So out of interest, what was your little taildragger and where was your transponder and aerial fitted?
As for cost? my T31m cost me around £2500 to make, and I figure an annual flying budget of around under £2k to inc maint and insurance for up to 100 hours.

All that aside, I've been flying since 1986 and I'm still here having rarely flown transponder equipped aircraft.

SS

PS. Sorry to be party to dragging this thread back to yet another Transponder/TCAS debate ... grrrrrrrrrrr

[scooter boy]

SS, your elegantly demonstrated point is well taken re:space.:ouch:
However - I can see a nice gap right in the middle of your panel just asking for a nice bit of hi-tech electronics.
Also I think you would have enough depth (25cm or so - I may be wrong).
The aerial is about 3 in and was mounted underneath. Your balls would be safe(ish).
I am sure Terra (Trimble) have a website - it really was a nice piece of minaturisation.

I had a europa monowheel - (much more space for kit like this I know) and put 500+hrs on it (in UK, Europe, USA and Canada) great little plane.

I'll be over with my saw and some wire drecly,;)

SB

[3FallinFlyer]

I've given this (the original subject) some thought and came up with this FWIW:

I automatically elected to dive on both occasions as a climb or descent i.e. elevator input gives a direct instant vector change away from the path of the other a/c, whereas rudder and aileron input has a much significant lag before a significant vector change occurs. Also a change in pitch takes you instantly off of a collision course (if the other a/c maintains alt & heading), whereas a turn to avoid a collision may just prolong your life slightly if you turn away from the other a/c or shorten your life if you turn towards it. Therefore, I conclude that the best course of action in most cases would be a diving turn away from the traffic if in a low powered a/c and possibly a climbing turn away if in a powerful aerobatic type. But then of couse every situation is different :confused:

Makes me wonder why avoiding action is taught as a 60 deg bank angle level RH turn with simultaneous added power during the PPL (well thats what I was taught anyway!)

[shortstripper]

However - I can see a nice gap right in the middle of your panel just asking for a nice bit of hi-tech electronics.


Sorry SB, that bit in the middle is where the aileron control cross member is located (see second pic and you'll see what I mean). I'd have loved to have used it for something else but it can't be cut into at all.

I've sat in the cockpit again with the idea of "where would I mount it" and the only place would be down on my left. It would just fit, but there's no way I'd reach to change the dial up numbers ... Ok for passive transmit, but no good if asked to squawk a particular number.

SS

[gcolyer]

What about making a bracket/mount and mounting under the panel near your throttle ? i admit it might be a nightmare to make a bracket.

[shortstripper]

What about making a bracket/mount and mounting under the panel near your throttle ? i admit it might be a nightmare to make a bracket.

Where do you think my knees go? Seriously, ask Footless Halls, who visited yesterday. I'm 5'5" and there is little room. He, as a normal 5 foot ? (maybe 6'?) ummm .... well taller than me anyway! had trouble squeezing in at all. The bit in the middle below the panel is where the stick stands when cruising, and my knees are just below the panel either side. You really have to sit in one of these small single seaters to appreciate what I mean!

SS

[chevvron]

Only just discovered this thread.
Luton is not a LARS unit, so any ATSOCA they give you is 'workload permitting' bearing in mind the radar controllers aren't actually at Luton but are at West Drayton in the same room as AlanM and TDM, plus they have to do Essex Radar as well (but not necessarily at the same time).
IO540 regular radar services outside controlled airspace are available from several units such as Brize, Farnborough and Cardiff.
I agree there's a big hole in LARS availability in the south east of England; given a bit of wiring and ingenuity this hole could be filled easily (the radar displays are there as are radar heads), but the money isn't available from ATS providers who are required to show some return for any outlay, so a source of funding needs to be found. Maybe pressure on the D of T to provide funding on a 'safety' stance woild be appropriate?