egbt

As a home build it could be the only one flying in UK or one of a very small number the next of kin issue is therefore potentially significant.

Rod1

There have been several unsubstantiated reports on the identity of the “second aircraft”. I have received messages indicating a 152, a PA28 and a KR2. I have no conformation of what the type is. IF it is a KR2 then there are about 25 on the UK register, so no “identification” issues. I know two owners, one based locally to the incident. I have picked up the phone and put it down several times… If anybody actually knows anything (by PM if you want to keep it confidential) then I would very much like to know one way or the other.

Rod1

vanHorck

there are more than 10 KR2 on the active register (if it was an KR2)

LINEFINDER100

Me too, Rod1. I seriously hope it wasn't him. Seems Geoff Weighall knows the reg, but isn't releasing it.
Dave

vanHorck

I m sure Geoff reads this forum. Perhaps he can pm you guys?

englishal

For the record there are a number of us on here who hold commercial licences and get paid to fly from time to time. We also fly privately, as I suspect the second aeroplane in this incident was being flown.

Who gives a damn where the thread appears? It'll get a wider audience on the PF forum, that is the only one I and many others bother to visit.

wulf190a

Lets get sanity and above all,FACTS.When I had my near fatal crash, when I woke up seven weeks later all sorts of rumours had started all b**ll**** Geoff Weighill from the BMAA has the reg and it is not a microlight. Stop the assumptions and think of thr familys left to deal with this.wulf

Standard Noise

I have it on fairly good authority that it was a KR2, and the reg details show that the registered owner is local to Coventry.

gemini76

Rod1 ..... check your pm's

stormvector

Wrong end of sticks... Stormvector wasnt kicking pprunes arse, he was commenting in on others points that were a little unhelpful regarding microlights, private or commercial, should we talk about this or should we not, ect...

To UNDERLINE my point, if this is a forum for Aviation Chat ect (regardless if its in R & N, private flying or what ever) then cool... lets talk and share info, and try to figure the facts out... without p***ing contests of "commercial vs private" or "real planes vs microlights", thats what i was saying...

having had experiences very simlilar to the one in Q, a forum such as this is invaluble for gaining insight into incidents, to inform and highlight points that we can all learn from...

Anyhow back to my other points, re was the 402 flight checking and was the Radar F/S ect... any info?...

Rod1

Thanks for the PM’s. My friend was not involved.

Condolences to all affected.

Rod1

Standard Noise

Pieceing together what I am hearing, GEYES had been out on an environmental survey and was on approach having been handed over form RAD to TWR, then the incident happened further down the approach. Radar was fully servicable and manned at the time.

But having worked RAD at Cov (on the set up they still have), I can tell you that it's not easy doing radar in Class G airspace, especially primary radar. After you transfer any IFR inbound to TWR, you can only watch the surrounding area and hope that other airspace users will try to avoid the instrument approach path. You can only pass traffic info to the TWR to pass onto inbounds, there's nothing else you can do.
Of the two ATCOs on duty yesterday, I think they were both there back in 1994 when the 737 went into Willenhall Wood.

Rod1

Both aircraft were in radio contact with Cov.

Rod1

Southernboy

having to simply hope is unacceptable. Airports with instrument approaches should have some form of protection. The decision can consider local conditions but this is more CAA "hands off."

DX Wombat

That's a nasty comment. The implication that the pilots involved were not keeping a good lookout is reprehensible. The ONLY people who know whether or not this is true are those involved and, sadly, they cannot tell us. What makes you think pilots of powered aircraft don't have the same or even better training? I certainly did and it was commented on when I had a check flight for another club. Please refrain from trying to score one-upmanship points on such a sad thread as this one. We should all have respect for those who have died and their families and friends and leave the discernment of the cause(s) to the AAIB who have far greater skills at determining the reasons than anyone here - except their investigators should any of them post on/read PPRuNe.

VP959

I think that's a bit harsh - like it or not, gliders, like some microlights, paragliders etc, DO have much better provision for keeping a good lookout.

Also, gliders, like other soaring aircraft, spend a fair bit of time flying at close quarters with other aircraft, so their pilots tend to be more aware of keeping a CONSTANT good lookout.

This isn't a criticism of other aviators, it's simple fact.

I've flown many different types and know full well that visibility varies enormously. I never, ever, felt wholly comfortable flying under VFR in a twin turbo prop, for example, as the "letterbox" view out always made me feel as if I was missing the view of so much of the sky. Flying a glider, or flexwing microlight, has conditioned me to appreciate the virtues of good cockpit visibility and also understand the vulnerability of flying something slow and light in the presence of heavier stuff.

Whatever the AAIB outcome, we can conclude that two aircraft colliding in Class G is very likely to have had an element of poor lookout as a causal factor.

VP

grizzled

DX Wombat: Your reaction to dangrey's post was way over the top. I've read it re-read it and there is nothing in there that suggests he was criticising those involved in this horrific accident -- or anybody else for that matter. I've been involved in aircraft accident investigation for many years and I believe that a reminder of the importance of diligent scanning is something that can save lives, and wasn't out of place here.

Grizz

El Grifo

It appears there are more twists in more knickers that was previously imagined.

It was I who started the thread on R+N, seconds after hearing of the tragic situation on Sky News.

It was a reported as a collision between two aircraft in the vicinity of a civil airfield.

It was more than just a rumour and certainly news, so that is where I chose to post it.

A fairly embarrassing display of ego-tripping then took place about where the posts should be located, eclipsing the real and tragic content.

At that point I butted out, my prick firmly secured within my Y-Fronts.

I do not know why this kind of thing brings out the worst in aviators or wannabe aviators, I only know that it does!


I certainly did not delete said post.

Perhaps however, it was better that somebody did for the avoidance of further embarrassment!

Cheers
El G.

frontlefthamster

Utter sanctimonious and deeply offensive rubbish.

The inadequate functioning of the human being and its senses, with respect to achieving effective lookout in the aviation environment, may turn out to be critical. But to suggest 'poor lookout' is outrageous. I strongly suggest you withdraw your remark immediately; when you have, I'll withdraw mine.

El Grifo

I herewith, rest my case.

El G.