Air miss at Lossiemouth

[ShotOne]

BBC News has reported an air miss at Lossiemouth between Typhoon/Tornado which reportedly came within 300' of each other. What stands out is the claim the collision warning system didn't work apparently because "it was still warming up". Eh??

[ExAscoteer]

Those Mk 1 eyeballs obviously don't work in the current low twemperatures. ;)

[Easy Street]

Full report here (https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/New_assessed_reports/Airprox%20Report%202016171.pdf). I've not heard of TCAS warmup either but it is talked about in the report. Seems to me as if the root cause was the silly decision to make Lossiemouth 05 a right-hand circuit - it's back to left-hand now, as it had been for donkey's years before the Typhoons arrived and had to change something :hmm:

[Two's in]

Pilot members were completely astonished that there was not a standard procedure that aircraft occupying the runway should be called to joining formations at their initials call.

No shiat Sherlock.

[glad rag]

Might help if all the RAF aircraft had TCAS you know. Just saying.

[BEagle]

"(Typhoons), Clear join, caution, 2 Tornados on for departure"??

Why not?

[Just This Once...]

Just saying what? Do you even know how TCAS works on departure and recovery?

I am astonished that they could find a collection of controllers who didn't think a departing stream of aircraft were relevant traffic for a 4-ship on the break. Given that the passage of such information is both routine and expected I agree with the board regarding the pivotal role this had in this incident.

I also think the Typhoon pilot did well picking up the confliction from an obscured aspect whilst juggling his position, formation and noise abatement requirements. It is so easy for your scan to focus on the 3 playmates ahead and not spot the shark coming from below.

The Tornado crew didn't have much chance and in truth their IFR clearance didn't offer any protection and I have no idea what the Secretariat was trying to say when they stated that the Tornado and Typhoon shared an equal responsibility for collision avoidance.

[vascodegama]

Don't know if this makes any odds but the report says the Tornados were IFR at one point and VFR at another and are MATZs Class G ?

[MPN11]

Agree with all the ATC-related comments above [and the UKAB report, of course].

BEagle has said exactly what I would have said, and I would have expected any ATCO to have said that too.

[newt]

I agree with Beags! Good airmanship all round would avoid any conflict! Maybe our modern Air Force is not used to a multi aircraft circuit?

[KPax]

Being pendantic as an ex Controller, I would not have said 'clear join', just callsign join, 2 on for departure. If the joining aircraft are not visual in the 'visual circuit, back to Approach for Radar recoveries.

[MPN11]

All controllers should be pedantic, KPax ;)

I could offer "... 2 on for stream/trail departure" for maximum pedantry.

I used to have a 'bad habit' [technically] of actually 'controlling' the visual circuit. But with mixed traffic speeds ranging from Single Pin to Lightning, I always felt a bit of 'constructive intervention' was appropriate at times.

I never broke the habit on subsequent tours, and never incurred the wrath of the ATCEEB either.

[Bob Viking]

Come on, Newt. You're better than that.

BV

[Pure Pursuit]

Great airmanship but, very, very poor ATC. The fact that the controller perceived the severity as 'low' is astonishing and a clear sign that he didn't understand the significance of the event.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Sorry to say this but that shows that ATC let the side down. There is no reason why a local controller should not have informed the aircraft joining through initials of the pair on for departure/departing. As aircraft calls initials, atc give him info on what he is likely to encounter and prioritised so that the ones nearest him are called first.

A "circuit clear, two on for departure" , or even "circuit clear, two departing" would have sorted this and given typhoon crews chance for a clearer picture.

[Brain Potter]

The controller's failure to pass information on relevant traffic appears to be the principal root cause. However, had he spotted the conflict as it developed, he may have been unable warn the Tornados because they had switched to the departure frequency almost immediately after take-off. It is not clear if that was their clearance on this occasion, but nevertheless the custom is widepsread across the RAF despite not being compliant with CAP413. Unless the departure clearance otherwise instructs, if you are still in the ATZ you should remain on the tower frequency until instructed to transfer by the aerodrome controller.

[MightyGem]

What sort of "TCAS" do the RAF use? is it the all singing/dancing type that tells you what to do to avoid the impending collision, or is the type that just tells you there is an aircraft nearby?

We had the second type on our Police helicopter, and it was not uncommon for aircraft to suddenly appear a couple of miles away(having not been seen prior), not show at all, or be indicated on the wrong bearing.

[H Peacock]

"Jester, join Rwy 22, qfe 1007, circuit clear, pair on for departure" That's what I've always been told by ATC. Surely it doesn't need the 'caution' in it!

[just another jocky]

I could offer "... 2 on for stream/trail departure" for maximum pedantry.

It's not just pedantry but essential imo. If you don't differentiate the type of take-off/departure, how will the joining traffic be able to construct a mental air picture of where they should be so avoidance may be planned? A pairs take-off will take far less time to clear the circuit than a 30 second stream, and it's unlikely that the trailing wingman will be squawking so apart from being a lot closer to the visual circuit than might otherwise be expected, they wont show on TAS/TCAS.

And I would imagine a Typhoon pilot might want to know it's a Tornado on for departure since the aircraft performance immediately after take-off (speed/angle and rate of climb) are markedly different from the Typhoon.

[MPN11]

j a j ... Concur fully. I don't call it 'pedantry' in a serious sense [just responding in kind to KPax] but, as you say, it's 'essential information' which should be fine-tuned to the circumstances prevailing at the time. In this instance the difference between a pairs departure and a 30-sec stream turned out to be a critical factor in Typhoon #4's SA.

I fully take your point about the relevance of aircraft type too, specially as my old brain still managed to recognise quickly the scenario that was developing. The challenge facing ATCOs is, of course, whether to talk too much when passing information.

[Tankertrashnav]

BBC News has reported an air miss at Lossiemouth

I'm a long time out of the game but I try and keep up. Don't we call it an airprox now, not an airmiss? Or has it changed back to the original term?

Anyway, I bet the BBC called it a "near miss" - they always do. I always thought "near hit" was more accurate!

[Just This Once...]

It's not just pedantry but essential imo. If you don't differentiate the type of take-off/departure, how will the joining traffic be able to construct a mental air picture of where they should be so avoidance may be planned? A pairs take-off will take far less time to clear the circuit than a 30 second stream, and it's unlikely that the trailing wingman will be squawking so apart from being a lot closer to the visual circuit than might otherwise be expected, they wont show on TAS/TCAS.

And I would imagine a Typhoon pilot might want to know it's a Tornado on for departure since the aircraft performance immediately after take-off (speed/angle and rate of climb) are markedly different from the Typhoon.

Good points and no doubt most controllers would aim at this standard.

Regarding airmanship (and to add to my expressed view that there was little more either the No4 Typhoon or Tornado could have done) the report makes little mention of the Typhoon leader.

Sitting at the front with the best view/capacity in the formation, a quick leading question to ATC such as "request intentions of the one on?" may have been just enough to clue-in those formatting on him that there was another aircraft to add to their mental picture before the break.

Sometime it is just the little things that can ease your day.

[BEagle]

I thought that military aircraft had to be cleared to enter a MATZ?

Whatever the precise wording should have been, I find it absolutely astonishing that the Typhoon formation wasn't made aware of the Tornados' departure intentions...:=

[MPN11]

Alternative perspective, in a deliberately light-hearted and contentious mood|

"Tower, Typhoon x 4 Initials for Run and Break,"
"Typhoon, MATZ penetration not approved, 2 Tornados on for take-off. Maintain above 3,000 feet, QFE nnnn, and stand by."
"WTF? Don't you trust us to fly in VMC in the MATZ?"
"No."

Where and how far do we go with this stuff? Do you want 'interventionist' Local Control, as I used to do (see upthread)?

[MPN11]

BTW, I described this scenario to my BIL today. He's an ex-Vulcan driver and subsequent ATCO (sqn ldr Retd), who is recovering (slowly) from treatment for a brain tumour.

He immediately went 'eeek' about the lack of information on the departing stream of Tornados (3 & 4). If he, in his sadly somewhat diminished state can see the developing situation instantly, what do we say about the ATCO, or the procedures/phraseology or indeed training, nowadays imposed on him?

[Just This Once...]

Alternative perspective....
"Tower, Typhoon x 4 Initials for Run and Break,"
"Typhoon, MATZ penetration not approved, 2 Tornados on for take-off. Maintain above 3,000 feet, QFE nnnn, and stand by."

Well at least you mentioned the 2 Tornados on for take-off, so probably an improvement.

[MPN11]

Well at least you mentioned the 2 Tornados on for take-off, so probably an improvement.
I was very good :) :)
But, seriously, ... I understand I was black-balled for either the School or the Examining Board, as I was a bit too "tactical" :)

[Just This Once...]

...and I am probably too kind to controllers.

Perhaps "[callsign], initials runway xx, QFE xxxx, confirm competent controllers in the VCR?"

"Afirm, clear join, [passes relevant traffic, information but not war and peace with disclaimers about poor radar coverage, MSAs and alike].

"Roger, [callsign] for the break."

[MPN11]

"... and your Invoice for competent ATC service is in the post.... 28 day settlement, please. Glad to be of service, please call again!" :D

Sorry, slipped into BA penny-pinching mode there, which does NOT belong in this sub-Forum!