Mid-Air Collision at OATS

[Jet A1]

Just heard that there has been a mid-air collision between two OATS PA28's at Oxford Airport. Both aircraft were on finals to the landing runway, 02, and were involved in a collision.
Both aircraft managed to land safely, one on the runway and one on the grass. One of the aircraft is reported to have significant damage to a wing. There are no reports of injuries and both flights were dual instruction flights.
Well done to both instructors for landing their damaged aircraft safely.

[Three-Twenty]

it was only a matter of time...

Thank goodness no-one was hurt. Anyone got any more info?

------------------
Our main weapon is fear and surprise...

[Aerosexual]

I knew somthing like this would happen soon, the circuit is so bl**dy dangerous, it is a joke.

When oh when will they get dedicated radar, instead of sponging off Brize Norton?

Oh but hang on, that will cost money won't it? I wonder whether Oxford management realise that accidents are much more expensive than prevention, oh sorry I forgot they are Beancounters!

OK radar may not have helped in this incident, but by not overloading a single runway with a visual tower may have.

I reckon if the CAA have a look at the REAL No. of take off and lands at Oxford, they'll be in for a big surprise!!!!!!!!!

Do all these major Airlines who send their cadets there actually realise that OATS has no radar or ILS, but does have 2 grass strips, just about 1 instrument runway and a little tower?!!

I'm sure someone has to die first, or the Airlines themselves get involved before any money will be spent.

OATS really have bitten off more than they chew, and it's time someone sorted it out!

From a worried Oxford Flier.

P.S. Well done to the crews involved, I'm sure you'll be having a few beers tonight!

[SectorSafe]

When I was at OATS I often worried about this happening to me http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

You get Instruemnt Traffic inbound or circling low level to land - as well as circuit traffic and joining traffic from all directions both twin and singles !!! It can become madness especially when the viz is a little dodgy. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

I have every respect for the ATCers at OATS who do brilliantly but still do not have any modern technology. They still use wartime pins to locate their aircraft !!!Perhaps they should accept Frank Williams' offer and install the ILS/VOR !! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/redface.gif

I do also worry that they allow the Algerian/Kuwaiti circuit solo's to go up with dodgy wx and then mix it with the instrument arrivals and IRT's and then screw them up by turning finals in front of them whilst flying some none textbooks approaches !!! I know they are learning a new trade in a different culture with a differnt langauge but can surely realise when they should throw away and approach and try again - They don't and they end up causing mayhem !!!! :mad:

I am sure this incident will open a few eyes and ears and the circuit regulations changed or tightened !! :rolleyes:

Well done to the crews involved !!! ;)

[Lord Gnome]

Similar to what at Hamble years ago unfortunatley two Hamsters were killed then. Hence a series of PA 28`s with Sunroofs. I worked there for sometime, it is workable if you keep your whits aboout you. As for having radar would that have prevented a collision in the circuit, and an ILS surley that would only add to the confusion in an already ATZ I think it is a god send that people do go elsewhere to practice their approaches.

Sponging off Brize is a bloody good idea,they are hardy pushed over there and taxs are used to fund Brize Norton.

Many who have OATS as your first experience of avaition lead a somewhat sheltered existance, you should also consider that OATS bears little or resemblance to GA in the rest of the country. OATS run avery good operation all things considered, but it is a shame that they put the ATC out to SERCO who fired one of their best contollers.

[wannabeepilot]

Anyone ever thought about the quality of the instructors to get the aircraft into this kind of situation in the first place??

Surely the instructors should be monitoring radio traffic and keeping a good visual lookout whilst still monitoring the student's performance?

Isn't this why they have an instructors certificate in the first place?

[BEagle]

How fortunate that no-one was killed today!! This inadequate little aerodrome with its muddy grass and one tatty little hard runway is totally inadequate for the task of airline training. Lord Gnome seems to think that OATS should be able to clutter Brize Norton's circuit with training traffic at the taxpayers' expense rather than expecting OATS to upgrade Kidlington with sufficent infrastructure and navigation aids to conduct training properly at its own expense. A lame excuse from someone high up about the reason for not installing ILS at Kidlington was 'because everyone else would want to come and use it'!!
Of course another option would be to find somewhere with better approach aids, more runways and more space. Like Prestwick, perhaps??

[Prince Kebab]

Thank God no one was killed first and foremost.
I too was often worried about the amount of traffic in the circuit when I was there. However an ILS or Radar is of no relevance to the visual circuit. ATC are not going to Radar vector you the circuit. All instrument traffic cancels IFR(if training) so it is all visual.
A busy circuit but very well managed by ATC.

[fireflybob]

Don't kid yourself that midairs only occur in a busy circuit.
I was at Hamble in 1969 when two students collided and were killed. I think there were about two in the circuit with one joining.
One of the recommendations of that report was that right hand circuits should not be flown at training airfields with aircraft with side by side seating with the commander sitting in the left hand seat (solo).
Radar would be pretty useless in this situation but I recall that in the States quite a few years ago the biggest likelihood of collision was within 10 miles of an airport with mixed IFR/VFR traffic.
One answer is to limit the numbers in the circuit and also have plenty of relief landing grounds where early solo students can fly students without the congestion problems.

[Stu Bigzorst]

I saw the aftermath this lunchtime. Should have seen the faces on Bruce L and Jimmy Sommerville! Two Warriors - a miracle the nasty whizzing round bits missed the flimsy metal stuff. Wheel - wing contact must surely be pretty tight stuff. I cack myself every time I join the circuit here and I'm told "there are five others in the circuit", and I can only spot 3 (esp if there are Algerian or Cypriate voices). I'm so looking forward to the end of this VFR nightmare....

[52049er]

My God - I was at Oxford at 11.45 today to sort out something and decided to sit on the gate at the threshold of 20 to relive a few memories. Must have just missed it - the circuit was its usual self - 4 in , 1 joining overhead 4 ready to t/o.

I was more worried about the number of a/c doing G/A's on the wrong side (Kidders is different than most airfields as the Helo area prevents go arounds on the dead side)

Well done the instructors. I am not in the slightest surprised.

[Bi-planejane]

As short courser last year before they moved there was even more congestion, but this is where you learn airmanship folks when VFR. The controllers do their best but have lost some excellent experienced people last year. I did my PPL at Biggin, 9 in the circuit average, Bizjets and 7 Flying schools, two helicopter schools et al. You learn what lookout is all about, immediates, RT on the ball,positioning for correct and safe spacing yet keeping the traffic moving quickly and efficiently and the controllers there with their archaic systems do a fabulous job.
Oxford ATC need our support and some continuity with staff not censure as we don't know the facts.
So glad no-one was hurt this time.

[capt beeky]

They will probably sack the two instructors. The last guy to have a cat A airprox got canned, even tho the board said it was the fault of ATC and a visiting pilot. Guess he was the lucky one, he lived and got out of that **** hole without paying a bond. When will ILS realise that lives matter. This time they beat the clock. Tomorrow...?

[Wubble U]

Well done to the crews who prevented this incident turning into a catastrophe. For those complaining about congestion in the Oxford circuit, I suggest you look towards WMU in the states. That airield had ILS/VOR/NDB/GPS approaches plus radar coverage. There were regularly 8+ (no exaggeration) in the circuit, plus a line of others waiting to depart, military fast jet and transport traffic, biz jets, and all run by incompetent ATCers whose instructions were best ignored in the interests of safety. Despite this there wasn't a single mid-air there. Even in that congested airspace, the best way to keep safe is a bl**dy good lookout and a major sense of self preservation. Technology won't do it for you!

Well done to the crews involved once again!

[MCT]

Do students at OAT use the landing light at low level and while in the curcuit???

[shlittlenellie]

The policy, several years ago, was to have the landing lights on at all times in the PA28.

[Stu Bigzorst]

Two a/c on finals for 20, neither cleared to land.
A was a little bit higher and little bit behind B. A was then cleared to land, and B initiated a go-around. B hit A at only 50' AGL and was smacked down into the grass, near the threshold. A landed.
Both instructors still in employment this morning.

[U R NumberOne]

So A was behind and above B, yet it was A that got a landing clearance first - sounds a little strange to me. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

[Aerosexual]

A mate of mine was in the circuit at the time, and was informed by the tower that he was No. 2, when he could see the two said aircraft on finals. So it seems to me as though the Tower had lost the plot, thinking back they did seem maxed out that morning, but they always are!!!

No doubt my mate will get a portion of the blame and Jimmy Sommerville will conduct a cover up of the real facts to the CAA to prevent restrictions of flying and to preserve profits!!!

[Sohrab]

Geez! I am so glad this incident ended safely!! I am on the verge of starting an ab initio course and either have the option of staying closer to home but flying from an uncontrolled circuit airfield or further away at a controlled circuit airfield. There's me, perhaps naively thinking, that aerial conflicts only really happen (albeit very rarely) in an uncontrolled circuit - well this incident is very much a rude awakening for the uninitiated in me!

Perhaps in a visual circuit with ATC, radar etc (i.e. controlled) the odd pilot gets a little lax about maintaining a good look out for others in the circuit, perhaps relying too much on ATC and flying the aircraft. Whereas perhaps, in a purely uncontrolled circuit with no ATC or just a simple ATIS, pilots have nothing to fall back on other than their own vigilance and good airmanship and therefore are more aware of other circuit traffic.

There is really nothing about flying that scares me and with more knowledge and experience I expect to become more confident and competent. However, the only qualification to the last sentence is a pathological fear of a mid-air collision. This scares the s--t out of me. Recently near my house in Essex there was a collision involving a Cessna 152 (I think) under training and an aerobatic Yak which I understand collided in or very near the North Weald circuit. All 3 occupants were killed!

It strikes me that in this modern day and age , the 21st century, we still have no better safety against mid-air conflicts in VFR flights other than 'see and avoid' principle. I presume the stumbling block for introduction of further safetly features for training aircraft is cost but I am not sure. Some time last year there was a mid-air over Nottinghamshire between a Cessna doing aerial photography and an RAF Tornado. The AAIB noted in their report that the principle of 'see and avoid' failed as both pilots were preoccupied with their respective tasks, the Cessna pilot taking aerial shots and the Tornado pilot (under training) spending all his time looking inside the cockpit. Both aircraft therefore did not maintain a good look out. Although the Cessna pilot was heavily criticised in the report for not following establised guidelines vis a vis aerial photography and drifting into airspace used by the RAF.

I would be interested to receive views on this very touchy subject.

Safe flying to all!

[Guernsey Donkey]

Anyone have the instructor's names? (I used to work there)

8 or 9 in the circuit was not unusual when I was there - very difficult for anyone to learn anything when it was like that - too busy looking for others - I used to load up my LAA charges and head for Staverton...

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

If someone could provide me with instructor names via email then I would be grateful.

Sounds like an unlucky accident with a lucky escape.

Safe flying everyone,

WWW

[Stu Bigzorst]

The prop from the lower a/c chewed off one flap assembly from the upper a/c and made a mess of the stabilator. The lower a/c, for its efforts, gained a major rip across the upper surface of its wing (from the tie down eye on the upper a/c). So at impact, the lower a/c was a couple of feet behind and to the side of the upper a/c. Ouch!

[Oshkosh]

A lot of the problem at Kidlington is that the circuit is v. tightly constrained, by the danger area at Weston-on-the-Green to the north and by the Brize CTR to the south. There's therefore v. little room to extend downwind for spacing, hence lots of go-arounds happen due to a/c getting too close to each other.

They also encourage traffic to join the circuit from all sorts of random directions ('more commercial'!) which is a recipe for disaster in such a busy and constrained pattern.

A parallel runway would help, but (a) I doubt that there's room on the airfield, (b) it would b***er up the helicopter training, and (c) the Duke of Whatever in Blenheim Palace would just ~love~ traffic in the opposite circuit flying straight over his back yard!

Well done to the instructors for keeping themselves and the students alive!

[Mini Mouse]

It was only a matter of time- the OATS circuit is a nightmare.

Problem is ATC start losing the plot- to many heads in the cockpit and not looking out- there are to many young flying instructors hour building and losing the plot in the air. The older flying instructors are much more on the ball.


PA 28s keep their landing lights on for the whole duration of flight- The Seneca’s landing lights are covered up when the gear doors close (good invention Piper).

ILS at OATS wouldn't solve the problem.

Brize are starting to lose interest in OATS a/c- Heaven knows why RAF Benson isn't adopted for ILS- RADAR services.

No need for names to be put on here- so WWW keep your nose out of it.

Oshkosh is spot on- the circuit if pretty in-flexible esp. with some of the OATS stupid SOPs and Noise abatement- It's one thing keeping noise down- and another acting safely and accepting a bollocking. Yarnton Get Stuffed.

These 4 Pilots where very lucky to walk away from both a/c.

OATS Management- Listen- before your butt is there.

ATC can't be blamed- its too much pressure- and not enough R/T Space for effective communication.

[CAP509castaway]

Glad to hear no one was hurt.
ILS would be no use.
No need for any names allow them the same annonymity as we all enjoy.
The main problem is most likely the maximising if aircraft, last time I was ther RUNNING CHANGES seemed to be the norm. When I was there it was more laidback- you had the plane to yourself for half a day!
As I remember circuits were pretty big back then and we had to contend with Upper Heyford!

[SIERRA BRAVO]

Can't agree more. The circuit down at Oxford is the worst that I've ever used. When I was doing a flying course down there, my instructor flew me up to Wellesbourne for my first solo flight, as he said that the Oxford circuit was too dangerous!

[52049er]

Just been reliving all those OATS days and remembered something even scarier than the kidders circuit - the Westcott NDB.

It was regularly used by 5 or 6 a/c all practising holds or procedures and is the only place my instructor ever took control to avoid other a/c (3 times on separate occasions). The best bit was that Cabair chaps used to go there too and be under FIS from EGTC whilst we were on Oxfords App.

Now that place is an accident waiting to happen - no control, no co-operation and no room. Must look interesting on Lutons screens.

[Snigs]

In all circuit situations you must be aware of what's going on, OK, so it's easier at some airfields than others, I grant you that!

I suggest that everyone in the circuit has a responsibility for safety as well as the ATC.

Aerosexual I would humbly suggest that if your mate was visual with the 2 aircraft ahead of him and yet he was told he was No.2, then he should have said something to ATC immediately. Surely that's what good airmanship is all about, and would contribute to good Circuit Resourse Management.

[rolling circle]

This is an almost exact repeat of an incident almost a year ago when a PA23, ahead of and below a PA28 on final to RW 02, was told to go-around. On that occasion the two aircraft luckily missed by a few tens of yards. The UKAB have not yet published their findings but one of the pilots involved has been told that it was assessed as 'A'.

All the talk about radar, ILS, etc. is just a smokescreen. This incident happened in the visual circuit on short final and would not have been seen on radar even if it existed. The reason Oxford never got ILS is quite simple - the runway is too narrow. In order to install ILS you must have a standard width runway and the cost of widening 02/20 would be far more than a second-hand ILS. The excuse that ILS would attract too much visiting traffic was perfectly valid before most circuit work was exported to the USA, you only have to look at how often you have to extend the downwind leg for ILS traffic at Coventry or Cranfield to see the point.

The fact is that the priorities at Oxford are being set by the beancounters with no attention being paid to safety or good practice. Instructors are being bribed, blackmailed and bullied to get airborne, irrespective of weather, training value or safety. BL has been sidelined and replaced by an ILS puppet who has never before been involved in commercial flying training, the guy who is running VFR wouldn't recognise quality training if it bit him and the morale in ATC has been rock bottom for a long time.

Perhaps one of the insiders might like to suggest why the chief standards man/flight safety officer suddenly left for a job in the Belgrano (for, rumour has it, significantly less money) to be closely followed by a second standardiser?

For all their drawbacks and deficiencies, BAe must be rubbing their hands with glee. They know only too well the effect that an incident like this can have on contracts.

[Mini Mouse]

rolling circle,

your just a fraud. A few months ago JET A1 asked if you where a flying instructor at Oxford- a fairly smart reply from you said your son was.

Your statement;


"you only have to look at how often you have to extend the downwind leg for ILS traffic at Coventry or Cranfield to see the point."

Leaves no question that your just a OATS FI trying to hide behind a smoke screen. Quit the crap.

Having said that- I don't disagree with your facts in your post.

MM



[This message has been edited by Mini Mouse (edited 02 June 2000).]

[inyoni]

Whatever or whoever Rolling Circle is doesn't hide the fact that his postings are some of the most factual and forthright you will see on these pages.
Should I say they are probably 'spoken with some Authority'!
Allow us all our anonymity please!

[rolling circle]

Sorry MM, There are people other than OATS FI's in the circuit at Coventry and Cranfield from time to time.

With hand on heart, I can say categorically that I have absolutely no connection with OATS, other than the previously mentioned family link and meeting the odd OATS graduate down the line.

inyoni - a neatly disguised but nevertheless mistaken guess.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

rc does make some very good contributions to these forums.

Mini Mouse:

No need for names to be put on here- so WWW keep your nose out of it.

Well I actually asked for EMAIL notifaction of names. You think I want to see names posted here?!?

I was interested in names becuase I have both instructor and student friends at OATS. As it turns out I know some of the people involved in the incident.

I also used the incident as material for a brief this morning to óur´PA28 cadets on the importance of lookout.

I´ll keep my nose very much in thank you. And if you are OATS management then I urge you to treat both your life saving instructors very well. The industry is watching.

I think this accident was very serious. I think it is the kind of thing that can happen at any very busy airfield. I think Kiddlington has been perhaps operating slightly above the capacity that would be prudent.

In Jerez we have no more than 3 a/c in circuit at once and any school a/c making an IFR (or simulated) approach results in the visual circuit traffic being held out of circuit. That seems prudent to me.

That said I haven´t flown out of Kidlington.

Definitely an AAIB report to go on the FlightSafety notice board though.

Safe flying,

WWW

[185 Lbs of Ballast!!]

Mr Wannabeepilot!

I think you must have your head somewhere very dark and smelly :mad:

"There but by the grace of God I go" should feature a little higher on your thinking list. If you are truly arrogant enough to think that you are in some way more professional, or have a greater regard for airmanship than these two fellows then we should all pray for your deliverance as you are probably next on the list.

Good Luck and GET REAL!

AR*E !


[This message has been edited by 185 Lbs of Ballast!! (edited 02 June 2000).]

[Mini Mouse]

rolling circle

"I can say categorically that I have absolutely no connection with OATS"

So why do you post on almost every OATS thread? Why hold out against a place you have "no connection" with- Just seems a little strange to me. It still amazes me how much you know from your son about the place.

Wee Weasley Welshman- I mis read your request for the names via e-mail. Still I'm sure the FI's don't want idle gossip passed around with their names attached until the AAIB have done their job and released the hard facts.

No- not OATS management- just a humble Student.

[Captain Evil]

Rolling circles has hit the nail on the head its about time OATS started thinking about quality, safety and reputation and not money money money ! Luckily this time no one was hurt but if they don't get their act together they could be in serious trouble.

[watford]

"It still amazes me how much you know from your son about the place"

About whose familial relationships does this say the Most?

[rolling circle]

185 lbs - It's a little difficult to discern exactly what you are trying to say to 'wannabeepilot', perhaps you should wait until you have sobered up next time.

The fact is that both of the instructors involved in this incident were of limited experience and had received minimal orientation instruction at OATS. This, however, is now the norm since the Training Standards system, which is trumpeted on the website, has, in fact, been disbanded.

[kishna]

I think one of the most serious & perhaps partly overlooked fact on this matter was the fact that this incident took place in the open FIR whilst all aircraft were being operated VFR. When I learnt to fly many years ago, and subsequently in a few instructing years, that meant to me to take note of all traffic information given, and if uncertain of any aircraft's position (when both aircraft reported on final at the same time)ask ATC. They are there to provide you answers. I would be very concerned if I was number two to instrument traffic (albeit now VFR) but pressed on towards my final approach not knowing where the preceding aircraft was. That to me is VERY POOR AIRMANSHIP. Remember the pilots in command are "professional" instructors teaching students to be "professional" pilots. Both aircraft involved were very lucky to say the least.

Radar (if it is ever installed at Kidlington) will only be to monitor traffic in IFR procedures, not to spoonfeed these "professional" instructors around a visual circuit.

Lets hope that this incident will bring home the importance of a good lookout. It could have been extremetly tragic. Remember its not only the number of airliners that are increasing, its also GA traffic. Oxford's ATZ is no more "dangerous" than other busy GA airfields, its the people that are within these traffic patterns that present the most danger not only to themselves, but to everyone around them.

Lets hope that a lot of people can say "I learnt about flying from that".

[Aerosexual]

If you lot out there really want to know who Rolling Circle is, well for my best educated guess, I reckon it's a Husband and Wife combo, he a 757 Captain, and she teaches Performance at OATS!! The reason I write this being that Rolling Circle has posted such !!!!!e about the JAA exams and OATS e.t.c. it's untrue, from such a superior, snobbish, uppity viewpoint.

Anyway back on the point of OATS, last year Oxford spent more on Accounts/Marketing than they did on the whole Airfield! That tells me something about their management priorities!!! Don't ask me where I got this as my mate wouldn't be too popular with her Boss Jimmy Sommerville!

It's terrible to say this but I think that someone really is going to lose their life at this place or Wescott soon , unless something is radically done!

And as someone who is a weekend flier at OATS, and soon to be signing up for a JAA Modular course this sort of incident and management attitude of short term profit over long term investment really gets me worried

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I would like to say something rather important.

I do not believe the instructors were at fault in any way regarding this accident.

Saying that they have limited experience is not relevant. How is the lookout of a 7,000hr instructor better than the lookout of a 1,000hr instructor? Come on - tell me how I can improve my lookout.

You´ve got THOUSANDS of flying hour instructors operating at their HOME airfield. The fact that this accident occurred MUST therefore be down to the fact that there is nothing they could have reasonably done to prevent it.

You´d need X-ray eyes to see another Warrior above you.

It sounds to me like the very busy tower were confused by what they asked the aircraft on finals to confirm which one he was.

This accident could happen to me in that situation. It could happen to me when I have 10,000hrs under my belt.

This one is going to run and run in the aviation training world. My betting would be on AAIB report resulting in CAA placing restrictions on operations at Kiddlington.

Safe flying everyone,

WWW

[Mini Mouse]

Aerosexual,

Thanks!!


[This message has been edited by Mini Mouse (edited 03 June 2000).]

[185 Lbs of Ballast!!]

WWW

THANKYOU!!

At last we have an intelegent comment.

There has been so much talk of un-profesional conduct and poor airmanship on this thread. I, like most other professional pilots, consider good airmanship to be paramount to flight safety. What I find quite amazing, is the speed that many fellow Pprune'rs have hung these instructors out to dry, with little knowlege of the facts. We are all vulnerable to misfortune, and if we continue to place a high number of aircraft into such a small area then accidents will happen dispite the vigilance/lookout/professionalism/regard for SAFETY of the individual.

[rolling circle]

Having read back through the thread it appears that only two posts are critical of the pilots. It is clear from his terminology that one has never been within 1000 miles of Oxford. The other, it would appear, has registered for the express purpose of making his first Pprune post on this subject, a post which is very defensive of the (not yet literally) fatally flawed system in use at Oxford - Doesn't that, combined with the significant lack of detail in his profile, tell us all something?

The fact is that cost-cutting has resulted in an overall drop in the experience level of Oxford instructors. This is, in itself, not a problem provided that adequate training and support is given. However, the amount of initial orientation training offered to new instructors has also been cut. Similar cost-cutting has decreased the effectiveness of ATC by handing it to an outside contractor. As if this were not sufficient recipe for disaster, the pressure is on to force more and more aircraft into already overloaded airspace.

The fault clearly lies with the money-grabbing senior management, not with the instructors who did not get the support they deserved to compensate for their inexperience.

[185 Lbs of Ballast!!]

RC

Well Said

[inyoni]

I'll ditto your comment to RC, 185lbs of Ballast, as usual he's straight to the crux of the matter.

[kishna]

Rolling circle, I have been contributing to this site for over 3 years, but owing to a new pc & service provider, I have had to re-register. I feel very strongly about this whole incident. Why should I make my profile available to all? I do not feel that the Oxford system is fatally flawed. How can it be, when it has become significantly less busy in the circuit due to the "farming out" of the basic flying training to the USA. What I do feel is that the level of flying training provided, despite all new instructors going through "standards", has deteriorated somewhat. This is, as contributors who know Oxford will know, has been due to OATS taking on more students than they can feesibly handle. Also, a point of note, why should the takeover of ATC by SERCO have "decreased the effectiveness". As far as I am aware this is not the case, owing to more ATCOs being employed & offering full ATC cover for a longer period, not previously offered. One more important note on this subject is that if SERCO would not have been in charge of ATC, this matter would not have been made public....it would have been brushed under the carpet by the middle management of OATS, as has been done so many times in the past.

I agree that the Instructors did well in recovering from a potentially fatal situation, BUT they should not be praised for letting themselves get in that situation in the first place, irrespective of whatever information they were relying on from ATC. (Refer to my original post...if unsure of the no 1's position....do not press on to unknown territory....ask ATC)

[A and C]

When all is said and done these aircraft are flying VFR and so it is down to the PIC to maintain a good lookout, now i know the limitations of the PA28 and can understand how this could hapen even when all crew are doing the best they can to keep a good lookout but all this talk of ILS/VOR etc is just crap it would mean more guys flying around "heads down".
the only bit of high tech kit that would be of use is the device that picks up the strobe lights of other aircraft and warns you of proximity to other aircraft,the CAA was funding reserch into such a device but what has hapend on this front i dont know.

The guy who taught me to fly kept a good lookout because in his youth failure to do so would mean a ME109 drilling 20mm holes in his back....as he said to me "a PA 28 or C152 can kill you just as dead"

So as one who flys VFR a lot what i am trying to say is the responsability lies with all of us to keep that lookout, for your safety lies in your own hands ( or eyes)

[Roger Dee]

You guys are so predictable - you bitch in the circuit, you bitch in the crew room and now, lo and behold, you're bitching on pprune! You ought to spend more time reading your "flying order book", and then, maybe, you'd know who has priority over who in the VISUAL circuit!

[Fastpants]

More info which puts the incident in context: the lower of the two Warriors was inbound off the 20 procedure. Even though (speculation here) they may have cancelled IFR, they would have been at MDA at approx 2 miles final...at 760' QNH, and would have had a restricted lookout from the left hand seat, since the screens are usually still up or in the process of being taken down at this stage. Add to this left hand circuits on 20 and you can have a difficult time seeing a/c descending on base leg from 1500' QNH. I would add, that TWR at Oxford alert circuit traffic to a/c "inbound 20/09 procedure" as soon as you've called base turn complete. Therefore traffic in the circuit or joining base should be looking for / expecting the instrument traffic on final at low level. The only issue I can raise regarding this, is that during the VFR training there was very little in the way of introduction to the IFR procedures...(in terms of background knowledge), and it's not inconceivable that many of the less experienced students have any idea what ATC are going on about when they report instrument traffic inbound on either of the procedures, unless they are at the stage themselves where they have flown them in the sim.

[Charley]

To A and C
Re: strobe detectors

As I understand it, the CAA did look into the possibility of strobe light detection equipment along with RAF. Whilst the trials were reasonably successful, it appears that production of such is not commercially viable due to their complexity.

Exact info from the AAIB website (in relation to another midair, between Tornado and C152). Section 2.2.5 at http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/gbpzx/gbpzx.htm#Collision

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

RC - I am a 1,000 odd hour flying instructor such as you describe as having low experience which you imply was a contributory factor to this incident.

My lookout beats the pants of some of the old timers I have flown with in the past. I honestly don´t think inexperience has ANYTHING to do with this incident.

Its all well and good people piously saying that lookout can solve these problems but its just not true.

Two aircraft can come together in such a way that it is impossible - repeat impossible - fo them to see one another.

Factor in a busy circuit, mixed IFR VFR traffic, the workload of TEACHING whilst flying, ATC errors/confusion and good old dependable Murphys Law and you have this incident.

Until you read the report and know exactly what ATC said to whom and when you should refrain from blaming the pilots. All will then be revealed.

Right, time for me to get back in the circuit and walk the walk,

WWW

[BEagle]

Excuse me, but am I given to understand that OATS really fly with the view from the aircraft artificially limited with screens IN A BUSY CIRCUIT?? Is one not supposed to carry an 'observer' in such circumstances if the safety pilot (FI)'s field of view is restricted?? Rule of the Air No 6??

[Fastpants]

Beagle...no-one would have the screens up *in* the circuit....but the a/c inbound on the NDB let-down would have had the screens up until about 2 miles or a little less from the threshold. Of course the screens should not restrict the RHS view...however the workload goes up for the safety pilot whilst taking the screens down, and that certainly affects one's ability to look-out.

[BEagle]

We never found the need to use any sort of screen in the RAF - occasionally the odd student had to be made to wear a visor if he tried to cheat. However, a bit of 'Chinese weaving' in solid cloud on limited panel soon stopped that. IREs know darn well when someone is cheating as the recovery to datums is different when flown visually!! But this discussion on screens means that I will NOT, under ANY circumstances, fit such things to any of my training aircraft - foggles work just fine!!

[rolling circle]

BEagle - That's fine so long as you confine yourself to PPL work. The CAA will not allow foggles to be used on the CPL Skill Test or the IR Skill Test, only screens.

However, this is another red herring since the screens were already down and, at the time of the incident, the visual circuit was not particularly busy (by Oxford standards).

What about the premise, enshrined in MATS Pt 1, that instrument traffic has priority over visual traffic irrespective of their relative positions in the circuit area?

[Going Around & Around]

BEagle,
I was under the impression that "foggles" weren't permitted for clocking IF time in the UK. That may be a crock but came from an "Oxford instructor" in the US.
However, I agree that for most of the time they would probably suffice.
Finally, I know for a fact that when I was at Oxford, there were quite a large number of students who, before they started their IFR training, didn't know what the hell "instrument traffic inbound on the 20/09 procedure." meant!

[BEagle]

The CAA do still insist on these potentially lethal screens for CPL and IR work. It's their own little contribution to flight safety, I guess!! It's time such dated stupidity was stopped. Foggles are entirely adequate!!

[blimp]

BEagle

>We never found the need to use any sort of screen in the RAF - occasionally the odd student had to be made to wear a visor if he tried to cheat<

I confess I haven't had your military experience; but I know a man who has. He tells me that:

a) Screens are used in some military types (eg he used them on the Harrier)

b) Visors are used by all ab-initio students in their training (eg on Jet Provosts and Tucanos)

That said, you might have a point about them there screens! ;)

[BEagle]

Visors restrict the vision only of the wearer. However, screens obscure the view of the safety pilot as well. YES THEY DO!!

['I' in the sky]

Just my 2p's worth.

I would dispute that foggles are entirely adequate. They usually mean the wearer has to adjust their neck to some uncomfortable cock-eyed position, and even worse when trying to read the compass or OAT guage.

On the other hand I have yet to use a set of screens which did not restrict my own view to some degree as well as the students.

[mediflyer]

Less fortunate were the crews of 2 Dutch KLM flight school Bonanza's, (each carrying 3 people) which collided in mid-air near to their home base Eelde Airport(EHGR), yesterday around 13:00 UTC.
One instructor and 2 student died instantly While 2 were seriously injured. 1 instructor managed to escape without serious injuries.

[Cough]

I flew an OATS warrior with the strobe det. system a few years back - Only once myself, but I had alot of feedback from others.. With it selected on in the circuit it sat there bleeping all day long i.e. warning value=0. (Out of the circuit v. useful)

eyes, eyes, eyes, or gimme TCAS

[NIMBUS]

Forgive my ignorance, but from reading this thread, am I to understand that IFR training in the UK involves actually covering the windows ?

There are lots of 'foggle' devices out there that do a good job of restricting the students visual field to the panel, why would anyone want to block the instructors view as well?
What lunatic thought of that?

There is no way that I would get in an aircraft,in any VFR conditions, let alone a busy circuit!, without at least one pilot having as unrestricted a view as is possible!
Maybe its' time to get this idiotic 'screen' practice banned before any more pilots get killed!

[Vigilant Driver]

NIMBUS,

Yes in the UK the windows on the pilot under training/test side are covered, normally the left seat. The Instructor/Examiner in the right seat can still see out of his side of the aircraft.

Out of circuit, under RIS or RAS ATC cover this is not a problem. The problem occurs on the end of an instrument approach when going visual and the screens are coming down. Flying a multi eng aircraft, with one engine at idle thrust, in 'sporting' conditions and trying to take down wobbly plastic screens with your 'spare' throttle hand is not my idea of fun or safety.

My IMC student manages very well with foggles only and we do a bit of cloud flying also to make sure he isn't cheating. So my vote goes with foggles!

[NIMBUS]

Thanks, V.Driver,
I'm glad I did my IFR in the US. Hats off to you brave Brits!
The idea of cheating by 'peeking' during IFR training puzzles me. After all, who is the student cheating?

[capt beeky]

The details concerning last Augusts Airprox at OX are slightly out. Its main relevance is that OATS (financial) management dont learn from mistakes and that very experienced instructors can have airprox's in a normal (not busy) circuit. The guys in the recent incident were not at fault as the circuit with low sun, haze and loads of a/c has been regarded as dangerous by the instructors for years. Why, when this incident appears a mirror image of the previous one were steps not taken to increase safety? Instead the reverse seem to be the case as the FSO and standards who used to rock the boat on theses issues have gone.

Last years incident

PA28 on final, cleared to land
PA23 on final, behind and below.
ATC asks if either can see each other. Aswer is no so PA23 sent around.
PA23 appears just in front of PA28.

The report states that the PA23 pilot and ATC were at fault.

A few days later the PA28 pilot was suspended for "gross misconduct for refusing to fly when ordered" - by the VFR manager. He was duly sacked despite having a medical restriction preventing him from working a 15 hour day as ordered.

Balpa had a field day.

Hopefully one of the OX managers will bite.