Shoreham Incident. [Archive]

memories of px

4th Jul 2011, 20:43

if you were joining the circuit correctly,you should cross the upwind numbers at 90 degrees to the runway,having entered the zone at 1100', traffic in the circuit will have climbed out to 5-600' before turning left 90 degrees, climbing crosswind, to turn downwind at 1100' , therefore joining traffic will see circuit traffic at the same level, either left, right, or ahead of him, an error is for circuit training traffic to fly the climbing crosswind leg paralleling the coast. if you are coming from the west,at some point, say, littlehampton, well west of worthing, you should discontinue keeping the coast on your left, and position your aircraft so you join crosswind over the numbers,at 1100', nowhere near the crosswind climb out track of circuit traffic
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53855000/jpg/_53855692_propeller.jpg

IO540

4th Jul 2011, 21:30

Yes.

A crosswind join to Shoreham 20 should be flown from roughly north Worthing or, if you like, 2-3 miles north abeam Worthing Pier.

That way, one is flying a constant track of about 110, for 2-3 miles at least, ending up over the upwind numbers.

There is no good way to do that starting from the coast of Worthing. Well, it would be a severe dogleg, and you will be well over a built-up area with few engine failure options.

Whether this is what happened, I have no idea. The wreckage is a long way in from the coast.

From here (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9120608.One_dead_in_Shoreham_plane_crash/), a comment near the bottom, it sounds like the crashed plane was an RV6. The poster is however still clue-less about the role of ATC.

EDFLY

5th Jul 2011, 08:23

My condolences go out to the pilots family and friends very sad day

englishal

5th Jul 2011, 08:39

The problem is with crosswind joins...IMHE...that many pilots think a "crosswind join" should be where the crosswind normally is (i.e. upwind of the numbers). I've flow with people who join like that and it makes my skin crawl as it is a recipe for disaster. Sticking OVER the upwind numbers gives greatest vis, clearance and least conflict. The only possible time there may be an issue is if someone goes around early and are back at circuit height by the end of the runway.

It baffles me why they didn't see each other though. The DA40 viz is pretty good.

Mark1234

5th Jul 2011, 09:11

Possibly pointless observation - Shoreham has a pretty long runway (depending on the wind direction), and there are some pretty pokey types hanging out there. Not saying it's so in this case, but I rather suspect something like an Extra 300 could comfortably make 1000agl by the upwind numbers. Whether it should is another matter.

gyrotyro

5th Jul 2011, 09:12

As could an RV-6A if doing a performance take off. Sadly it might have been the case.

MichaelJP59

5th Jul 2011, 10:25

Depending on the wind strength there are quite a few aircraft that can exceed 1000ft by the upwind numbers given 1000m of runway. Agree though that you shouldn't really do it if in any doubt about the circuit traffic, especially as you'll be nose high and even worse forward vis than normal.

maxred

5th Jul 2011, 10:38

Well in an incredibly busy airfield like Shoreham, if you blast from standing start to 1100 agl by the end of the runway, without screamimg from the rooftops that you are intending to do that, and all joiners beware, then you are an idiot.

Busy and complex airfields require the utmost respect and awareness from all. In similar threads, where are the UK most dangerous airfields? - Perth, Shorham, White Waltham the list goes on, but if all participants in the circuit and take off/landing phase, do as they should, it makes life a little bit safer for all.

This is no way assumes anything about the circumstances of this tragic accident.

joelgarabedian

5th Jul 2011, 10:52

Given the location of the RV, is it plausible that the RV did join crosswind correctly (flying over the 02 numbers at the end of 20 tracking 110), whilst the DA40 was flying the crosswind leg of the circuit? When the RV turned downwind that may have put it in front of the DA40, which would explain the DA40 losing its prop, and the eyewitness accounts that the RV lost its tail.

I may have misunderstood though - I thought the DA40 was doing circuits and the RV was rejoining, not departing.

A very tragic incident indeed, and a very sad day for Shoreham Airport. My thoughts are with all those involved.

Joel.

BackPacker

5th Jul 2011, 11:08

Well in an incredibly busy airfield like Shoreham, if you blast from standing start to 1100 agl by the end of the runway, without screamimg from the rooftops that you are intending to do that, and all joiners beware, then you are an idiot.

Although that advice makes sense at airfields where OHJ or crosswind joins are used, I have never ever seen it written down anywhere.

You fly Vx (plus the associated flap settings) until reaching 200', then reconfigure and fly Vy until reaching circuit altitude. Although you might, depending on the aircraft, adopt a different climb speed when above 1000'. That's the only take-off profile for which you have actual performance data in your average spamcan. And that's regardless of the length of the runway, circuit altitude or your actual ROC.

In fact, I think you could argue that the "idiot" in this case was the person crossing the upwind end of the runway, while another aircraft was taking off.

(Note: I'm not at all familiar with this accident or the circumstances in general. I just think it's the person performing the crosswind join who should give way to the aircraft taking off, not the other way around. And yes, I've been in this exact situation: Climbing out on upwind, at about 700' AGL, when an aircraft crossed directly in front of me at about 30 feet distance, same level. I can still recall the whites in their eyes.)

IO540

5th Jul 2011, 11:22

The separation during departure depends on

1) the departing plane not climbing like a bat out of hell, and

2) the crosswind joiner joining at the circuit height and at the right place (over the numbers)

Lookout is good but is never 100%, especially when traffic might be coming from your 3 o'clock or your 9 o'clock.

memories of px

5th Jul 2011, 11:29

Bearing in mind that the one thats going to hit you from the same level , is the one thats on a constant bearing, so you dont pick up the visual cues of movement as it is always in the same position in the screen.
at the minute i have not read for certain, who was joining and who was in the circuit, but the circuit aircraft does seem to be close in downwind, possibly glide approach training, but just shooting the breeze, no basis for my opinion whatsoever.

SimJock

5th Jul 2011, 11:31

In fact, I think you could argue that the "idiot" in this case was the person crossing the upwind end of the runway, while another aircraft was taking off.

A bit harsh, if that is what you've been asked to do by ATC, you can hardly decide to start orbiting deadside because you hear a take off clearance given, you may easily interfere with something else.

I was given a crosswind join for 20 a few weeks back when I was still between Littlehampton and Worthing and told to report downwind. I wasn't comfortable with that, so reported Worthing descending to circuit height for crosswind join, then as I was approaching crosswind an aircraft was given take off clearance on 20 so I reported my crosswind position. Better that everyone is aware of position I think.

BackPacker

5th Jul 2011, 11:42

1) the departing plane not climbing like a bat out of hell, and

Yeah, but what constitutes "a bat out of hell"?

I just did the calculation for a PA28-161 (the only aircraft for which I have performance data to hand right now) and that aircraft can already reach 200' by the end of the runway, assuming ISA conditions, nil wind and MTOW. Lightly loaded and with a 20kt headwind, 300' by the end of the runway. And that aircraft is by no means a spirited climber.

Anything else with a lower weight or more powerful engine will be able to outclimb a PA28-161. Heck, I think even your TB would reach circuit height by the end of the runway if lightly loaded and flown with the most efficient climb profile. And that's not even considering the fact that the aircraft taking off might have been doing a T&G or go-around.

We're not talking about Extra-300, Pitts Special or RAF tornados take-off performance here. Quite a few relatively normal aircraft are able to reach circuit height by the end of a 1000m runway if the conditions are right.

BackPacker

5th Jul 2011, 11:47

A bit harsh, if that is what you've been asked to do by ATC, you can hardly decide to start orbiting deadside because you hear a take off clearance given, you may easily interfere with something else.

Actually, unless we're talking class B airspace here, that's *exactly* what you're supposed to do. In anything class C and below, VFR/VFR separation is your responsibility, not that of ATC. If that separation requires an orbit deadside, so be it.

I was given a crosswind join for 20 a few weeks back when I was still between Littlehampton and Worthing and told to report downwind. I wasn't comfortable with that, so reported Worthing descending to circuit height for crosswind join, then as I was approaching crosswind an aircraft was given take off clearance on 20 so I reported my crosswind position. Better that everyone is aware of position I think.

Reporting your position is good, but just reporting your position does not automagically prevent a mid-air collision. At some point in time somebody actually has to take avoiding action. And since you are joining the circuit, it's up to you to give way to any traffic that's already in the circuit. Regardless of the way you join the circuit.

Spitoon

5th Jul 2011, 12:10

Actually, unless we're talking class B airspace here, that's *exactly* what you're supposed to do. In anything class C and below, VFR/VFR separation is your responsibility, not that of ATC. If that separation requires an orbit deadside, so be it.I'm not sure that it's quite as simple as that - and I am in no way attempting to an armchair investigation of this sad event. ATC should also pass traffic information to assist the pilots to avoid each other - and perhaps even issue instructions so as to reduce the potential for aircraft to get close to each other. This applies even to class C airspace and 'below'.

And to be pedantic, what VFR pilots are doing is collision avoidance, not separation.

BackPacker

5th Jul 2011, 12:20

And to be pedantic, what VFR pilots are doing is collision avoidance, not separation.

I don't have the actual ICAO annex 11 right here, but Jeremy Pratt quotes this annex in Air Law, and he talks about "separation" not "collision avoidance".

Class C
[...]
VFR flights separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information about other VFR flights

memories of px

5th Jul 2011, 12:26

absolutely so, use your ears and eyes, manoeuvre or adjust your speed to position behind established circuit traffic, ATC can only do so much, aviate, navigate, communicate.

mad_jock

5th Jul 2011, 12:26

The more I read about this the more it sounds similar to the accident at coventry between 2 light aircraft in the circuit.

englishal

5th Jul 2011, 12:37

Whatever happened, both aeroplanes *should* have been aware of each other at a towered field and should have been keeping a very good look out. If I couldn't see the other traffic I'd deliberately throw in a few more phrases onto the RT like "joining crosswind for 20, over the numbers at 1000" or something to help them as well as me. Likewise when I am coming into an untowered field, I'll report something like "5 miles south at 1500, positioning for base leg join 25". The more pertinent info the better if you ask me.

The DA40 doesn't have any blind spots like the windcreen pillar in the coventry accident and has good vis. I imagine the RV has good vis too.

fireflybob

5th Jul 2011, 12:48

The midair collision risk is always there as long as two aircraft are airborne in the same bit of airspace.

When I trained at Hamble in 1969 there was a fatal collision between 2 solo students - one was established in the circuit (right hand) and just turning crosswind - the joiner was a little bit wide and sadly they met. One of the recommendations of the report was that right hand circuits at a training airfield were not suitable when a/c with side by side seating were being operated, particularly solo. At the time there was full atc but it was a nice day and they often used "negative" r/t - ie just make the calls and atc would keep an eye out.

I think it's almost impossible to completely eliminate this risk but the answer lies in full and comprehensive training on all aspects of lookout and how to manage the flight (as englishal comments - intelligent use of r/t etc) - if you can't see the other a/c then ask!

Going back to the Hamble days there were often circa 12 in the circuit and probably double that over the IOW doing GH - a training situation which made you very aware of the importance of lookout and clearing airspace during climb/descent etc.

During the days when I did lots of basic instruction I observed that the lookout prior to commencing descent was often neglected - probably because instructors were not demonstrating it and/or insisting on it. Another one is those who descend on the dead side in a straight line - better to be turning so that you are clearing the airspace below and you have a better view of the runway and traffic which you might meet later on when crosswind so that you can adjust so that you don't do so.

IO540

5th Jul 2011, 14:36

Does anyone know which of the two (DA40 and RV6) was departing and which one was joining crosswind?

BTW there is no way my TB20 can reach 1100ft by the end of the runway. Well, maybe in 50kt headwind :) Normally about 300-400ft.

A departure should be protected from crosswind traffic provided the crosswind traffic joins correctly above the numbers and at circuit height.

Obviously an Extra 300 could hit the circuit height over the numbers but one would hope that an E300 pilot would be aware of the less than stellar wisdom of doing that.

soaringhigh650

5th Jul 2011, 14:43

he talks about "separation" not "collision avoidance".

But separation is collision avoidance, is it not?

If you're not separate from each other, you must be joined. Therefore you've collided.

memories of px

5th Jul 2011, 14:50

i believe the diamond star joined crosswind at 1100' and the vans was taking off doing a performance climb out to gain height.

Kengineer-130

5th Jul 2011, 15:22

Very sad events :( I have done quite a lot of flying in the USA, and have to say the downwind 45 degree join ( at circuit height) gives you a much better "air picture", as you know exactly where everyone is joining, and at what level. Personally I feel the overhead join & crosswind joins etc can lead to events like this, as you can end up with people flying with big blind spots around them, being slightly off track/height during the join etc...

vanHorck

5th Jul 2011, 15:49

Memories of px

If the Vans was doing a performance climb out then the odds were worse than one in a million, substantially so.

Does anyone know if the DA40 had announced his intentions to join crosswind?

memories of px

5th Jul 2011, 15:57

atc would have probably given him the clearance to join crosswind when he called up for rejoin from 10 miles out, his next call would be to report crosswind or downwind.

JW411

5th Jul 2011, 16:05

I fly from Shoreham. The airfield has full ATC. Permission to make a crosswind join has to be requested from ATC and such permission granted before joining.

The DA-40 was based at Shoreham so it is 99.9% certain that he had been cleared by ATC to join crosswind.

AdamFrisch

5th Jul 2011, 16:12

I like overhead joins as they provide for a longer time to get established, gives you the opportunity to see the field and the windsock (which is invaluable at uncontrolled fields) and keep you separated from the downwind traffic by altitude. I use it here in the US with my Aero Commander on smaller fields as well, as it provides time for it to slow down. I even asked for it at Stockton last time, which is very much controlled and has two long parallel runways, and got it. The 45 degree join in the US is a suggestion or recommendation - you can ask for whatever you want.

The 45 degree join works fine if you're set up beforehand for it. If you're descending into the downwind on your 45 degree, then I'd argue it's more dangerous than an overhead join as you're now descending into traffic that could be behind or below you with no way of spotting them. This happens daily in the US - rarely do you see people being established at pattern altitude at the 45. Therefore in reality, the English systems is safer, I think.

I think the safest way would be to climb to pattern altitude, i.e. come in lower on the 45, but that's obviously not very practical.

englishal

5th Jul 2011, 16:58

Well if the Vans was making a maximum performance climb at take off and was likely to be at circuit height by the end of the runway at a towered field, then a) ATC should have known about it and made the DA40 aware or instructed something else, b) the Vans pilot should have been aware of crosswind joining traffic. What was the reason for the steep rate of climb? There is no terrain to clear....

Shoreham often clears people to join on a left crosswind for 20. You could argue that he should have checked clear above and even looked left and right a bit. Can't really fault the DA40 crew in that case as he would have been approaching from about the only blind spot a DA40 has - below and left.

Good effort by the DA40, if this is what happened.

Pilot DAR

5th Jul 2011, 17:29

Are we getting a little carried away with expounding the perfect circuit and entry here? Yes they are possible, no, they don't happen often. I have no idea what happened here, other than the reported outcome.

We are best reminding ourselves about the need for ever vigilence for traffic. Much more than that, in terms of enless armchair investigating for an accident like this, I cannot see as being helpful. We must remind ourselves that all aircraft have blind spots, and it is always possible to have zero relative motion traffic. I had one a month or so ago, just one bug spot on the windsheild getting bigger, where the others were not. Head on. By the time I believed what I was seeing, it was time for quite an evasive turn. I don't think I was seen at all by the other aircraft - it never altered course.

Let's not beat up on ATC. They, more than we pilots, are bound by the procedures of their jobs. They do what they are supposed to do, and are not supposed to offer other services, not matter how temping, or well meaning. I'm sure there is a Shoreham controller who feels terrible. Let's support that person. We pilots have all of the opportunity for collision prevention, by any means, and the most interest in success too!

As for What was the reason for the steep rate of climb?

Ooo, Ooo.... Ooo, I know this one! Because he could! I've done it, when I was flying a capable aircraft. Who among us would deny doing it!

I've flown from Shoreham (thank you, friend). There is a lot of "detail" on the ground all around there. That can make a small relative motion "target" much more hard to spot as traffic - it just blends into the background. Vigilence!

Perhaps there was fault, perhaps not, perhaps we'll never know. Just sad, and a reminder for us to follow patterns other pilots will anticipate, and keep our eyes open.

Torque Tonight

5th Jul 2011, 17:33

Seems that the kangaroo court has reached a verdict and passed sentence before any real evidence has been submitted. Speculation built upon speculation, that attributes blame and negligence to the deceased before any facts are really known. The press picks up on this stuff you know. A lot of you should know a lot better.:=

mikehallam

5th Jul 2011, 17:37

Every post appears to accept a plane climbs, fast or not, straight on, right up to circuit height. So what's going on ??

AFIR one was taught to climb to 500 ft then make a (left) turn and continue climbing till at 1000 ft, ready for a downwind leg at circuit height.

So have the rules changed without me noticing, or has Shoreham a non standard circuit climb pattern ?

When joining an airfield crosswind I fly over the upwind end of the runway at (usually) 1000 ft - should anyone unnoticed be climbing out I'd expect them to turn crosswind too 500 ft below me & continue to 1000 ready for downwind if circuit training.
ATC normally will accomodate alternative approaches/departures depending on the traffic density, when high volumes one is usually requested to use the conventional O/H join, descend to circuit height on the dead side etc.

mike hallam.

Spitoon

5th Jul 2011, 17:46

But separation is collision avoidance, is it not?

If you're not separate from each other, you must be joined. Therefore you've collided.In ATC terms the word separation has a rather specific meaning and relates to a number of defined minimum 'distances' that ATC must keep certain aircraft apart. These distances are defined in a number of ways so that they can be applied in different situations, for example as times between aircraft passing a particular point. When using radar it's usually more simple and you might hear references to 5 miles and 1000ft, these being the minimum lateral and vertical distances respectively - in this case the controller must ensure one or the other separation distances exists between two aircraft being separated.

Depending on the class of airspace and the flight rules that the aircraft are flying under, the controller will either be required to separate two aircraft or not. If separation is not required the controller will have some responsibility to provide information to help the pilot(s) to avoid a collision. There is no minimum distance by which a pilot needs to miss the other - this is collision avoidance. The amount of information that ATC must provide varies, again depending on the class of airspace and local practice.

BackPacker

5th Jul 2011, 17:58

AFIR one was taught to climb to 500 ft then make a (left) turn and continue climbing till at 1000 ft, ready for a downwind leg at circuit height.

That's all fine in a slow (climbing) aircraft. But if your aircraft is capable of climbing to 1000' less than 1000m after commencing its take-off roll, it means that if you turn crosswind at 500', you do so a little further than halfway down the runway, and end up joining downwind about mid-field. Possibly cutting off slower (climbing) aircraft.

Personally I would expect traffic to turn crosswind not earlier than the end of the runway, and perhaps not earlier than about half a mile on upwind.

maxred

5th Jul 2011, 18:01

Spot on Mike, yes, I was trained, and I still believe this is the procedure, climb ahead to 500', then left/right turn climbing to circuit height,1000', join the pattern. Standard calls all the way, which nowadays appear to be quite random.

On joining o/h 2000' to descend deadside,turning as you descend, pref away from pattern, then crosswind at 1000' over the numbers, position reports again,keeping a very good lookout.

I do not think any of this has changed???? Or has it?

Mark1234

5th Jul 2011, 18:12

Mikehallam: Unless I'm missing something, you're rather assuming that one is staying in the circuit - in my experience, if the runway heading is suitable, it is not at all unusual to climb and depart on runway heading.

Generally one climbs at Vy initially at least for the purpose of getting some air beneath you - in a performant type, such as the RV somewhere with a long runway you'll hit that 500ft well before the upwind threshold. I confess I'll normally flatten off a bit and continue a 'cruise' climb at that point, but I never was completely clear about the early turn - turn crosswind at 500ft after takeoff and you'll have aeroplanes on crosswind at all sorts of distances - I've always considered it to be more of a geographic consideration.

So far, I'm thinking I'll be more careful about using available climb performance, more aware of the crosswind join, and more diligent about lowering the nose every so often in the climb. As an aside, I do wonder if the presence of 'ATC', might be prone to making people relax the lookout a little too much in the assumption that they are 'separated'. I don't know whether the typical tower has a radar picture, but I tend to believe they're in a worse position to observe all the traffic than I am..

mally35

5th Jul 2011, 18:37

I am now saddened to learn who the deceased pilot was. RIP Alan.

maxred

5th Jul 2011, 18:40

This thread was about a very unfortunate incident where a crash has occurred and someone has died as a result. Not good.

As I read through, and contributed, the thread has become a discussion on aerodrome/pattern procedures, some of which are appearing slightly alien to me, and whilst I witness a lot of what I am reading, some contributors appear to totally misunderstand the arrival/depart sequence at GA airfields.

The thought of someone in a high performance, high climb aeroplane, as a matter of course, blasting up through a crosswind join procedure, and then wondering why there was an airprox, gives me the shudders. I stated in an earlier post, fine, if circuit inactive, no one about, great. If the circuit is active then, clear intentions to all and sundry about what you are about to do, is/should be mandatory. The process is there for safety, of all.

A high performance climb out could be considered an aero manoeuvre in some
circles:cool:

maxred

5th Jul 2011, 18:55

I was not talking about this incident. I have been careful not too.

I was commenting on other posters who suggested this seemed normal

englishal

5th Jul 2011, 19:04

Ok, noted, I have toned down my comment.

But I would be seriously pissed off if someone climbed like a bat out of hell into my prop from a blind spot and nearly killed me and possibly my family because they didn't see me....when they didn't need to climb like that and hadn't got "the big picture", and may have been doing it "just because they can". Sure do it, but make damn sure no one is in the way.

I'd also be well pissed off if someone I knew was killed by someone barrel rolling at 50' because they wanted to show off to someone on the ground....like has happened before.

I am just going by comments previously posted, and I apologise if this transpires not to be the case, but from what has been posted the RV climbed as fast as possible into the DA40.

ct8282

5th Jul 2011, 19:09

I am a member of FlyingTime and now fly regularly in one of their PA28's. I have spoken with the guys at FlyingTime, firstly to make sure that everyone there is ok, but also to find out some details as obviously I am a little shaken to hear of such a serious incident so close to home.

As to be expected they are not allowed to mention any specific details as the situation is currently being investigated by the AIB and the Sussex Police, but what I have been told is basically what you can read on the BBC website, which is that the FlyingTime DA40 was traveling from West to East on the X-wind leg when the other aircraft climbed out from runway 20 and the 2 aircraft collided.
I do not know if the DA40 was joining the X-wind leg or simply passing the airfield (I have assumed it was joining the X-winf leg as it would seem the DA40 was at circuit height). I do not know if it was joining X-wind wide or over the numbers either.

In any case, the fact of the matter here is that there was a major incident and someone has lost their life as a result. Also, the pilots of the DA40 will no doubt be running this scenario over in their minds to work out if indeed they had any part to play in this tragic event. I would also imagine that the person on ATC at the time is also questioning their actions so undoubtedly this event has not only caused a death but will also affect the other pilots and ATC for the rest of their lives. We need to be considerate of this fact and try not to draw any of our own conclusions (even though it is human nature to do so) until the official AIB conclusions are published.

What I can say is that the whole team at FlyingTime are extremely professional and I have thoroughly enjoyed being with the club and dealing with the people who work there. This is a freak, tragic accident and my thoughts go out to all involved, and the family of the deceased.

All we can do is use this as a reminder of the potential hazards to aviation and ensure that we all fly safe and remain constantly aware of the movement of other aircraft.

Pilot DAR

5th Jul 2011, 19:10

Just 'cause I'm trying to follow in context here... is it an estabished fact that an aircraft involved in the collision was in a place in the circuit, which was not where they should have been? Obvioulsy two aircraft were in the same place, but was either in the wrong place, were the other not to have been there? Are there any facts?

if circuit inactive, no one about, great. If the circuit is active then, clear intentions to all and sundry about what you are about to do, is/should be mandatory

At a controlled airport, I can see how this works, but then you have a controller who is aware that you are doing something unusual, and has "controlled" the airspace to safely enable it. I extend to the controllers (I think Shoreham is positively controlled?) the belief that if they had known there was a prospect of conflict, would have advised.

One of those MD500's could depart on the runway heading, manage a climb better than the RV-X, and probably be even harder to see while doing it. Would the MD500 pilot be wrong to accomplish a maximum performance climb on the runway axis? Is there a limiting procedure for this? I've never seen one. Indeed, the reverse at some airports, "no turns until X feet AGL". Let's get the noise as far up as possible, as fast as possible, Particularly for helicopters, 'cause the airport has neighbours, and we pilots are trying to mitigate annoyance.

At an uncontrolled airport, how would you ever know if the circuit is inactive? I think that is an assumption which can never be made. I fly a nordo aircraft into an uncontrolled airport from time to time. I spend the entire time watching out like crazy, and flying something predictable as a pattern. I never assume the circuit is inactive! Indeed this airport has two simultainious parallel circuits, one to the right, the other to the left, and it works quite well, as long as you assume both are active, and fly accordingly.

Just my opinion..... but...All of the circuit procedure posturing here is only touching a part of the real world circumstances, while other realities are being completely overlooked. While flying a helicopter into a controlled airport, no controller has ever asked me to conform to the airplane circuit, even though palnes were in it. When I tried, it seemed to introduce confusion!

maxred

5th Jul 2011, 19:12

I think So cal was commenting on my comment, thinking I was referring to this incident, which I have tried to make pains not to:hmm:

I feel very strongly on this issue. I used to own and display a YAK50, a very powerful aeroplane. I could be at 2000' by the end of the runway if I so wished.

I never did. Regardless of type, one should leave the pattern in safe and sensible manner. The same on entry.

You only have to google or you tube, to see the disasters of not paying attention in the pattern. Arriving and leaving is the pattern.

IO540

5th Jul 2011, 19:17

Fairly obviously a plane joining crosswind at the right place is not going to collide with a plane which is departing in accordance with normal procedures (and a climb to 1100ft at the numbers is definitely not "normal procedures"; if you are into aerobatics then you do them well away from an airport unless pre-arranged).

Local reports (which could be wrong) suggest that the collision took place after the RV had departed and turned east, either to depart to the east or to fly a circuit. At this point the two converged into close proximity (which is why some early eye witness reports, in the papers, spoke of two planes flying in an apparent formation) and the DA40 prop cut off the tail of the RV6, rendering it uncontrollable except for some roll capability which would not have been relevant to its trajectory.

It is obvious that the location of the prop (on Shoreham beach) is nowhere near the crosswind point for 20. I don't know if that is relevant in this case, but I have seen many pilots joining "crosswind" at the same time as I am doing so, but when I (being over the numbers) have finally found them it turns out they are way out over the beach, which puts them at risk from another plane departing on 20 with a high rate of climb whose pilot, being at Vx or so, is not going to have much (or any) forward visibility. And I don't think a prop that's been ripped out of the gearbox is going to fly laterally on its own very far...

When I depart on 20 I cross the beach at about 500ft, which should be safe, but what if somebody is joining "crosswind" a mile offshore? People have done that too. Such a pilot is likely to collide with somebody who has departed and has turned east and is climbing.

If the DA40 lost its prop over the numbers then a deadstick landing ought to have been easy. If the DA40 lost its prop over the beach (as appears to be the case) then making it back is also consistent with them being at say 1100ft. What would not be consistent is e.g. the DA40 losing its prop over the beach at the sort of height most people reach when departing, at that point, which is only a few hundred feet.

The winds were very light so not really helping somebody to do a rapid climb:

METAR EGKA 041450Z 20005KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041520Z 16004KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041550Z 17005KT CAVOK 19/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041620Z 16005KT CAVOK 19/11 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041650Z 18004KT CAVOK 19/10 Q1017

I cannot believe there is any ATC issue here. Once ATC clear you to join crosswind, you are 100% responsible for doing it correctly. They also have no control over departing traffic, how it climbs, where it goes after takeoff, etc.

I think it is important to learn from these things. Waiting for the AAIB report is no good because everybody except those immediately affected will have forgotten about it by then.

maxred

5th Jul 2011, 19:20

Pilot DAR - I think we are on the same wavelength here. Not sure about the Canadian procedures, however, a number of our busy GA airfields are air/ground. in that whilst there is a 'controller', a guy on the ground who will give airfield information, they are not 'controlling'. Nor are the positioning. The are informing. It is all pilots responsibility to position according to active pattern, and there are reasonably set procedures on how to do this. The most important aspect is r/t and look out from the pilots.

Similarly leaving an airfield, was, before I started reading some comments here, relatively straight forward. Now I am not so sure.

memories of px

5th Jul 2011, 19:27

it occurred at 1100 feet, at the point where the diamond aircraft was crossing the upwind numbers and the vans took off and climbed up into him,or just ahead, the diamond star could not be expected to see an aircraft coming up from below with such a high rate of climb.

Mr Cessna

5th Jul 2011, 19:39

Sussex Police said it appeared he steered the plane away from homes during the crash on Monday.

The Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) are investigating the incident.

'Avert greater tragedy'
His family issued a statement, which said: "Alan was a captain for British Airways for many years who flew all over the world and lived life to the full.

"He loved aeroplanes and when he retired from BA, he built his own light aircraft.

BBC news

IO540

5th Jul 2011, 19:42

it occurred at 1100 feet, at the point where the diamond aircraft was crossing the upwind numbers and the vans took off and climbed up into him,or just ahead

Interesting... are you certain?

robin

5th Jul 2011, 19:51

Note to self

Get my aircraft recognition up to speed so I know which aircraft taking off as I join a circuit is going to have a high rate of climb

The circuit join is pretty much laid down, so you are funnelled into a particular spot at a specific height.

We were taught when climbing out nose-high to weave and/or drop the nose so we keep an eye on traffic crossing in front of us.

NigelOnDraft

5th Jul 2011, 20:50

This post is not to address what and why happened yesterday - nobody really knows, the AAIB will publish in due course, there is already contradictory information, and finger pointing helps nobody. And as with all accidents, it will probably be a chain of events / factors.

However, there are valid questions raised above about circuit joining procedures, and am sure all could do with a rethink on what they do, maybe versus what they should do.

AFAIK, this is about as authoritative as the "defined" best practice to join a circuit CAA Overhead Join Poster (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srgwebStandardOverheadJoinPosterJan09.pdf). So a direct crosswind join is not the standard. Whether you like the overhead join or not, it does give a good opportunity to pick out all other aircraft, including departing traffic. NB what the poster says Watch for aircraft taking off, as they could pose a hazard.

If people really feel the OHJ is dangerous, it is not worth whinging on here - they should be filing MORs highlighting the hazards, and campaigning to change it. But until that change, and unless Shoreham has a correctly publicised alternative procedure, the OHJ appears to me to be the "correct" way to join a visual circuit. As with all "SOPs", one can deviate, but the accountability and responsibility for doing so rest with those (which may be ATC as well as crew) making that decision.

Willing to be corrected if the OHJ is not documented as the "best practice".

NoD

glush

5th Jul 2011, 22:01

I spend quite a lot of time in the circuit instructing. I'm often surprised how, with an active circuit of 2 or 3 aircraft, joining traffic calls up and declares from several miles away, that they'll be joining downwind, base leg etc etc.

I really can't understand what the problem is with an overhead join in situaitons like this. It takes a few minutes more, and provides a better opportunity for the joining traffic to spot those already in the pattern. Additionally, those already in the circuit pattern know more readily where and when to expect the joining aircraft.

For solo students in the circuit pattern, there is enough going on already - we were all there once! Yet rarely do I hear traffic intending to make a non-standard join ascertain beforehand whether or not there are solo students in the circuit, before committing themselves.

I'm not suggesting the overhead join is perfect, but my feelings are that it does tend to make things more predictable for all parties.

Red Four

5th Jul 2011, 22:03

Just for information, Shoreham did 6713 movements in April, so considerably more than 100 a day, especially when you consider 'bad weather' days and the fact that the movements are largely limited to the published airfield operating hours.

IO540

5th Jul 2011, 22:15

I don't want to start another "OHJ" thread especially as it is not relevant to this accident, but the issue with the OHJ should be readily apparent:

- multiple planes can arrive concurrently, with the possibility of a mid-air because they are all at the same height and it is geometrically infeasible to guarantee that each can see all the others

- while everybody who has arrived is going round and round in the OHJ, they again can't see each other so separation assumes looking ahead of you and hoping that a) you can see everybody ahead and b) they can see you.

It is really a very dodgy system. Something like a crosswind join is much safer because you are approaching the airfield from an area in which there should not be other traffic (except another plane also joining crosswind, but he should be able to report his distance to run and not lie about that as many do) and you have the whole airfield and the circuit nicely laid out in front of you. Also you will normally be descending so your visibility is even better.

People who like the OHJ are probably the same people who think a lookout is perfect, but there is ample evidence that it isn't.

ifitaintboeing

5th Jul 2011, 22:18

AFAIK, this is about as authoritative as the "defined" best practice to join a circuit CAA Overhead Join Poster.

It's in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication [AIP].

UK AIP GEN3.3, 5.5.2 Standard Overhead Join

(a) Overfly the aerodrome at 2000 aal;
(b) descend on the deadside to circuit height;
(c) join by crossing the upwind end of the runway at circuit height;
(d) position downwind.

Very sad at the loss of another fellow aviator. :(

memories of px

5th Jul 2011, 22:36

everybody seems to be getting off topic, its not circuit joining procedures that are in question here, its take off departure procedures, also go-arounds, if you are on finals and have to go-around what height is it safe to cross the upwind numbers at?? i would say 500 feet before continuing the climb beyond the numbers, if at 1100 feet already maintain a good look out for crosswind joining traffic.
and yes i am sure.

Deeday

5th Jul 2011, 23:28

I don't think a prop that's been ripped out of the gearbox is going to fly laterally on its own very far...
I would think the same had the prop/hub assembly remained integer (e.g. in case of failure of the flange bolts), but from the picture of the propeller on the beach it looks as though there's basically only one blade still attached to the hub. With such eccentricity, I would expect the prob/hub assembly to be flung sideways quite energetically.

NutLoose

6th Jul 2011, 00:03

Pilot has been named, condolences to the family.

Ex-British Airways captain killed after mid-air collision with light aircraft causes him to lose control and crash | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011315/Ex-British-Airways-captain-killed-mid-air-collision-light-aircraft-causes-lose-control-crash.html)

IO540

6th Jul 2011, 07:31

I think OHJ proponents forget that the OHJ ends up with a crosswind join, which takes us back to square one.

In an ATC scenario, when you are cleared to exit the OHJ, that is equivalent to being cleared to fly a crosswind join. Same risks, except you were subjected to additional risks while performing the OHJ earlier on as well.

Anyway, they will get the GPS log from the DA40 (the engine data logger logs lat/long as well) and find out exactly where it happened. A pity we are not going to hear about it for a year or so.

THICKO

6th Jul 2011, 07:48

Quote: "I think OHJ proponents forget that the OHJ ends up with a crosswind join, which takes us back to square one.'

You must fly extremely tight circuits then! Do you normally turn to fly crosswind at the upwind end of the runway?

Anyway, I think that the thread has drifted somewhat considering little is yet known for certain.

Justiciar

6th Jul 2011, 08:10

You must fly extremely tight circuits then! Do you normally turn to fly crosswind at the upwind end of the runway?

The comment was not about when you turn crosswind on climb out it was about where you do a cross wind join, either straight in or from an OHJ. The point is that you don't turn crosswind over the numbers, to prevent the possibility of conflict with someone joining cross wind

It seems to me that the OHJ is sometimes necessary where there are issues which may prevent other approaches, e.g. noise abatement, obstructions etc. There should not be a problem provided that people overwork the radio telling everyone else exactly where they are. If people are not communicating then any form of join will have heightened risks associated with it.

soaringhigh650

6th Jul 2011, 08:12

I think OHJ proponents forget that the OHJ ends up with a crosswind join, which takes us back to square one.

The OHJ takes you to a point where you join downwind on the upwind end of the runway.

It's not the same as the crosswind taken after one departs the upwind end of the runway.

The two tracks run parallel to each other.

ShyTorque

6th Jul 2011, 08:15

Whatever joining procedure used, somewhere there is the possibility of aircraft to aircraft conflict.

Aircraft already in the pattern, whatever climb angle they might make, have priority over joining traffic.

"See and be seen" is subject to the limitations of the human eyesight.

There was a discussion here (Private Flying) very recently where a newly qualified pilot told us about a situation where he used the radio to ask another pilot for his position. He was concerned that someone took him to task on the radio for doing so, as did others participating in the discussion he began here.

Some others here will hopefully see that what he did was actually very sensible, irrespective of what some folk think CAP413 doesn't allow us to say on the radio. Safety is paramount. If in doubt, use the radio in any way you need to.

memories of px

6th Jul 2011, 08:35

the OHJ is quite straightforward, its a bit like a conveyor belt, if its a left hand circuit approach the airfield with it on your left side at 2000',(right side for right hand circuits) you can circle up there left hand turns for as long as want so you know exactly what you are going to do,for the active runway, at shoreham, for rwy20, when you are on the live side be at 2000' or 1100', nothing else. when ready and cleared, cross the landing numbers at 2000' tracking 290 starting a cruise descent in an arc, extend as necessary if following other traffic, (if busy you will be asked to join overhead, so unlikely to come across traffic joining on a direct to crosswind join from the west at 1100',) to cross the upwind numbers at a steady 1100' tracking 110, watch for established circuit traffic and position behind if necessary, anyone in the circuit should be at 1100 before turning downwind from a take off to crosswind climb, providing a sufficient time & distance in which to position your aircraft as necessary, what is not expected is an aircraft taking off to compromise crosswind joining traffic either from the OH or direct.
ps i dont think you should address another aircraft directly when in the circuit, but via atc, its more diplomatic!, you can always ask atc if you can talk direct to another aircraft.

IO540

6th Jul 2011, 08:44

Descening off an OHJ, I would always aim to end up at circuit height overhead the upwind numbers - for exactly the same reason one joins crosswind at circuit height and overhead the numbers.

Otherwise, you risk a collision with departing traffic which might typically be at 300-500ft overhead the numbers, and at circuit height a mile or two further out.

You must fly extremely tight circuits then! Do you normally turn to fly crosswind at the upwind end of the runway?Yes. It's very easy.

ShyTorque

6th Jul 2011, 08:53

i dont think you should address another aircraft directly when in the circuit, but via atc, its more diplomatic!

Agreed but the incident I refer to occurred where no ATC was present.

englishal

6th Jul 2011, 08:59

Ditto what IO540 said.

In fact the OHJ requires more faffing around in the circuit and more risk of collision (in this incident, an OHJ would have done nothing to avert the risk by all accounts). At least if you join on say base leg, you can get a picture in your mind of the traffic and there should be only two directions traffic will be approaching from, downwind or final (for someone on a straight in).

Approaching from the deadside then the crosswind join (as in over the numbers) is the most expident way to join. You can also modify your flight path to the left or right to fit in behind someone else in the circuit quite easily.

We fly extremely tight circuits where I am based due to noise abaitment.

Anyway, a sad day and a sad needless loss of life.

Justiciar

6th Jul 2011, 08:59

Agreed but the incident I refer to occurred where no ATC was present.

There is unfortunately an assumption that when the radio is unmanned anything goes. In fact, blind calls become even more important at every stage of the joining procedure. I often call downwind, late downwind, base and final. The problem with chatter between aircraft is that with the discipline out of the window people a liable to loose track of what others are doing. The easy way out is a blind call: "G-XXXX not visual with aircraft on base ... request position" or similar.

ShyTorque

6th Jul 2011, 09:06

Also agreed. Obviously sensible use, for essential flight safety purposes, only.

Not idle chatter, which sometimes happens at an airfield near me.
I've even heard pilots order lunch from the circuit.

mikehallam

6th Jul 2011, 09:55

Many pundits on this thread proclaim why they don't wish to use a 'standard' join and proceed to explain their own home brewed variation.
Apparently they know better what's good for themselves and don't really care about everyone else !
e.g. I can't understand the advocation of joining on base, sounds highly hazardous.

If nothing else it demonstrates that if such (experienced ?) pilots do their own thing, circuits for others in their vicinity is made more hazardous.

The OHJ is a procedure whereby one has a good idea of where other a/c should be and whilst one may be- if non radio - unaware of unheard traffic, it does allow time for good look at what's happening below BEFORE the alternative suggestions of suddenly appearing on cross wind or some other self appointed random position.

If willy nilly one breaks the pattern - without asking ATC's permission (& so others on frequency can hear the exchange) then perhaps certain old bold pilots could do with some circuit retraining !

fireflybob

6th Jul 2011, 10:20

One of the fundamental points is to make sure you're in level flight at the circuit height before entering the live part of the circuit - applies whether it's an OHJ or "commercial" join.

To not do so is to risk descending on top of an a/c which is already established in the circuit.

Also, how do you lookout? Is this taught?

soay

6th Jul 2011, 11:19

What I dislike about the OHJ in a low winged aircraft is that you're circling with your underbelly to traffic that may be arriving in the overhead from any direction. The combination of that blindspot with the natural inclination of new arrivals to be looking down to orientate themselves with the runway and trying to spot what's already in the pattern is not good.

Justiciar

6th Jul 2011, 12:49

What I dislike about the OHJ in a low winged aircraft is that you're circling with your underbelly to traffic that may be arriving in the overhead from any direction

I don't see why you should be circling overhead arriving traffic. Surely the point is that if you arrive in the overhead at 2000' and start to descend dead side then all other arriving traffic should be above you? The key is not to circle in the overhead other than to position yourself for a descent dead side.

Sure, two aircraft may arive in the overhead at the same time from different directions but then radio should avoid that being a problem and one wont be below you. Is there any difference between that and one aircraft joining crosswind and another downwind at the same time? The key in all these situations is to know what other aircraft are doing.

englishal

6th Jul 2011, 13:08

e.g. I can't understand the advocation of joining on base, sounds highly hazardous.

If nothing else it demonstrates that if such (experienced ?) pilots do their own thing, circuits for others in their vicinity is made more hazardous.
What I don't like about OHJ's is:

When flying overhead, you are essentially head to head with anyone completing the decent deadside and crossing the upwind numbers. Albeit at 1000' supposedly, but you know how some people fly, "nearly 1000'" or "nearly over the upwind numbers. At a shortish runway, say 700m, this puts you a maximum of 700m lateral separation if you cross overhead the downwind numbers.

However, some people descend pretty quick and tight to the runway, other people fly miles out and turn. This puts the opposing traffic in a blind spot (i.e. below your cowl), while you are turning and descending. Very dangerous if you don't have a big picture of what is going on. Especially as you are now all aiming for the same spot - the upwind numbers.

Next you cross over the upwind numbers and you have to look out for people above you opposite direction joining OH, people descending deadside either inside you (if they fly a tight circuit) or coming in close behind and people in the circuit coming from the right (in a LH circuit). Apparently you might also have to look out for people coming up from below too. Once in the circuit you have to contend with people joining on base and final, so your head really has to be moving around.

Now throw into that equation a Thruster microlight, an RV6, a TBM700 and a Cessna 152, all with vastly different performance.

If everyone joined on something like the US 45° join, then faster aeroplanes can overtake safely, of slower aeroplanes can adjust to pop in behind someone in the circuit. I joined on base the other day in front of a motor glider on downwind. By the time I had landed and taxied clear of the runway, he was turning final. If I had joined OH I'd have come in behind him, then had to fly a really wide circuit so I didn't ram him up the backside and I'd have probably ended up outside the ATZ. Joining base, I could see up downwind, and I could see final was clear....much more sensible if you ask me.

Also note that at many airfields, OHJs are prohibited due to parachuting, military airspace, shared ATZs etc....

soay

6th Jul 2011, 13:23

I don't see why you should be circling overhead arriving traffic
The point is that you are in a turn at the same height as arriving traffic, until you are either given permission to descend to circuit height, or you have decided that it is safe to do so. While in that turn, in a low winged aircraft, you are blind to anything approaching from the outside of your turn.

IO540

6th Jul 2011, 13:31

You should not be flying such a large angle of bank in the OHJ. Maybe 5 degrees max.

But it is a bad system anyway, for reasons already posted, plus also the case of planes with different speeds.

Justiciar

6th Jul 2011, 14:24

until you are either given permission to descend to circuit height

I confess that I don't have much experience of being asked to hold in the overhead at an airfield with ATC; most times I use an overhead join I am at uncontrolled fields. ATC usually sequence arriving aircraft differently in my experience. I agree though that circling in the overhead with other aircraft arriving has potential for something nasty to happen.

The500man

6th Jul 2011, 14:35

One of those MD500's could depart on the runway heading, manage a climb better than the RV-X, and probably be even harder to see while doing it. Would the MD500 pilot be wrong to accomplish a maximum performance climb on the runway axis? Is there a limiting procedure for this? I've never seen one.

Pilot DAR I have seen this for Biggin Hill:

EGKB AD 2.22 — FLIGHT PROCEDURES
1. Circuit Procedures
a. Aircraft taking off, 'going around' or making 'touch and go' landings are to remain at or below 500 ft QFE until the upwind end of the runway in use has been passed, when a left or right turn (as appropriate) should be initiated. Aircraft joining or re-joining the circuit for landing are to fly across the upwind end of the runway in use at 1000 ft QFE at 90° to the runway heading, a left or right turn (as appropriate) should be made onto the downwind leg.

fireflybob

6th Jul 2011, 14:53

I agree though that circling in the overhead with other aircraft arriving has potential for something nasty to happen.

Not if the other arriving aircraft are, when they get the field visual, manoeuvring so as to put the airfield on the left hand side of the aircraft (I assume left hand circuit here) and therefore orbiting the edge of the atz in the same direction as the a/c which are already overhead and, of course, maintaining a lookout.

Would be interesting to see the stats for midairs/air proxes in the overhead as opposed to in the circuit/at circuit height - I would suggest the latter figures would be much higher.

maxred

6th Jul 2011, 15:57

EGKB PROCEDURE. Thats what the majority of us have been stating since this discussion started. The join procedures are pretty standard, and at airfields where fast jet traffic fast SEP, can depart, shooting through the 1000' mark, then a procedure would appear to have been drawn up to stop them banging into crosswind traffic, going about their normal safe business of joining across the numbers at 1000' to get into the pattern:sad:

maxred

6th Jul 2011, 17:07

Well my experience of flying in the States is that it is pretty much every man for himself, with particular respect to the unicom airfields, HOWEVER, before I get fried, the standards of R/T, lookout, and general discipline, appear superior to the UK, and I am about to get fried by UK pilots for saying that, but, the thread here has touched on this.

Jan Olieslagers

6th Jul 2011, 17:14

it is pretty much every man for himself

and the rest of humanity have every right to take their place in whatever corner they find left void, I suppose?

fireflybob

6th Jul 2011, 17:26

ok then where are the statistics? Are OHJ pro rata any more safe than commercial joins or usa joins? We need stats otherwise it becomes subjective.

If someone can show me that there have been more midairs and/or air proxes on one system or the other then I might be convinced of a case for change.

maxred

6th Jul 2011, 17:26

Yes, however, it was qualified with r/t, discipline and lookout, and I made particular ref to Unicom, where is has to be that way.

Specifically I was referring to some fields where as you approach, calling position and ASSUMING, that the crcuit pattern is one way, when a Lear or similar can take off downwind, straight from his private hanger. It happened to me in Florida, and nr Chicago.

I have experience of Van Nuys where as you may be aware, everything is joining, and yet lookout, comms, positioning and ATC come together, generally nicely.

The UK system in general works, as long as everyone is on the same page, and forgive me, this debate has shown that it may not be the case.

smarthawke

6th Jul 2011, 17:34

"Now throw into that equation a Thruster microlight, an RV6, a TBM700 and a Cessna 152, all with vastly different performance.:

As a point of note as the phrase 'high performance' is frequently cropping up in the thread with reference to RVs. This is a general comment not connected directly with the incident. RVs can indeed climb and cruise at greater speeds than many certified machines.

But in the circuit they can sit quite happily at 'normal' circuit speeds. My 200hp RV-6 would cruise easily at 160+ KIAS. It's stall speeds were 47 KIAS full flap and 52 KIAS clean - pretty much the same as a C152 or Tomahawk.

vanHorck

6th Jul 2011, 17:39

The mail online article speaks of plummeting 400 ft.... If this is correct we've all been barking up the wrong tree.

As for now we've assumed the collision took place at around 1.000 ft.

I have no idea where they got their info from.

Ex-British Airways captain killed after mid-air collision with light aircraft causes him to lose control and crash | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011315/Ex-British-Airways-captain-killed-mid-air-collision-light-aircraft-causes-lose-control-crash.html)

(and I've never been practically taught an overhead join during my PPL.....(!) taught it myself afterwards and disliked it always.....)

fireflybob

6th Jul 2011, 17:47

taught it myself afterwards and disliked it always.....)

hardly the best way to learn it then - find a good flying instructor who knows and can teach it well!

Never mind the system being used, I have witnessed some pretty appalling instances of a/c joining the circuit.

Some visitors seem to have little comprehension of the status of A/G asking "Am I clear for...etc" and then seem unable to fly an OHJ which is surely part of the PPL syllabus.

Before we start debating the merits of different types of join we should take steps to ensure that all know how to join the circuit whatever system is in use.

No comment on this tragic incident as we don't know the facts as yet.

ShyTorque

6th Jul 2011, 21:15

You should not be flying such a large angle of bank in the OHJ. Maybe 5 degrees max.

5 degrees max? How can you possibly make that work over short runways?

E.g. EGNF, runway 24/06 is 553 metres, runway 36/18 is 382 metres.

Pilot DAR

6th Jul 2011, 21:18

article speaks of

Ah, a slight drift back near topic for a moment....

IO540

7th Jul 2011, 06:50

I don't think there is a requirement to fly the circle of an OHJ fully between the two ends of the runway :)

soay

7th Jul 2011, 06:56

I don't think there is a requirement to fly the circle of an OHJ fully between the two ends of the runway
Probably sensible to keep it within any ATZ though. :)

ShyTorque

7th Jul 2011, 09:50

Probably sensible to keep it within any ATZ though.

Yes, I should say so! :ok::D

Mark1234

7th Jul 2011, 09:50

Maybe that's why so many people fly the cross country circuits we all hate so much :}

Non-OHJ related, Shoreham procedure (departing 20) is to climb straight ahead to 600ft minimum, then make a slight (20ish degree) right turn for noise abatement. You're then heading straight on to pretty much the coast (i.e. clear of the circuit), and turning onto your outbound track.

To me, in anything I've flown, 'normal' procedure is a Vy climb to (usually) circuit height, but 500agl at least (there's nothing aerobatic about it, simply a matter of spending minimum time in that awkward zone where options are minimal). At somewhere with a longer runway I'd flatten off at 500 to avoid the crosswind. What I was alluding to earlier 'being unsure of' is the 500ft turn (maxred et al). If remaining in the circuit, at (say) shoreham, I'd be turning somewhere between the tower and the numbers. That's definitely not going to be popular - so it seems the 500ft and turn concept is rather flawed. Certainly at shoreham the circuit would be more geographically defined.

What this whole thing does really highlight (for me at least) is the vastly differing expectations of aircraft performance in terms of both climb, and manoevuring (e.g. it would never occur to me to make a 5degree banked turn in any circumstance).

The other thought is - at (e.g) shoreham, operating under a controlled environment, with conflicting traffic crosswind, would you not expect a conditional takeoff clearance - e.g. "clear takeoff, not above XXX" Not attempting to lay any blame or critique, however, if being positively controlled it would seem logical to explicitly ensure the separation?

maxred

7th Jul 2011, 10:08

The way I was taught, and I am not saying it is right, wrong nor indifferent, (in todays arena), and this was at an airfield with one runway, 840 mts long, that on take off after crossing the numbers in a normal climb to 500' min, commence turn on outward leg to downwind, and by the time you are ready to join downwind you will be approaching circuit height of 1000'.

Traffic joining crosswind, across the numbers, having descended deadside, at 1000', in all my experinece, has been well overhead departing traffic, and would be in front of you if you were joing circuit. If you were not you are well clear and underneath joining traffic, to continue on your desired heading away from the airfield.

This has always been so basic, and my understanding that this is the way it is taught, and is in all CAA publications, that I cannot get to grips with why so many people appear to be at odds with it. It seems so standard.

Now getting back to this tragic incident, the start of this discussion, was that, IF, and we do not know yet, the croswwind aircraft was in the 'correct position', and was hit by a departing aircraft (FACTS NOT KNOWN), then the question was why, or how, could a departing aeroplane be at same level as a crosswind join??????? Obviously this is not a desirable position to be in.

Whopity

7th Jul 2011, 10:12

Standard Overhead Join (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srgwebStandardOverheadJoinPosterJan09.pdf) Best flown at circuit speed, with standard medium turns (30 degrees) to give good lookout in all directions.would you not expect a conditional takeoff clearance Not in a Visual Circuit
Joining traffic should be aware of traffic on and departing from the runway they are about to cross, high performance departing aircraft have a responsibility to ensure they do not impinge on the circuit pattern without an especially good lookout.

IO540

7th Jul 2011, 10:24

'normal' procedure is a Vy climb to (usually) circuit heightThat seems definitely wrong, for several reasons:

- poor engine cooling during Vx (or Vy) flight
- in any high-perf plane, a conflict with arriving crosswind traffic
- a conflict with any traffic arriving on downwind etc joins
- an extended period of poor forward visibility
- a poor stall margin if there is turbulence, wind shear, etc in the departure area (slow flight is usually a bad idea)

After takeoff, one needs to climb at Vx until obstacle clearance is assured (let's skip the "Switzerland" case :) ) and then trim forward ASAP to a higher airspeed for good engine cooling and good forward visibility. The engine controls are not touched until cruise level is reached (again, ignoring stuff like higher altitude climbs e.g. above 5000ft). This procedure will generally mean that you are well separated from arriving crosswind traffic, and you have a reasonable chance of spotting crosswind traffic which is grossly incorrectly positioned (which is very common).

Mark1234

7th Jul 2011, 11:08

Interesting - completely different philosophies. I *never* climb at Vx unless there is definitely an obstacle clearance problem - that's very rare. Vy (IMHO) offers plenty of margin for control, and engine cooling is (rarely) an issue over the first few thousand feet, and I'd not consider that 'slow flight' (e.g. the typical PA28, Vs -50, Vy -79). Notwithstanding avoiding the crosswind leg, I regard getting to 1000-1500 ASAP after leaving the ground as something of a priority, but I do normally bring the prop and MP back from takeoff to 25/25 passing 500. I'm also a believer in lowering the nose periodically in the climb to clear the view.

Maxred - I don't think we're in disagreement, definitely not 'at odds' but when you say things like 'so basic' I feel compelled to point out that I think you're oversimplifying :) I understand that works by the numbers for the 'average' pa28 (say), Presumably in your aforementioned yak that can be at 2000 by the numbers somewhere with a longish runway you're modifying the approach substantially different to avoid turning at 500ft half way down the runway - if you get my point? 'Turn not below 500ft at point x' would make sense to me, but I never did get 'turn at 500ft.' - it doesn't define anything useful, it's merely co-incidental that in certain cases 500ft roughly co-incides with where you want to be making the turn. Tad pedantic perhaps :)

The500man

7th Jul 2011, 11:13

Standard overhead join Best flown at circuit speed

What speed would that be exactly?

englishal

7th Jul 2011, 11:25

Probably 130 in a B200, 100 in a Seneca, 90 in a commander, 80 in a 172, 70 in a Rallye, 50 in a microlight ;)

(just guessing, but there lies the problem)

memories of px

7th Jul 2011, 11:27

i would fly it at a speed that keeps the separation constant, at shoreham, a typical training airfield, most aircraft are quite happy between 90-100 knots cruise, cruise descent deadside and cruise speed downwind, and slow down on base, also depends on whats in front of you, vary speed and track to fit in.
ps , smarthawke, whats the best glide speed of an RV-6.

Dusty_B

7th Jul 2011, 12:26

Point to Note PPRuNers:

All fatal mid-airs in the UK in the last 3 years (at least) have had professional pilots, retired or otherwise, at the controls of the GA aircraft.:ouch:

Coventry, St Athan, Benson, Isle of Wight, Shoreham... any I've missed?

24Carrot

7th Jul 2011, 13:47

All fatal mid-airs in the UK in the last 3 years (at least) have had professional pilots, retired or otherwise, at the controls of the GA aircraft.

We would have to know what percentage of hours are flown by such pilots before we jump to the 'obvious' conclusion.

Cows getting bigger

7th Jul 2011, 13:53

IO540, a Vx climb and then trim forward - novel. :p

I think you need a word with your old instructor. In RAF parlance Select, Hold, Trim - in civilian speak, Attitude, Power, Trim. :)

mhsayers

7th Jul 2011, 14:06

This should set you thinking some more......

BLACK X marks where the DA's prop was found
RED X - Prop blade lands in beach green playpark
GREEN X - Part of wing or possibly tail? you tell me. Lands in car park.
Blue X - RV crash site.

The mail suggested that 'bits rained down on a school playground' It didn't. It was a playpark.

bits | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9039095@N02/5912347570)
shoreham | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9039095@N02/5912315462)

maxred

7th Jul 2011, 14:20

Mark - I actually think we are very much in agreement. By - so basic - I meant the lovely basic art of see and be seen, and fly your aeroplane in the manner that will fit the pattern at that given time. Whether it is alter your rate of climb due to crosswind hazards, slow down your approach to the downwind because there is a gyrocopter, a microlight, and a heliocopter all manouvering. The basic premise must still exist however of the 'plan'. And that is taught in PPL syllabus, or should be.:hmm:

Also the old art of positioning calls - descend deadside, join crosswind, downwind, left base, finals and so on. I still amazes me that I have to ask a lot of the time where are you?:confused:

maxred

7th Jul 2011, 14:24

All fatal mid-airs in the UK in the last 3 years (at least) have had professional pilots, retired or otherwise

Having now thought about that, are you alluding that these 'professionals', may have had a reliance on ''control'' rather than self position and call????

IO540

7th Jul 2011, 14:30

IO540, a Vx climb and then trim forward - novel. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I think you need a word with your old instructor. In RAF parlance Select, Hold, Trim - in civilian speak, Attitude, Power, Trim. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Very funny :)

But I am sure you get my point.

mikehallam

7th Jul 2011, 16:22

Contributers are now aware of UK circuit procedure.

For the case in point, using the debris sites photographs and the low 5 kt wind, a (say) 90kt collision at ~1000 ft. could allow the broken propeller to travel perhaps 1/4 mile.
But the end of runway 20 is at least double that distance away, which implies impact occurred whilst the climbing a/c was already on his crosswind leg.

This suggests the Vans pilot followed correct procedure - taking off he'd turn left at ~500 ft in a climbing turn to continue to circuit height where he could leave (or rejoin the circuit). The joining a/c lost its prop. when striking the Vans from behind in its pilot's blind spot.

Ergo neither pilot was aware of the others likely proximity despite ATC radio ?

IO540

7th Jul 2011, 16:48

This suggests the Vans pilot followed correct procedure - taking off he'd turn left at ~500 ft in a climbing turn to continue to circuit height where he could leave (or rejoin the circuit).

Not sure I would turn left at 500ft regardless of whether this puts me underneath crosswind traffic.

Surely, departing traffic should fly on the runway heading, over the numbers, and then a bit further, so it can then continue its climb on an easterly or westerly track without the risk of hitting crosswind traffic from underneath. In such a conflict, neither would see the other.

Fair point about situational awareness by listening to the radio but this is of limited value because

- a lot of pilots misreport their location
- a lot of pilots don't report their location
- often one cannot make a report if somebody is making a long call
- some pilots lie about their position (report a position more advanced than their actual one) to get a clearance to a particular join

Personally, I fly a long way out over the sea, on roughly the runway heading, before climbing anywhere near circuit height.

maxred

7th Jul 2011, 18:17

Some sense at last - well done Jet blu:ok:

IO540

7th Jul 2011, 19:04

I am not going to post what the word is around Shoreham but at least we will find out for sure when the report comes out, because it will be easy to establish where the DA40 was and how high it was. A pity it is going to take a long time.

stiknruda

7th Jul 2011, 19:27

Jetblu

You'd better explain what blue line means as many of the non MEP rated won't understand Vmca!

But 118 - that is quite a hot-ship.

No comment on the tragic accident at Shoreham, save to say it was tragic.

Stik

2 sheds

7th Jul 2011, 19:57

The only thing circuit wise that frustrates me here in the UK (North Weald excluded http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif) is one could have 3/4 sometimes more C152/PA28 in the circuit, crosswind/downwind etc. As I join, I am notified automatically that I am No 5 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif It seems here it is a first come, first served basis despite a/c speed.

Jetblu

You need to clarify to what service you are relating this comment. If an ATC service, then certainly any significant speed difference could be taken into account to get the best overall sequence but very often pilots overestimate their ability to safely overtake slightly slower traffic ahead. I do not understand how you can exclude - i.e. compliment - North Weald in this respect as that aerodrome only provides AGCS.

2 s

smarthawke

7th Jul 2011, 20:13

memories of px - best glide of an RV-6 is around 80 kts. A bit variable given many variations of engines, props and equipment (ie weights, CofG and drag of props) - though the wings are all the same shape...

IO540

7th Jul 2011, 20:20

In the context of this thread I don't see any difference between ATC and AG/AFIS.

After ATC has cleared somebody to takeoff, and cleared somebody else to join "crosswind", those two planes are on their own.

The former is totally on his own and provided he does not climb too rapidly he can reasonably expect his departure to be below other traffic. ATC can't assist him with that anyway.

The latter is responsible for slotting himself into downwind traffic, and likewise ATC can't assist him with that.

If ATC do more than that (e.g. delaying takeoff clearances to aircraft known to be rejoining the circuit, if somebody is being cleared crosswind) then I stand to be corrected, but I have never noticed anything like that.

I agree that this was an accident waiting to happen because so many people join "crosswind" way outside the upwind numbers, and even a PA28-140 can climb to circuit height in that distance.

memories of px

7th Jul 2011, 21:15

IO540, if you know the word on the ground at shoreham, then you know that this discussion has not really got close to why .

Pilot DAR

7th Jul 2011, 21:25

Blueline - is a critical speed for safe flight should any one engine fail.

Could we take a step back for this?

Blueline = Vyse = best rate of climb single engine
Low speed Redline = Vmca = minimum control speed with one engine inoperative.

I would agree that flying a circuit much below blueline is not ideal, but it is safely possible. If you're flying something fast in the circuit with somethings slow, some adjustment to the circuit is going to be needed. I'm sure it's a no no to pass in the circuit, so, yes, first come first served!

BackPacker

7th Jul 2011, 21:26

The latter is responsible for slotting himself into downwind traffic, and likewise ATC can't assist him with that.

AFAIK the latter is responsible for giving way to all aircraft in the circuit, including the one taking off.

In any case, the way I see it is that the OHJ creates no less than three areas of conflict where you might encounter traffic on a 90 degree or more collision course. First in the overhead itself, then when crossing upwind, and then joining downwind. Any other kind of join only has one - the place where you join the circuit. And considering that the downwind leg is the longest circuit leg, thus giving the best opportunity to spot other traffic and slotting in neatly behind, I know what sort of join I prefer...

mikehallam

7th Jul 2011, 21:53

Backpacker,

'Normally' it may make a logical - if you ask & it's approved by ATC - alternative. However where lots of traffic it reduces your time to assess traffic & for others already in the circuit to back off to let you barge in.
On non-radio or advisory when say arriving for the Popham Air Fair, everyone is reminded to do the OHJ. It's hairy at times when folk disregard it - and they do - but the bulk of arrivals of all sorts of a/c speeds can & do slot in with adjustments made early enough to accomodate these matters.
OHJ may be flawed but it works when very busy, provided cleverer pilots don't decide to do something else.

EGKA

7th Jul 2011, 22:13

This thread started off as a report into a tradgic accident, we have now heard 100's of ways on how to fly the perfect circuit and understand that everyone has seen evidence that this does't always happen.

I have to say that many instructors dont even teach the correct circuit, particulary at Shoreham, I should know as I am a Shoreham instructor and Exaiminer and see examples of this on a regular basis.

Shoreham has a published procedure, guess what, it should be followed.
Do people make up their own instrument approach - NO cause it will kill them, so why are we talking about all the ways we could join a circuit, Shoreham has a published procedure so USE IT, failure to do so may KILL someone.

Now we have people stating that there are rumours abound at Shoreham about what happen, again its an airfield, everyone knows everything, there are far to many bar room experts.

The DA40 survived, they were lucky, lets see what the GPS info provides, lets look at the Gatwick and Farnborugh Radar trace and see what happened, i suspect they already have and know who was in the wrong.

From the Maps and debris shown I think its obvious where the fault lies but I am not a Bar Room Expert.

All I know is accidents never just happen, its a chain of avoidable events, this is why we should teach the PPL students to a high standard and as examiniers be firm in reminding people to LOOKOUT and follow the RULEs. Flying should be fun, it should also be safe, follow the rules and procedures and it will be.

RANT OVER!!!

Happy flying, LOOKOUT, Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

RIP Alan Weald.

Vino Collapso

7th Jul 2011, 22:33

IO540, if you know the word on the ground at shoreham, then you know that this discussion has not really got close to why .

This discussion set off on a course drawn by a couple of members quoting a high climb rate for the RV.

Looking at the Shoreham published procedures for a left hand pattern on 20 and the distribution of aircraft parts as recently posted I find difficulty to combine the theory with reality.

Where was that DA40?

The500man

7th Jul 2011, 22:39

Having flown a bit at North Weald I can agree with Jetblu that the a/g operator is very helpful and the circuit is user friendly for various types of aircraft. It's probably more down to the fact that there are regular movements by a wider variety of aircraft than can be found at many other airfields.

I can understand why pilots want to know immediately what the cause of a collision is, but there is really no way to know what actually happened or what state the aircraft involved were in just before it happened; for all we know it may have had nothing whatsoever to do with circuit procedures.

LOOKOUT, Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

I'm pretty sure lookout is part of aviate but whatever. ;)

EGKA

7th Jul 2011, 22:40

Vino - I agree with you.

intresting question your pose bearing in mind they had a flying instructor on board "following" the published shoreham pattern.

where was that DA40

Always highlight the LOOKOUT in any ground brief.

EGKA

7th Jul 2011, 23:14

Not being an AAIB expert in these thing but I think JETBLU has a point.

The deris field can not lie.

if the RV was in the climb out and in a left turn then the DA40 would have been covered by his wing. IF he then eneded up lower but climbing and the DA40 on a constaint height and heading the RV pilot would not have seen the DA40 approaching from behind until too late and would ahve hit him from below so the DA40 pilots would not have seen him either.

But if the DA40 had reported X-wind then looking at the standard circuit pattern you wouln't expect it to be over the coast until near the harbour entrace. Odd that the prop landed where it did?

But there I go being a Bar room Expert, which I'm not. Just putting forward one theory which is all it is.

Flying Lawyer

8th Jul 2011, 00:07

Good to see some balance in the discussion.

The immediate blaming of the RV pilot by a few posters was appalling, particularly as it was based on so little information. Thankfully, the worst of those comments was modified (to some extent) as a result of the perfectly proper protests which have now also been deleted, having served their purpose.

There is always more to aviation accidents than first appears and, of all the aviation accidents in which I've been involved (professionally) over many years, there has never been just one cause.

FL

EGKA

9th Jul 2011, 22:15

Romour has it that the DA40 was conducting instructor training on an Aircraft rented from Flying time. There are only two schools at Shoreham that teach instructor training, Sky leisure use their own aircraft.
Wonder who was looking out????

Vino Collapso

10th Jul 2011, 06:53

I think it would be fair to say that if the lookout had been different in either aeroplane the iincident may not have happened.

If it was runway 20 with a left hand pattern in use I would be interested to learn from any 'Shoreham-ites' on here a couple of points.

Firstly the Shoreham Airport website has a picture of the preferred tracks of the circuit patterns. How close to these are the pilots supposed to adhere? (There must be a bit of leeway)

Secondly, runway 20L has a noise abatement right turn after take off until reaching the coast. How rigidly is this enforced? Are there any shortcuts?

Jetblu

10th Jul 2011, 09:15

Pooley's Guide 2011 - Shoreham EGKA

Extract :-

JOINING : Unless otherwise instructed by ATC, aircraft joining the circuit will overfly the aerodrome maintaining 2000ft aal, until instructed to descend to circuit height on dead-side of runway in use, and join the circuit by crossing the upwind end. Pilots should note that helicopters operate both 'liveside' and 'deadside' in the ATZ up to 600ft aal.

Joining aircraft on the crosswind leg are expected to position ""over the upwind end of the runway in use"", and then fit into the visual circuit.

I cannot see any mention of Noise Abatement proceedures on this particular page.

soaringhigh650

10th Jul 2011, 09:44

Is Shoreham a towered airport?

If so were there any instructions/restrictions issued to aircraft to see and avoid each other?

Did someone bust airspace?

Spaceace

10th Jul 2011, 18:04

Pooleys 2011 - Shoreham EGKA
Pooley's Guide 2011 - Shoreham EGKA

Extract :-

JOINING : Unless otherwise instructed by ATC, aircraft joining the circuit will overfly the aerodrome maintaining 2000ft aal, until instructed to descend to circuit height on dead-side of runway in use, and join the circuit by crossing the upwind end. Pilots should note that helicopters operate both 'liveside' and 'deadside' in the ATZ up to 600ft aal.

Joining aircraft on the crosswind leg are expected to position ""over the upwind end of the runway in use"", and then fit into the visual circuit.

I cannot see any mention of Noise Abatement proceedures on this particular page. I found this on the Shoreham Airport website Flying and Pilot Information - Shoreham Airport (http://www.shorehamairport.co.uk/flying)

DEPARTURE RUNWAY 20 - AIRCRAFT MUST MAKE A 10 DEGREE TURN TO THE RIGHT AT THE RAILWAY LINE FOR NOISE ABATEMENT, UNTIL REACHING THE COAST THEN A FURTHER LEFT OR RIGHT TURN AS REQUIRED.

EGKA

10th Jul 2011, 20:35

The pooleys flight guide only give joining and not departure info, I believe the question is did the DA40 join the crosswind in the correct position, I'm guessing not when looking at the debris field.

Interesting that you used the pooleys flight guide to look this up as the romours are that the instructors where from pooleys flight training, stress only a romour.

2 sheds

10th Jul 2011, 20:38

Since when was Pooley's the ultimate authority? AIP perhaps?

2 s

mag-knee-toe

11th Jul 2011, 07:50

Im interested to know other pilots opinion on my comment below

As we all know with all circuit flying their are high risk areas that need an extra look out
The main one is joining cross wind and possibly colliding with someone flying circuits who is down wind.
However at Shoreham there is another factor to consider,,,,,
When departing 20 and intending to fly east nearly all pilots turn NOT onto a heading of 110deg but follow the
coastline which is appox 80deg.
So its possible to climb into circuit traffic ?????

will fly for food 06

11th Jul 2011, 07:52

Hey Guys

Can someone please explain to me why opinions appear to be leaning towards the da40?
With comments like who was looking out of the da40, the g1000 is like a video game, where was the da40, was he in the correct place doing the correct join?

There are no facts and there wont be until a full investigation has taken place. From looking at the damage on the Da40 I would say after the collision they have done a good job in controlling the aircraft and landing it on a runway.

No one has even asked how experienced they were in the da40?

The answer is very.

EGKA

12th Jul 2011, 01:14

I've seen the same aircraft, agreed immediately after the incident I'm sure the pilot used all his experience to get the aircraft back on the ground and well done to him. In a way lucky it was a DA40 and has a good glide on it.

Though with the failure rate of the DA40 I'm sure this is something that all DA pilots have to practises -- glide approaches!

Though in the circumstances they held thier nerve and got it safely on the ground.

Guess you noted where the blue paint was?

BackPacker

12th Jul 2011, 07:13

In a way lucky it was a DA40 and has a good glide on it.

I thought that too, until I had to look it up for some reason. But the best glide in a DA40 is 1 : 8.8. Slightly worse than an PA28-161. (All taken from the respective POHs - I haven't tested them against each other.)

Mind you, I'm very impressed with the DA40 airframe (slightly less though with the engines they originally fitted) but the glide performance isn't as stellar as you might expect by looking at the wings and knowing its sailplane heritage.

englishal

12th Jul 2011, 08:38

Though with the failure rate of the DA40 I'm sure this is something that all DA pilots have to practises -- glide approaches!
Should read - DIESEL versions of the DA40.

I have flown the DA40XL which has a Lycoming engine and powerflow exhaust and will cruise at 150 KTAS and has no such engine issues. A beautiful aeroplane especially when equipped with G1000 with Synthetic vision and traffic.

Fuji Abound

12th Jul 2011, 11:36

I am not sure there is any evidence there in flight failure rate is any worse that Lycos is there? (Says he who has actually had one fail in flight, but fortunately I had another at the time :)).

BackPacker

12th Jul 2011, 12:58

It's not statistically waterproof, but in the almost six years that I've been a member of my club, we've had four in-flight failures of the 1.7 Thielerts (three of which ended up in a field) and zero Lycomings/Continentals failures.

At least, those are the in-flight failures that I know about. I've also had a "computer says no" situation with the DA-40 at Duxford, leading to an abandoned flight. But I don't know how many other diesel or avgas flights were abandoned due to start/runup failures or 'computer says no'.

Our fleet consists of 2 Robin Ecoflyers (with the 1.7 Thielert, now all upgraded to the 2.0), 1 DA-40 TDI (with the 1.7 Thielert, now sold, unfortunately), 3 other avgas Robins, 5 avgas PA28-161s, 2 avgas C172s, 3 avgas C152s and a few other, avgas powered aircraft.

But the odd thing is that none of the four failures had anything in common. Here's what I remember the failures were:
- 1 failure of an oil spray nozzle leading to a lack of cooling of the piston head.
- 1 failure of the gearbox (slip ring or something like that)
- 1 failure of the electric wiring to the fuel pump
- 1 FADEC test button short-circuiting in-flight, leading to a then-unknown FADEC failure mode, which was reason enough for the pilot to make a precautionary landing at an airfield.

memories of px

12th Jul 2011, 15:34

vino collapso - its a training airfield, circuit size varies, sea breezes might dictate the use of 20, when the upper wind suggests 02 - pilots are responsible for visual separation that means lookout. lined up yesterday and watched an aircraft join crosswind, we found it hard to believe you could hit him, at least not in a trainer. back on the ground we watched several aircraft join crosswind, some over the numbers, some wider, and as another mentioned on here, some peoples crosswind climb parallels the coast, if you had a performance SE aircraft, would you fly out to sea if you didnt have to?. like most accidents, it wont be one thing that caused it, but like the swiss cheese, when all the holes line up.........

Spotthedog

15th Jul 2011, 12:46

I've flown at Shoreham for ten years or so and I have heard on a few rare occasions pilots departing on R20 requesting, and being granted by ATC, "an early (or immediate) left turn". I think I have occasionally also heard ATC requesting pilots to do the same thing presumably for assisting with traffic management - but I can't recall specific examples of the latter.

I have never asked for one myself and indeed I've noticed that it tends to be experienced, or confident-sounding, pilots who do and who seem to me to want to be en route east, or north east, from Shoreham as efficiently as possible.

I have sat in the right seat on one such departure where the (experienced) PIC did just this and the track took us past the tower and along the railway line and over the Adur recreation ground, as we turned and climbed eastwards.

The other thing when doing this, which makes sense, is to climb quickly because once over the River Adur (in a matter of seconds on such a departure) you are over a large and densely built up area where a decent height for safety and noise abatement is a good idea. This rational motive for a speedy climb, in my mind, is more likely than some of the the alternatives suggested in this thread.

Finally, it is very easy to envisage the track of such a departure being, for a time, precisely in line with the crosswind leg of an aircraft carrying out an accurately executed crosswind join for R20.

2 sheds

15th Jul 2011, 13:39

Finally, it is very easy to envisage the track of such a departure being, for a time, precisely in line with the crosswind leg of an aircraft carrying out an accurately executed crosswind join for R20.
...in which case, ATC would, of course - I trust - be passing traffic information to both aircraft - or not approving it.

2 s

A and C

16th Jul 2011, 09:07

Quote:- Since when was Pooley's the ultimate authority? AIP perhaps?

By default Poolys, is the authoritative document for the average UK GA pilot, some use some lower quality publications and a few use the much better Jepps. However I don't see. Anyone with the UK air pilot in the cockpit.

However this accident has very little to do with documentation and a lot to do with lookout.

Years ago when I was training my instructor was paranoid about lookout, he got the habit making sure that an ME109 was not going to drill 20mm holes in him but as he said hitting another aircraft will make you just as dead as an encounter will the ME109.

I will not try to blame anyone for this collision but can't help thinking that just a little more lookout by all the pilots involved might have turned this into a
non-event.

Over recent years I have noted that an increasing number of aircraft seem to pass me by without even a slight change of course, could this be because of all
the kit that is now fitted to light aircraft keeping pilots eyes in the cockpit rather than looking out?

2 sheds

16th Jul 2011, 09:50

By default Poolys, is the authoritative document for the average UK GA pilot, some use some lower quality publications and a few use the much better Jepps. However I don't see. Anyone with the UK air pilot in the cockpit.
A and C - With respect, I think that you miss the point. If contributors are going to discuss the published procedures, then the AIP (sic) is the only authority, however good a copy the information in a commercially produced publication may be.

However this accident has very little to do with documentation...
Documentation = published procedures. How do you know that these were not a factor, e.g. compliance or non-compliance, appropriateness, etc?

2 s

IO540

16th Jul 2011, 11:27

A crosswind join should be flown overhead the upwind numbers, not a mile or two upwind of them.

You don't need to read the AIP or whatever to know that.

That's the issue here.

A and C

16th Jul 2011, 11:30

This is the difference between picking the knats sh!t out of pepper on a forum and practical aviation, it don't matter diddly squat what is in the AP if it is not the document available to the crew of an aircraft.

All the published documentation in the world will not absolve the commander of an aircraft from ensuring the safety of that aircraft and keeping a good lookout is essential to the safety of the aircraft.

I am not in a position to say if rules were breached (or not) in this case but I do know that if one of the pilots had seen the other it is highly likely that the aircraft would not have hit each other.

The bottom line is that good airmanship is the back stop that ensures safety when all the other safety systems have failed.

Spotthedog

16th Jul 2011, 11:58

A crosswind join should be flown overhead the upwind numbers, not a mile or two upwind of them.

That's the issue here.

Not sure it is the issue. The picture so far is certainly not inconsistent with a crosswind join that was flown overhead the upwind numbers and continued on an appropriate track.

mikehallam

16th Jul 2011, 15:53

BUT,

By the UK rules, that cross-over is at a defined place and with one a/c 500 ft above the other. Isn't that what the airways tolerate too ?

fireflybob

16th Jul 2011, 16:59

Hence why the 45 degree join to mid downwind as used here in the US is a relatively safe method as everybody is already at circuit height prior to joining - so blind spots below or above is greatly reduced.

They are on an overhead join so long as they are established at circuit height before entering the "live" part of the circuit - same would apply to the 45 degree US join, ie a/c should be in level flight before entering the the live part of the circuit.

The way to reduce "blind spots" is to ensure proper lookout - wherever you are.

jxk

17th Jul 2011, 07:01

It's ok joining on the 45 if know exactly where the airfield is. But, I find that if I'm trying to find a small airfield I haven't visited before it's easier from 2000ft agl rather than circuit height 1000ft. From the overhead it's easier to spot the wind-sock, signal square and observe traffic in the circuit and generally get myself orientated to the field. To use the 45 degree method you have to know the runway in use to plan your circuit which probably implies being given instructions by ATC. "Horses for courses".

Jetblu

17th Jul 2011, 09:35

Both the UK "standard rejoin" and the USA "45 degree rejoin" work. I use them both and am not sure which one I prefer.

However, unless pilots are disciplined to fly either given procedure correctly, these accidents will always happen despite all the "lookout" in the world.

172driver

17th Jul 2011, 10:14

The 45 degree join in the US is different and to me safer,

Couldn't agree more. I've always found the UK join rather dangerous.

It's ok joining on the 45 if know exactly where the airfield is. But, I find that if I'm trying to find a small airfield I haven't visited before it's easier from 2000ft agl rather than circuit height 1000ft. From the overhead it's easier to spot the wind-sock, signal square and observe traffic in the circuit and generally get myself orientated to the field.

There is a US way of doing so, sometimes referred to as 'teardrop arrival' which pretty well describes the path of the joining a/c. In a nutshell you overfly the field MIDFIELD above circuit (pattern) height, typically at 2000 ft, of course taking potential jet circuit heights into account. This way you get to a great vantage point and see everything that's going on below you: traffic, windsock, a/c on ground. Importantly, doing this midfield you are not in anybody's way. You then proceed live side outside the pattern and descend in a long curved path (that's where the 'teardrop' comes from) upwind. Thus you have any traffic joining on the 45 in sight and can adjust accordingly. You then fly a standard 45 join. IMHO safest way to do it.

fireflybob

17th Jul 2011, 14:26

Have asked this before but where is the statistical evidence that the US 45 deg join is "safer" than an OHJ?

We might all have some sort of subjective feelings about which is safer but until someone can show me stats on airproxes/collisions in the circuit for different types of join, I am yet to be convinced.

Jetblu

17th Jul 2011, 14:42

I don't think that their is any statistical evidence in favor of either procedure.

Both are flawed if the procedure is not flown correctly.

In the UK over the numbers means - over the numbers

In the US intercept at 45 degrees means - intercept at 45 degrees.

Making up your own joining procedure in either country, in a busy circuit, with all the lookout in the world, will not stop this happening again.

Maybe, a N reg parachute ;) will be mandatory next, along with Mode S and 8.33kz spacing.

englishal

17th Jul 2011, 15:21

In the US there is nothing to stop you flying overhead the airfield at a safe height first then fly away turn and descend out of the way of the airfield before joining on the 45.

The key is to have the big picture in your mind. For two to collide like this at an ATC controlled field is nuts, especially because both pilots would no doubt have been listening to RT for some minutes before the event and should have been aware of the other.

Jetblu

17th Jul 2011, 16:06

Englishal - you are right, both aircraft should have heard one another on RT, but, Shoreham does not have radar. They probably rely solely upon pilot information.

If for example, aircraft A calls up for departure, for a standard circuit and whilst accelerating in the roll hears aircraft B call up "letting down deadside for rejoin" Aircraft A for sure would be looking out for aircraft B.
Once aircraft A has reached 500ft he would then turn left still ascending onto crosswind still looking out to his left for aircraft B "joining" crosswind.

Why would aircraft A be looking directly behind in the climb on crosswind. One doesn't expect a prop chomping away at your *rse from behind.

When I call downwind and another aircraft calls finals, the picture that I am expecting is the other aircraft to be in front of me, having completed base leg and descending on the runway heading, but after this discussion I will now be looking everywhere for that traffic.

DX Wombat

17th Jul 2011, 16:44

both pilots would no doubt have been listening to RT for some minutes before the event and should have been aware of the other. Don't bank on it. I once flew through Shawbury CMATZ on my way back to Halfpenny Green and spoke with ATC there. Also flying through the MATZ was an aircraft which had left from Blackpool. Having been given the QFE X4 and replied "Roger" X3, it was the FI with him who answered correctly on the 4th time. Now, I had heard him and he, no doubt had heard me but when he arrived in the circuit at EGBO and was told he was No2 to me his response was "Visual with HIM!". I do not have a male-sounding voice but I suppose I should be grateful that he had at least seen me. :\

Spotthedog

17th Jul 2011, 18:27

Quote:
both pilots would no doubt have been listening to RT for some minutes before the event and should have been aware of the other.

Absolutely agree. Just a thought - as earlier posts have said, a final ATC clearance for this join is typically given when positioned north abeam Worthing Pier to "descend to circuit height, join crosswind and report downwind". I have often found when joining crosswind at Shoreham (eg. when traffic is light) that I am not asked to report crosswind. So, there could have been a period of a few minutes with no ATC exchange with the joining a/c before the collision as it hadn't quite reached downwind.

Having done that very crosswind join so many times, once over the upwind numbers I'm busy looking at the downwind leg to merge with any traffic approaching from my right and would not have seriously imagined (until now) there would be a serious conflict with an a/c taking off below and to my left, especially if the take off clearance is for an immediate left turn out - which is unusual, but could well turn out to be the case here as it fits better with the evidence available and provides a scenario in which every party involved acted professionally and rationally.

I find Shoreham ATC superb at alerting and helping to deal with possible conflicts.

This thread has personally made me question a whole load of assumptions and issues about crosswind joins etc.. Many thanks.

Jetblu

17th Jul 2011, 19:10

Spotthedog - your description of the crosswind join in para 2 is spot on :ok:

Had YOU been that DA40 on the day in question, you would have seen the other aircraft climbing crosswind (parallel with your track) in your 3 o clock position, range approx 1 mile/1.5 miles.

Have you seen the geographical photo's on previous pages ?

Spotthedog

17th Jul 2011, 21:50

Had YOU been that DA40 on the day in question, you would have seen the other aircraft climbing crosswind (parallel with your track) in your 3 o clock position, range approx 1 mile/1.5 miles.

Have you seen the geographical photo's on previous pages ?

I have seen the geo pics and my thinking is that the RV wreckage site (and the area to its south east towards the children's play area and the A259 bridge) is a much better indicator as to where the collision took place than the other sites marked .. based upon:

a) the earlier observation in this thread that a prop can travel a significant distance when it detaches, and possibly other smaller pieces too.

b) Witness statements suggest the RV fell speedily from a low height (although we don't know what height yet do we - even 1100 feet might appear "low" to a muggle, as to "400 feet" - surely this isn't true but time till tell).

c) Witness statements suggest that the RV appeared to turn away from the houses (on the east and south of the A259) and a bridge (which surely must be the A259 bridge and not the A27 bridge as quoted in the Mail article).

So if I was the DA40 joining crosswind (over the numbers and then tracking over the recreation park towards the A259 bridge) the other a/c would probably have been coming at me from below and from the left as it had just taken off from R20 and, the presumption here, made an agreed early left turn, in order to reach the point of collision.

But suppose, as you suggest, the RV had continued on a more 'normal' R20 departure, it still would have to have turned sharpish left and departed the published circuit track at some point, in order to approach me from my 3 o clock. But yes I would have stood a better chance of seeing it ... and it me. But I have several problems with this scenario so it seems less likely to me - based on what we know.

mag-knee-toe

31st Jul 2011, 12:06

I will admit to sometimes not following the circuit pattern when departing 20 and going off to the east.

If im doing T&G,s my focus is on a cross wind climb out of 110deg until I reach circuit height of 1100ft

But if im going east I now realize that once IV crossed the coast I have forgotten the circuit pattern and followed the coastline which is 80deg as it feels safer to hug the land rather than the wet water.

Probably its due to my C152 not have such a great rate of climb as compared to other high performance planes that I have never reached 1100ft as I went under the Crosswind / Downwind area of the circuit.

However im going to make sure I keep to the pattern from now on

Spaceace

19th Aug 2011, 10:37

The August edition of the Shoreham Airport News has, not surprisingly, run an article on the mid air collision last month. While much of the content has already been stated here I thought was the following excerpt may be of interest , "We do however know that the DA40 was joining crosswind and had just crossed the upwind numbers of the active runway(20). The Vans was, it is believed, on circuits."

Pilot DAR

19th Aug 2011, 10:54

"We do however know that the DA40 was joining crosswind and had just crossed the upwind numbers of the active runway(20). The Vans was, it is believed, on circuits."

So, from this, and foregoing information, I understand that each aircraft could have been somewhat "out of position" relative to what would normally be expected? The DA40 was crossing the runway centerline farther along the Van's takeoff path than the Van might have expected (and could not see down, as a wing could block that view)? The Van's perhaps had the capability of a climb rate after liftoff, which would enable it to be higher than normal along it's departure path, and maybe even had a pitch attitude which would lessen the forward field of view?

The500man

19th Aug 2011, 12:46

Would you typically fly a square circuit in a Vans? Could it have been flying a tighter oval circuit with an earlier lift-off point due to a t&g?

A and C

20th Aug 2011, 17:57

You can fly a tight oval circuit in any aircraft, but it is very bad practice to fly a circuit that is not the one published.

A number of years back a Cessna 150 flown by a mate ( with a young passenger) was hit by an aircraft doing a non standard circuit, all were killed.

Before anyone jumps on me this is a general comment as I am not in a position to comment on the Shoreham accident.

peterh337

14th Jun 2012, 14:44

AAIB report is here (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/june_2012/vans_rv_6a__g_rvgc_and_da_40d_diamond_star__g_cezr.cfm)

soaringhigh650

14th Jun 2012, 17:38

ATC procedures

An Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) has the characteristics of the airspace in which it is located. The Shoreham ATZ is located within an area of Class G uncontrolled airspace. Therefore, ATC are not required to provide separation between VFR traffic.

The Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (MATS 1), Section 2 defines the responsibilities of the Aerodrome ATCO as:
‘2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;’

Responsibility for collision avoidance, therefore, rests with the pilot(s) in command.

Air Traffic Control in Uncontrolled Airspace?

DA42 Pilot

21st Jun 2012, 17:57

Reading the aaib report it looks like the DA40 had the RV in its 2 oclock position for about 45 seconds. With two experienced pilots on board I would have hoped that one of them would have seen it, or perhaps they were still flying on instruments and not looking out of the cockpit

abgd

21st Jun 2012, 21:21

Firefly Bob wrote:

Have asked this before but where is the statistical evidence that the US 45 deg join is "safer" than an OHJ?

We might all have some sort of subjective feelings about which is safer but until someone can show me stats on airproxes/collisions in the circuit for different types of join, I am yet to be convinced.

Is that a demand that can ever be answered? First of all, you'd need a significant number of accidents to work from. Secondly, you'd need to account for differences in pilot training and familiarity with procedures when you were defining your populations for each group.

Are you building a Luciole?

peterh337

21st Jun 2012, 21:28

NigelOnDraft

21st Jun 2012, 21:46

peterh337

The AAIB view appears to be that the Shoreham diagrams are "generic diagrams", not navigational maps to use to refer to ground features / tracks. With one exception, and that is the 20 degree turn after takeoff on 1 runway.

I do note that the published tracks, if indeed they are intended tracks, are so far from Shoreham they take you outside the ATZ :confused:

NoD

mm_flynn

22nd Jun 2012, 13:20

Would anyone like to read that AAIB report on page 6 (of the PDF; fig 3) and compare the RV's track with the published Shoreham circuit pattern (http://shorehamairport.co.uk/files/Image/circuit%20maps/cct-fixedwing2004.jpg) ?

Not suggesting who (or anybody) might be in the wrong place, but the two are quite different in how far out over the water one should climb before turning left to join downwind.

My look is that the tracks are per published procedures.

The RED track seems to show
1 - A staight out departure with a teardrop (to the left) turn back to SHM to commence instrument practice(as per the detail of practice instrument training)
2 - What appears to be appears to be two trips around the hold (at about the published distance, which of course is considerably outside the ATZ)
3 - Exiting the hold, on the NDB 20 outbound (with a base turn that is significantly too tight)
4 - Regaining the inbound track to SHM then breaking off to the right for some airwork (all consistent with normal procedures and the AAIB detail)
5 - Airwork to the West
6 - A crosswind rejoin, pretty much along the track line previously used by the RV
7 - One dot beyond the collision point, then a turn to the airport with loss of radar contact halfway there.

The Blue track (the RV) shows

1 - the general handling to the West
2 - A crosswind join over the numbers (i.e. the correct location)
3 - A pattern where the downwind leg looks about 1/2 KM closer to field than that published, but in all other respects consistent with the track.
4 - A departure (the T&G) with a turn commencing 1/2km or less earlier than the track published
5 - A downwind slightly inside of the published track
6 - A loss of track at the collision

All looks pretty much as per published procedures and the circuits seem to be slightly inside the referenced tracks.

peterh337

22nd Jun 2012, 13:41

ISTM that had the RV come out further over the beach (on the runway track) then a) that would have destroyed the constant-aspect feature which formed such a big part of this accident and b) he might have had a better chance of spotting the DA40 on his LH side.

Of course "nobody" likes to fly any distance over the sea.

In general, I find it much easier to look for circuit traffic when well away from the circuit. Once in the circuit, you have to watch various things and lookout is hard unless somebody is more or less straight ahead, or within a +/- 45 or so degree arc left/right.

Fuji Abound

22nd Jun 2012, 20:25

It is interesting the very detailed radar information that is available from the NATS head, and yet no radar in the tower at Shoreham.

Its a hobby horse of mine but the last time I asked its £100K plus annual fees to place a repeater in the tower although the "real" cost is far far less.

Whether Shoreham would want a repeater and whether they could make use of the data I dont know - but I do know they certainly couldnt afford one at these rates. In contrast Calais does have a repeater and it seems to me chatting to the ATCO it is a very useful tool.

Its interesting that no comment is made in the report with regards to whether the availability of this data could considerably enhance safety.

peterh337

22nd Jun 2012, 21:13

NATS' accounting policies are very political, not least because most light GA pays no route charges.

However you would also need radar qualified ATCOs which is another salary increment.

Fuji Abound

22nd Jun 2012, 22:46

Peterh337 yes of course. The cost of a radar qualification is probably not that great; the cost of a radar feed prohibitive. It's not going to happen.

However as I understand matters the investigators will put on record their recommendations which if implemented could reduce the chances of a similiar accident often without direct regard to cost. It would be interesting to know if a radar feed had been available the chances of the accident would have been reduced? If it would have been reduced the reporter has missed an opportunity to draw attention to Nats failing to enhance safety by making it unviable to share data other than amoung the vary largest airports.

I use onboard traffic and as long as the circuit traffic is transponding this sort of accident would be very unlikely. I don't doubt with the availability of a radar feed the atcos traffic awareness would be greatly enhanced.

DA40Pilot

23rd Jun 2012, 18:29

Well here is a thought. As NATS charge a stupid fee for what amounts to a data feed for a computer to display a radar image, how about a mode S receiver for the control tower. This could snoop on the mode s replies from aircraft with a suitable transponder and produce an alert if they were conflicting. As an alternative I wonder if NATS could have a link to shoreham and instead of sending a radar image, just send conflict alerts. If a suitable threshold for these could be set then the tower would get an alert if a dangerous situation was developing. As this was not displaying a radar image I would imagine that it would not need a radar qualified controller and would enhance safety.

DA42 Pilot

23rd Jun 2012, 18:32

I do wonder if the pilots were to busy pressing buttons on the G1000 or looking at the instruments when in the circuit. I do find it difficult to imagine that they did not see the other aircraft for about 45 seconds especially as there were two qualified pilots in the cockpit who should have been looking out.

peterh337

23rd Jun 2012, 18:33

This technology exists but I think that ATC would need a quick release window pane in the tower, to jump out of if anybody saw them use it :)

In this case, however, I don't see any ground based surveillance technology would have helped. TCAS in either aircraft (and Mode C or S in the other) - yes.

frontlefthamster

24th Jun 2012, 18:27

The equipment under discussion, which is used by Aerodrome Controllers in VCRs, is called an Aerodrome Traffic Monitor (ATM).

Peter wrote:

However you would also need radar qualified ATCOs which is another salary increment.

Here is the first paragraph in MATS Part 1 about the ATM, with my bold text:

17 Aerodrome Traffic Monitor (ATM)

17.1 An ATM is provided at certain aerodromes to assist in achieving maximum runway utilisation and aerodrome capacity. Operation of an ATM is not associated with a particular rating and must not be used as an ATS surveillance system to provide Approach Radar Services.

A google search for CAP 493 will find you the whole document. The relevant section is Section 17 of Chapter 1.

:rolleyes:

Fuji Abound

24th Jun 2012, 19:23

Ah, so what should it cost for Shoreham to have a radar repeater and how might this enhance safety in the approach to and in the circuit?

M609

24th Jun 2012, 21:57

Quote:
ATC procedures

An Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) has the characteristics of the airspace in which it is located. The Shoreham ATZ is located within an area of Class G uncontrolled airspace. Therefore, ATC are not required to provide separation between VFR traffic.

The Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (MATS 1), Section 2 defines the responsibilities of the Aerodrome ATCO as:
‘2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;’

Responsibility for collision avoidance, therefore, rests with the pilot(s) in command.
Air Traffic Control in Uncontrolled Airspace?

Uk and air traffic services rules are quite hard to follow for those of us not from the UK! :)

As for radar display in the tower: I worked TWR with radar display for the twr controller from 2002 to 2009. At two airports with a majority of VFR operations, including light aircraft and helos, both MIL and CIV.

One year we did not have radar info available for "twr traffic altitudes" due to failure of one of two sensors. That was a hard year.

Even if you spend 90% of the time head up, looking out, there are situations where a radar display with SSR info is valuable. Traffic blocked by the tower roof, and traffic hidden by surrounding terrain. (For the not so flat parts of the world) (http://home.online.no/~anderfo/TAR/ENDU_panorama.jpg)

We did not use civ overhead joins, but often MIL break pattern for light training aircraft. Break turn allways hidden by the tower roof. Radar was nice to have then.

peterh337

25th Jun 2012, 06:19

Somebody told me the Kinetik (http://www.kinetic-avionics.com/sbs-1.php) box shows position of all Mode S traffic.

How does that work, for aircraft with Elementary Mode S which is not permitted to radiate that data? Non-EU reg Mode S aircraft will probably be radiating it (because the "Elementary" v. "Enhanced" Mode S is a purely European invention) but an EU reg banned it (http://www.dac.public.lu/documentation/aeronef/mode_s.pdf) for local reg ones.

Such a box would benefit ATC situational awareness but - like London Information which has similar unofficial radar access - they would still not be able to legally make a radio call to an aircraft which they thought would benefit from the information.

Fuji Abound

25th Jun 2012, 06:51

they would still not be able to legally make a radio call to an aircraft which they thought would benefit from the information.

It depends. With the benefit of a radar feed they now know exactly where to look for the aircraft and having seen them that much earlier / recognised the potential for conflict issue appropriate instructions.

peterh337

25th Jun 2012, 07:20

Sure... what I meant to say is that they would not be allowed to make a radio call which revealed they can see where somebody is, using "radar".

They would have to be discreet in how they use it.

The sooner we have ADS-B the sooner this will be possible to do properly, and the regs on radar visibility by non authorised ATC/AFIS personnel will de facto fall by the wayside, which will be good for everybody.

gcal

30th Jun 2012, 12:54

Interim report is on the AAIB site under 06/12

DA42 Pilot

10th Jul 2012, 20:08

Having two qualified pilots in one aircraft, and one in the other with considerable experience I wonder what really went on up there. I find it almost impossible to believe that they would not have seen each other had they been looking. From the Radar traces it looks like the RV had priority according to visual flight rules, and hence the DA40 should have given way to the RV. Clearly it didn't - either because the pilots of the DA40 were not looking where they were going, or decided that the RV would miss them.

AdamFrisch

10th Jul 2012, 21:11

How many times have we not muttered "damn, that was close!" to ourselves and sworn to be more vigilant in our scan in the future? Even when you do nothing but look outside, you miss stuff. Even when you're in the pattern and the tower calls out the traffic for you, I fail to see it many times. And from the R/T, I gather, so do the other pilots.

So I'm not very surprised.

Fuji Abound

10th Jul 2012, 21:16

Da42

Did you read the report?

The pilots that survived give a clear account.

Obviously we dont know whether the other pilot saw them but since there is no evidence he sort to take avoiding action he probably didnt.

Bealeyman

10th Jul 2012, 22:49

This article on circuit joining procedure suggests that the a/c joining crosswind was in the circuit whereas a taking off/ going around a/c is not. This information being UNDERLINED. Any thoughts, as the information in CHIRP on this was news to me

Spaceace

1st Nov 2012, 21:57

This appeared recently in the Shoreham Herald website. Presumably the right of way comment relates to the fact the RV6 was approaching from the right, but as the report points out this is only relevant if the aircraft are in visual contact which it appears they tragically were not.

VERDICT: Shoreham air crash

VERDICT: Shoreham air crash - Local - Shoreham Herald (http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/local/verdict-shoreham-air-crash-1-4411176)

Published on Thursday 25 October 2012 15:50

The family of a retired British Airways captain killed in a mid-air collision over Shoreham have said they are “deeply disappointed” with the verdict of an inquest into his death.

A jury concluded today (Thursday, October 25) that 63-year-old Alan Weal, from Goring, died as the result of an accident.

Speaking after the three-day hearing, held in Horsham, his wife, Penelope, said: “We are not at all happy with the verdict.

“As a family, we are disappointed the coroner directed the jury to enter a short-form accidental death verdict. His death was not an accident, it was preventable.”

Alan died on July 4 last year, after the aircraft he was piloting collided with another, piloted by Robert Rickwood and Barnaby Kerr, of Flying Time Aviation, based at Shoreham Airport.

Alan’s family maintain he had the “right of way” in the air.

His daughter, Victoria, said: “The tragic and preventable loss of my father has left a void that can never be filled.

“He was an amazing father, husband, grandfather and friend, and losing him has changed our lives forever.

“My dad lived life to the full, and our memories of him will live on in us, and all those who knew and loved him, forever.”

For a full report, see next week’s Shoreham Herald, out on November 1

peterh337

1st Nov 2012, 22:52

The family appears to have been badly advised of the way aviation works, and perhaps their lawyers are doing the usual scam of forcing a settlement to get them off the other party's insurer's back.

soaringhigh650

2nd Nov 2012, 16:38

There's another thread running in another forum which appears to show everything that could go wrong with Shoreham's ATC.

peterh337

2nd Nov 2012, 17:06

soaringhigh650

2nd Nov 2012, 17:48

I agree there is dreadful radio and I have my utmost respect for the ATCers who work odd shifts, keep their calm, and still carry on. Without their help and guidance I would probably not be alive today.

But everyone knows that traffic information or separation is meant to be applied between aircraft at a Towered airport until the following pilot confirms he has the other in sight and can maintain his own separation.

What is this Class G stuff? Inappropriately classified airspace should not be used as a waiver of liability into someone's death?

Sillert,V.I.

2nd Nov 2012, 18:06

soaringhigh650

Be careful not to make assumptions based on US airspace procedures & regulations.
Shoreham is in class G airspace and although the aerodrome controller's instructions must be followed, separation in the ATZ remains the responsibility of the pilot.

mad_jock

2nd Nov 2012, 18:19

Class G you are on your tod see and avoid only.

ATZ which it happened in has different rules but the main ones as always is see and avoid and don't crash into the ground.

As the old tongue in cheek goes if you always presume they are out to kill you, you won't go far wrong.

The rules have been designed so it will always fall back to the pilots responsability. And although its hard for the familys to understand this fact and I have every sympathy for them. Most pilots will understand that its a "there by the grace of god go I" accident.

dublinpilot

2nd Nov 2012, 19:01

You have to get fairly high up the list of airspace classifications before VFR traffic is seperated from VFR traffic, even in the USA. ;)

2 sheds

2nd Nov 2012, 20:11

This is nothing to do with ATC.

It is a failure of visual separation in Class G airspace, assisted by the departing aircraft (an RV) climbing enthusiastically to circuit height on a tight circuit.

ATC don't have eyes on the back of their heads, and separation of VFR traffic is not their job.

Quite correct in the second two paragraphs, but I would take issue with the first statement - it needs to be a whole lot to do with ATC, if not as practised now, then in the future (and indeed to do with acceptable procedures at non-ATC aerodromes). For example, joining procedures when the circuit is active (direct crosswind join or not?), and more specific requirements about how and when traffic information is passed (and possibly updated) are examples of how this sort of incident needs to be followed up from an ATC perspective and procedures improved.

2 s

soaringhigh650

3rd Nov 2012, 10:42

It is a failure of visual separation in Class G airspace... ATC don't have eyes on the back of their heads, and separation of VFR traffic is not their job.

People are completely forgetting about the limitations of unalerted see-and-avoid here. If there was no limitation, we don't need a controller. They are there to help prevent collisions.

This is achieved by passing traffic information and/or applying separation.

For controllers to pass instructions to pilots, while 1) giving pilots the freedom to ignore those instructions, and 2) giving themselves the freedom not to pass any traffic information, and 3) giving themselves the freedom not to provide any separation - the three points all being possible as it is uncontrolled airspace, and THEN expecting that pilots should know about each other and exactly where to look out for each other, is an accident which has already happened.

This is because pilots perceive controllers to be in the know about the bigger picture, else they wouldn't have given them instructions.

Posters here are correct that a pilot in VMC is ultimately responsible for their own separation. However I go back to my original point which is that inappropriate airspace classification, in this case the fact the airspace is "uncontrolled", should not be used as a liability waiver.

dublinpilot

3rd Nov 2012, 11:33

People are completely forgetting about the limitations of unalerted see-and-avoid here. If there was no limitation, we don't need a controller. They are there to help prevent collisions.

Posters here are correct that a pilot in VMC is ultimately responsible for their own separation. However I go back to my original point which is that inappropriate airspace classification, in this case the fact the airspace is "uncontrolled", should not be used as a liability waiver.

Soaring, it's more than just pilots in VMC. All VFR pilots in airspaces C to G provide their own seperation from other VFR traffic. If you think it's inappropriate airspace classification the only two that would provide seperation for VFR/VFR traffic is A or B. The UK don't use B, so that just least A (which EASA is trying to phase out anyway!).

In class C, VFR traffic does get info on other VFR traffic, but no seperation other than from IFR traffic.

It's a long time since I flew in the USA, but from memory I thought it was the same there too?

dublinpilot

3rd Nov 2012, 11:35

PS. I'll happily admit that most ATC in the UK (and Ireland) seem to try to provide some sort of seperation for VFR/VFR but it's not their responsibility.

maxred

3rd Nov 2012, 13:20

PS. I'll happily admit that most ATC in the UK (and Ireland) seem to try to provide some sort of seperation for VFR/VFR but it's not their responsibility.

Agree entirely, and would bet if they did not, there would be a hell of a lot more incidents.

Try visiting Perth, Scone, on a busy spring day.:eek:

Pilots responsibility through and through, see and be seen. The air/ground/ATC, call it what you will, can inform of traffic that they know about, but it falls to the pilot to keep clear of other traffic, despite what that other traffic may be doing.

Have seen it all at Perth, quite shocking in some instances:rolleyes:

wb9999

3rd Nov 2012, 14:03

Try visiting Perth, Scone, on a busy spring day.

Pilots responsibility through and through, see and be seen. The air/ground/ATC, call it what you will, can inform of traffic that they know about, but it falls to the pilot to keep clear of other traffic, despite what that other traffic may be doing.

Have seen it all at Perth, quite shocking in some instances

Air/ground is not ATC - they are 2 distinct ATSUs, although I understand that some A/G operators like to think they are ATC.

wb9999

3rd Nov 2012, 14:14

Soaring, it's more than just pilots in VMC. All VFR pilots in airspaces C to G provide their own seperation from other VFR traffic. If you think it's inappropriate airspace classification the only two that would provide seperation for VFR/VFR traffic is A or B. The UK don't use B, so that just least A (which EASA is trying to phase out anyway!).

In class C, VFR traffic does get info on other VFR traffic, but no seperation other than from IFR traffic.

It's a long time since I flew in the USA, but from memory I thought it was the same there too?

Apparently, still so. It appears that only Class B provides VFR to VFR separation in the US.

2 sheds

3rd Nov 2012, 14:18

From soaringhigh650:
For controllers to pass instructions to pilots, while 1) giving pilots the freedom to ignore those instructions, and 2) giving themselves the freedom not to pass any traffic information, and 3) giving themselves the freedom not to provide any separation - the three points all being possible as it is uncontrolled airspace, and THEN expecting that pilots should know about each other and exactly where to look out for each other, is an accident which has already happened.
None of the above points is accurate in the case of this collision. Pilots require ATC permission to operate within the ATZ (albeit in Class G airspace) and instructions are issued which, in effect, are modifications of that permission. Part of the aerodrome control service (the FIS) is to provide relevant traffic information; the point in my previous post was that the format and timing of this needs to be addressed and specified in more detail (IMHO of course). Separation per se is not provided in such airspace and the use of this word is very misleading.

2 s

peterh337

3rd Nov 2012, 17:55

However I go back to my original point which is that inappropriate airspace classification, in this case the fact the airspace is "uncontrolled", should not be used as a liability waiver.

Soaring - I don't disagree with your drift but you live in a theoretical world.

The UK airspace structure will never change to the US one. In the USA you have taxpayer funded approach controllers who service the extensive Class E airspace. This will never happen here because ATC is privatised and anyway has for a long time operated a policy of cost recovery, and nobody is going to pay the very substantial ATC salaries which would be required for Class E on that scale.

Nobody is also going to pay for radar equipment and the extra cost of a "radar qualified" ATCO. Shoreham does have ATC but the same scenario is played out at the many non-ATC airfields, none of which could afford ATC salaries, never mind radar.

Class G is going to stay in the UK, and people have to live with it.

Most pilots who fly for real are actually completely happy with loads of Class G, with GPS etc making ATC assistance practically redundant, and by flying above 2000ft ;) you avoid nearly all GA traffic in the UK.

You just get the ambiguous separation issues at the airfields, but this can never be solved because even if the airfield has CAS (Class D) the controller is still not going to provide "guaranteed" separation between VFR traffic.

As I see it, the most important thing is to somehow get through to pilots (old ones and new ones) that climbing at say 2000fpm off the runway is not a great idea. By all means fly a tight circuit if you are sure there is no traffic around, but the rest of the time you should fly a proper rectangular circuit in which you climb "normally" off the runway, and you do the crosswind turn and commence the downwind turn well upwind of any traffic joining crosswind.

2 sheds

4th Nov 2012, 08:07

but I also think that traffic crossing the extended centerline of the take-off run anywhere near the airport is a very, very bad idea.

That all depends on several factors. The more significant factor here was the departing traffic remaining in the circuit and the other aircraft making a direct crosswind join when the pilot did not have the other relevant traffic in sight at that stage.

2 s

Sillert,V.I.

4th Nov 2012, 09:02

As I see it, the most important thing is to somehow get through to pilots (old ones and new ones) that climbing at say 2000fpm off the runway is not a great idea.

In my very humble opinion, I'd say that's the best piece of advice in this thread. If your flight profile is vastly different to that of the majority of the pattern traffic, you could easily put yourself in a place where others don't expect you to be. It's no replacement for maintaining a proper lookout, but it helps mitigate the risk.

soaringhigh650

5th Nov 2012, 14:17

The UK airspace structure will never change to the US one.

But you have mixed up en-route airspace with terminal airspace.

Shoreham does have ATC but the same scenario is played out at the many non-ATC airfields.

I understand you guys pay a landing fee which includes the navigation service fee?

because even if the airfield has CAS (Class D) the controller is still not going to provide "guaranteed" separation between VFR traffic.

Neither does the US and not all towered fields have radar, but in Class D at least traffic information is meant to be provided. And in my experience with the detail as 2 sheds has tried to highlight.

A factor contributing to the accident was the inadequate traffic advisory information provided by the controllers.