The Coventry Incident - the ONLY thread?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: PIRB
Age: 62
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had it with Pprune
what a load of egotistical sanctimonious prats that run this site, this thread has been moved to "Private Flying"---- quote " and some other people". As far as I am aware the C402 was on a sortie with 3 commercial pilots on board and an engineer. Maybe it is to free up space in rumours and news (obviously the deaths of five people is not news!_ but hey a 738 blowing a tyre is STOP PRESS!), so those overpaid system monitor idiots that sit at the front pushing buttons and massaging their own egos can whinge about some other non event
OUT- forever
OUT- forever
Join Date: May 2008
Location: luxembourg
Age: 58
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took a look at this thread to see if I could find out if I knew anyone in GEYES from AAG where I worked for ten years, pity that with the loss of so many lives, all I see is arguing among the ppruners. Have a little compasion, what ever your feeling may be on how why etc
Join Date: May 2008
Location: luxembourg
Age: 58
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey dope05 I agree with you, but pprune is full of compalining pilots that think the world owes them a living, always has been. Too many pilots think they are something very special these days, see what they think when the next downturn arrives, coming soon me thinks
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As has been said here many times before, assuming straight trajectories, a target on a genuine collision course will be a stationary point in your field of view, and unless contrast is working in your favour you won't spot it until too late.
All those who 'nearly hit and would have done had I not taken evasive action' were PROB99 not on an accurate collision track with you in the first place.
The Mk1 eyeball is a cornerstone of aviation tradition (along with epaulettes, stopwatches, circular slide rules) but in reality it is about as good as a chocolate teapot. It works if the target is not on a straight trajectory so it probably works OK in gliding, but in GA most people fly straight lines most of the time.
If one plane is flying the ILS, accurately, and perhaps doing an ILS survey (the wreckage movie on sky.com shows the gear UP and normally you would have the gear down at 2-3D if you were going to land) and somebody flies in from the side at say 100kt, you won't spot him.
No doubt we won't find out - rumours and leaks aside - why the SE traffic was where it was until the AAIB report comes out a year from now, which is a great pity IMHO.
The great protector is the big sky and incredibly low traffic density (compared to say a road). That's why midairs happen at low levels, generally 1000ft or below.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Condolences to all affected by this terrible accident.
Speculation is a positive thing in my view so long as it refrains from negative or offensive assumptions on deceased aviators abilities. Clearly nobody here was involved in the accident on sunday so I doubt very much whether anyone can catagorically state that a poor lookout was the overriding factor in this accident. Although 'lookout' may play a part one must also realise that any number of other factors could be involved including airspace classification, ATC limitations and not least a bit of sunshine on a weekend bringing many flyers into the busy UK skies. My sources tell me Coventry was extremely busy on sunday.
To insinuate the pilots involved were not maintaining a proper lookout is... well... I refer readers to the red writing at the bottom of this page! Constant bearing = constant danger and as the above poster states, you probably won't spot it until it's too late.
My thoughts are with all those affected by this awful accident.
RIP fellow aviators.
VFE.
Speculation is a positive thing in my view so long as it refrains from negative or offensive assumptions on deceased aviators abilities. Clearly nobody here was involved in the accident on sunday so I doubt very much whether anyone can catagorically state that a poor lookout was the overriding factor in this accident. Although 'lookout' may play a part one must also realise that any number of other factors could be involved including airspace classification, ATC limitations and not least a bit of sunshine on a weekend bringing many flyers into the busy UK skies. My sources tell me Coventry was extremely busy on sunday.
To insinuate the pilots involved were not maintaining a proper lookout is... well... I refer readers to the red writing at the bottom of this page! Constant bearing = constant danger and as the above poster states, you probably won't spot it until it's too late.
My thoughts are with all those affected by this awful accident.
RIP fellow aviators.
VFE.
why is this in private flying?
Sorry mods, but as I understand it, G EYES was flying in a commercial capacity with a commercial pilot at the controls on approach to an airport approved for public transport.
I fly 737s in and out of CVT for a living, and would like to know more about why a light aircraft could collide with a public transport cat aircraft at 5 miles on the the ILS at my home base without having to trawl through some of the the more obscure threads of this website.
No disrespect to private pilots intended, but would it not be appropriate to keep this thread in R & N or Airports and Routes for the time being as I'm sure people will keep opening threads on those forums in order to find out more about this serious accident.
I fly 737s in and out of CVT for a living, and would like to know more about why a light aircraft could collide with a public transport cat aircraft at 5 miles on the the ILS at my home base without having to trawl through some of the the more obscure threads of this website.
No disrespect to private pilots intended, but would it not be appropriate to keep this thread in R & N or Airports and Routes for the time being as I'm sure people will keep opening threads on those forums in order to find out more about this serious accident.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry mods, but as I understand it, G EYES was flying in a commercial capacity with a commercial pilot at the controls on approach to an airport approved for public transport.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a sad fact that any time we have an accident, fatal or not the speculation and comments on pprune generally turns into a bit of a bun fight!! As far as i am concerned lives here have been lost and that is so sad, I earn my living by looking after GA traffic as far as ATC is concened, I love my job and also the people I speak to in carrying out my task so any loss is a great loss to me.........that said my own views on this is that it appears that 2 aircraft have collided in class G airspace whilst operating VFR....if they were recieving an ATC service or not the buck stops with the aircraft commanders maintaining a good look out!! In this case I fear that this failing was the ultimate cause of this tragic accident.
Look, I don't mean to be offensive, but how else do two aircraft come to collide in good vis and class G if there isn't an "element of poor lookout" involved? Both were responsible for their own navigation, notwithstanding the fact that at least one was making an approach.
Like many of you, I've seen most of the ways in which other aircraft can remain near-invisible, particularly if they are on a collision course and so have no apparent relative motion. However, safe operation under VFR means see and avoid. I'm in no way apportioning blame, or casting aspersions as to ability, but the fact remains that neither of these competent pilots, both of whom were operating under VFR, saw the other in time to avoid a collision.
Maybe that means that the lookout of both was exemplary but that some other factor caused both pilots to simultaneously experience something that made them unable to avoid the other. We will find out in due course, when the report is published. I'll re-open this thread then and see whether or not my assertion that there was an "element of poor lookout as a causal factor" turns out to be correct. If it isn't, then I will apologise profusely.
In the meantime, it behoves us all to think a little more about how effective our lookout really is, irrespective of the cause of this tragedy. I make no apology for highlighting this aspect, as I know beyond doubt that many of us could keep a better lookout than we do.
VP
Like many of you, I've seen most of the ways in which other aircraft can remain near-invisible, particularly if they are on a collision course and so have no apparent relative motion. However, safe operation under VFR means see and avoid. I'm in no way apportioning blame, or casting aspersions as to ability, but the fact remains that neither of these competent pilots, both of whom were operating under VFR, saw the other in time to avoid a collision.
Maybe that means that the lookout of both was exemplary but that some other factor caused both pilots to simultaneously experience something that made them unable to avoid the other. We will find out in due course, when the report is published. I'll re-open this thread then and see whether or not my assertion that there was an "element of poor lookout as a causal factor" turns out to be correct. If it isn't, then I will apologise profusely.
In the meantime, it behoves us all to think a little more about how effective our lookout really is, irrespective of the cause of this tragedy. I make no apology for highlighting this aspect, as I know beyond doubt that many of us could keep a better lookout than we do.
VP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the buck stops with the aircraft commanders maintaining a good look out
We are human, the folk in those aircraft were human. A human may do his utmost, highly-trained best, to achieve a good lookout, but may still find himself in a collision. This is because the human eye and brain are very poor at identifying targets with which they will collide.
So please would you stop blaming the pilots and start simply accepting that the human is not good at lookout (in the same way he's not good at avoiding CFIT), and that technology may be the answer.
I pointed out, in the lost thread, that the leisure aviation community was unwilling to accept Mode S. I said that, in my view, those who voted against it gave up their right to bemoan collisions. If you can't be bothered to put up with the expense and weight of fitting a transponder, you have no right to worry about collision, because you could have done something to avoid it and you haven't.
Until and unless transponder carriage is mandatory, there will be no demonstrable case for fitting TCAS to small aircraft, and the opportunity to prevent collisions will continue to be missed.
Please remember too that the relatives and friends of those deceased will read this.
Once again, I offer my heartfelt condolences.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
None of you can possibly say poor lookout had anything to do with this. How many times have you actually had traffic info and had several pairs of eyes looking for it and never seen it? I've had lots. And as for 'big sky' etc, this collision happened at approximately 3nm final at a full ATC radar-equipped airport, with one and possibly both a/c speaking to ATC. Not the same as a random conflict in the FIR.
NS
NS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I am not a controller and never have been, although many of my friends are or have been.
It is a libel whether you read it in a book or not, and you are still responsible for it. Try reading the report you claim to be referring to, and telling the truth about why you deleted the thread. Instead of attacking those that correct you have the guts to give the apology you owe to the controller involved.
Oh, and in future stick to commenting on things you know about.
On this thread you are still giving a poor argument. Aircraft on a closing trajectory are not that difficult to spot. Even if not on a constant bearing the relative movement is small enough to be irrelevant at any great distance, and I and pilots I have flown with have seen many aircraft at a great distance. Noting the poor lookout of some others I have flown with, who have failed to spot everything I have seen, I can see how some pilots think it is useless to try to maintain visual separation.
See and avoid is difficult, but it also does work. It is stupid and dangerous to suggest otherwise.
P.S. I am not criticising either pilot in this case. I have not been in the UK since it happened, and even if I had seen all the reporting I would not know the real facts. See and avoid can fail through no fault of the crew, but to suggest it is useless is ridiculous.
I deleted the Graham Hill thread because some ATCOs didnt like me repeating stuff that's already been written in some books covering the incident
It is a libel whether you read it in a book or not, and you are still responsible for it. Try reading the report you claim to be referring to, and telling the truth about why you deleted the thread. Instead of attacking those that correct you have the guts to give the apology you owe to the controller involved.
Oh, and in future stick to commenting on things you know about.
On this thread you are still giving a poor argument. Aircraft on a closing trajectory are not that difficult to spot. Even if not on a constant bearing the relative movement is small enough to be irrelevant at any great distance, and I and pilots I have flown with have seen many aircraft at a great distance. Noting the poor lookout of some others I have flown with, who have failed to spot everything I have seen, I can see how some pilots think it is useless to try to maintain visual separation.
See and avoid is difficult, but it also does work. It is stupid and dangerous to suggest otherwise.
P.S. I am not criticising either pilot in this case. I have not been in the UK since it happened, and even if I had seen all the reporting I would not know the real facts. See and avoid can fail through no fault of the crew, but to suggest it is useless is ridiculous.
Last edited by Lost man standing; 18th Aug 2008 at 21:51.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two aeroplanes collided in VMC. Obviously they didn't spot each other or else they wouldn't have collided. So something must have gone wrong, and "see and avoid" failed - whether it was bad airframe design creating a blind spot, sun in the eyes, not looking out, looking at the airport instead of "up final", concentrating on flying an ILS and looking at the instruments, another problem diverting crew's attention.....whatever
One thing that was mentioned was instrument approaches. An IAP in VMC does not absolve the commander of "see and avoid" any more than a VFR pilot joining the circuit. That goes for a 747 or a C150.
Perhaps it is time to enforce a) collision avoidance systems on ALL commercial aeroplanes and b) mandatory transponders on all aircraft?
Some will say this is a knee jerk reaction, but if we can't rely on See and Avoid then should something be done?
One thing that was mentioned was instrument approaches. An IAP in VMC does not absolve the commander of "see and avoid" any more than a VFR pilot joining the circuit. That goes for a 747 or a C150.
Perhaps it is time to enforce a) collision avoidance systems on ALL commercial aeroplanes and b) mandatory transponders on all aircraft?
Some will say this is a knee jerk reaction, but if we can't rely on See and Avoid then should something be done?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I pointed out, in the lost thread, that the leisure aviation community was unwilling to accept Mode S. I said that, in my view, those who voted against it gave up their right to bemoan collisions. If you can't be bothered to put up with the expense and weight of fitting a transponder, you have no right to worry about collision, because you could have done something to avoid it and you haven't.
In addition - and possibly relevant in this case, was the argument that the lack of TIS and/or 'lars' Radar Service resulted in very little benefit to those fitting the technology. It will be a very sorry comment on the Safety Regulation approach of the UK if it transpires both aircraft were transponding.
The 402 surely had Mode-S and Glass (so in the US would have TIS). In addition, the decision by the regulator to allow the sale of radar data to support NATS' profits rather than cover marginal cost (and therefore being 'expensive') will have been a part in Coventry operating their own primary only radar rather than a primary/secondary feed from NATS. My untrained eye finds it much easier to see conflicts on the NATS screens than on Coventry's.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm_flynn
Glass? TIS? What do you mean?
I suspect you are talking about technological solutions. However the 402 is an old aircraft, not often kitted with such things. That does not mean it is unsafe, or that it should necessarily be fitted due to a rare and unfortunate occurence. I think too many people are trying to find a reason for a tragic accident and make it impossible to happen again, when such things have always occured and always will, and risks must be balanced by rewards. Maybe you agree, I am not sure from your post whether you think the technology should have been fitted or not.
Thoughts about how to make accidents less likely are good. Technical solutions can be very good too. Some days, though, an accident occurs and we should leave it at that, until we have more information. Even then we should consider the perspective of the accident, and its rarity.
Glass? TIS? What do you mean?
I suspect you are talking about technological solutions. However the 402 is an old aircraft, not often kitted with such things. That does not mean it is unsafe, or that it should necessarily be fitted due to a rare and unfortunate occurence. I think too many people are trying to find a reason for a tragic accident and make it impossible to happen again, when such things have always occured and always will, and risks must be balanced by rewards. Maybe you agree, I am not sure from your post whether you think the technology should have been fitted or not.
Thoughts about how to make accidents less likely are good. Technical solutions can be very good too. Some days, though, an accident occurs and we should leave it at that, until we have more information. Even then we should consider the perspective of the accident, and its rarity.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be the bearer of scary realities here but you can be maintaining a great lookout and still miss another aircraft on a direct collision course!
To insinuate "poor lookout" purely because a collision occured in VMC is absurd... and very unfair given the fact those involved cannot voice their account. Shameful to say the least.
VFE.
To insinuate "poor lookout" purely because a collision occured in VMC is absurd... and very unfair given the fact those involved cannot voice their account. Shameful to say the least.
VFE.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I see where I have been getting it wrong all this time. There I was thinking that if I was cleared on an ILS approach (not a practice ILS approach) to a radar equipped airport that all I should have to do was concentrate on my scan till DH regardless of what the weather was doing outside of the window and I would be protected....clear skies and a quick lookout just being a bonus.
Would any of the "see and avoid" advocates in this case like to extend their argument to explain how a large commercial aircraft with a fairly swift approach speed (say Concorde or an A380) is supposed to see and avoid a microlight in those conditions ?
Surely the approach is either protected or it isn't ?
Would any of the "see and avoid" advocates in this case like to extend their argument to explain how a large commercial aircraft with a fairly swift approach speed (say Concorde or an A380) is supposed to see and avoid a microlight in those conditions ?
Surely the approach is either protected or it isn't ?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll have to wait for more information from AAIB so there is little point in speculating.
However, it would be a relief to some of us to rule out the involvement of friends and colleagues asap. It is now over 24 hours since the incident and we still don't know, officially, of the type involved. If the BMAA knew hours ago the type of the SEP involved, it seems odd that that the media is still peddling false stories.
In particular, there is a presumption amongst the Great British Public (as I found out at work today) that the Cessna 402 was automatically in the right because it was filled with experienced commercial pilots.
In the sport and recreational area we have to be careful not to be labelled as casual and dangerous playboys getting in the way of 'important' traffic
There is no doubt that something went wrong with look-out - be it visual or electronically assisted, and there, for the grace of God, go all of us. But in the meantime more facts are needed to make any judgements. These will emerge in time, so let's wait for them to appear.
However, it would be a relief to some of us to rule out the involvement of friends and colleagues asap. It is now over 24 hours since the incident and we still don't know, officially, of the type involved. If the BMAA knew hours ago the type of the SEP involved, it seems odd that that the media is still peddling false stories.
In particular, there is a presumption amongst the Great British Public (as I found out at work today) that the Cessna 402 was automatically in the right because it was filled with experienced commercial pilots.
In the sport and recreational area we have to be careful not to be labelled as casual and dangerous playboys getting in the way of 'important' traffic
There is no doubt that something went wrong with look-out - be it visual or electronically assisted, and there, for the grace of God, go all of us. But in the meantime more facts are needed to make any judgements. These will emerge in time, so let's wait for them to appear.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VP959. I'm trying to assume you have more than 5 minutes in your logbook, but each time you post that lookout is an infallible way of keeping traffic apart 100% I doubt it more and more.
This was a tragic accident. The fact that the two crews didn't see eachother is going to be a factor obviously (you generally don't fly into things you have seen and positively identified) but that doesn't mean that anyone is at fault.
I was based at CVT for a while and operating into there during the day could be an absolute nightmare. We had TCAS and two crew with their eyes wired outside the cockpit, but the simple fact is that even with a controller telling you where traffic is, TCAS showing you and with you looking hard, you just don't see it.
We generally operated at night, which cut down the problems of Commercial Vs GA, but if we were late back in the mornings, then descending into CVT at 200+kts could be a scary experience. I pitied the poor controllers who were looking after us, they had us under radar control and were just trying to do their best to thread us through the maze of airspace and aircraft. We'd often stay a bit high and slow down as much as we could and if we could go VFR to help the eyeball count under a RAS we'd do it. Not exactly commercially expedient, but neither is smashing into someone.
As for glider pilots keeping great lookouts, why did I have to file an airprox from within controlled airspace on an IFR plan when we flew straight through a gaggle of thermalling gliders 2000ft up into the London CTA? How we didn't collect any I'll never know, it scared the living the daylights out of me at the time.
RIP chaps.
I have a horrid feeling that this may have been an accident waiting to happen in that area, but I know nothing more than what has been reported on the news. I know there has been a move to increase CVT's airspace, accidents like this if proven to be because mixing IFR and transiting VFR traffic, then there is no option really.
This was a tragic accident. The fact that the two crews didn't see eachother is going to be a factor obviously (you generally don't fly into things you have seen and positively identified) but that doesn't mean that anyone is at fault.
I was based at CVT for a while and operating into there during the day could be an absolute nightmare. We had TCAS and two crew with their eyes wired outside the cockpit, but the simple fact is that even with a controller telling you where traffic is, TCAS showing you and with you looking hard, you just don't see it.
We generally operated at night, which cut down the problems of Commercial Vs GA, but if we were late back in the mornings, then descending into CVT at 200+kts could be a scary experience. I pitied the poor controllers who were looking after us, they had us under radar control and were just trying to do their best to thread us through the maze of airspace and aircraft. We'd often stay a bit high and slow down as much as we could and if we could go VFR to help the eyeball count under a RAS we'd do it. Not exactly commercially expedient, but neither is smashing into someone.
As for glider pilots keeping great lookouts, why did I have to file an airprox from within controlled airspace on an IFR plan when we flew straight through a gaggle of thermalling gliders 2000ft up into the London CTA? How we didn't collect any I'll never know, it scared the living the daylights out of me at the time.
RIP chaps.
I have a horrid feeling that this may have been an accident waiting to happen in that area, but I know nothing more than what has been reported on the news. I know there has been a move to increase CVT's airspace, accidents like this if proven to be because mixing IFR and transiting VFR traffic, then there is no option really.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 404 cockpit is very similar to the F406.
My thoughts are with everyone down in COV.
And to be honest I don't think TCAS would have helped in this situation anyway being inside 3 miles. TCAS II goes into TA only below 1000ft agl.
And just above that it goes a bit funny and flips between RA and TA depending what rate of decent you have on. It can generate confusing cycling between warnings and resolutions. By the time it had triggered with a traffic traffic and you had spotted where the danger was and started looking for it, it would have proberly happend. That is if you hadn't presumed it was some knob who had just turn their mode C on sitting at the hold waiting for line up.