Pace

I tend to support FrontLeftHampster on this. See and avoid is unrealistic. Flying an aircraft especially single pilot will sadly mean that he will have to not only be looking out but within too.
Especially on approach the commander will be selecting flap and gear, checklists and approach plates as well as scanning instruments.
Even looking out in certain light and angles its likely that he will not see another aircraft.

GA is the poor man in aviation. More and more airspace is being put over to IFR traffic and VFR is being squeezed into less and less space.

Even with the best controllers offering RIS how many times are aircraft missed?

I was flying around London a few years ago as a safety pilot into sun in a 172 around London. The controller who was giving us an RIS missed an aircraft coming out of the sun towards us. I was looking up some frequences. When I looked up another aircraft passed within 12 feet over the top of us. So close I could see the tread on the tyres.

The Cirrus has a ballistic Parachute system. Maybe all aircraft should have transponders, Maybe all singles should have ballistic parachute systems and maybe maybe all twins and above should have TICAS fitted.

We have all been there where an aircraft got too close or was missed for some reason. This was unlucky but it will happen again.

Pace

Facelookbovvered

I find all this talk of see and be seen, well rather misplaced here and point less. We all know the out come, if not the reason and this should not happen to any aircraft on short final to a commercial airport (or another airport for that matter) as tragic as this is, this could very easliy have been a 737 with loss of a 100+ lives and answers are required in due course, to make sure as far as is possible that it never happens again at any airport or ideally anywhere else.

Back to see and be seen, not as easy as it sounds, i was flying in the area on the day and vis was good or very good, but even with TCAS and radar control some 'targets' were not eyeballed at even a few miles range and we knew where to look for them.

If you fly either for a living or fun we are all in the same sky and all are pilots, if you are not a pilot, then by all means express your sympathy at our loss, but please leave it at that, RIP

but for the grace of God

Gertrude the Wombat

Yup. You've been getting it wrong.

Easy. Choose not to operate into airports which involve flying the approach in uncontrolled airspace.

Correct. And you can tell the difference by looking at the chart, which will tell you whether the approach is in controlled airspace (protected) or not (not).

slip and turn

all of which is not usually what (most?) IFR pilots descending with an ILS actually are thinking about in the UK after receiving clearance to land...there's an emerging hole in the UK versus US way of doing things here, surely?

This is beginning to exhibit hallmarks of a classic accident at a busy airfield supporting busy VFR circuits entwined with straight in ILS traffic.

Coventry has long been home of an instructor school and CPL school I think, and our dearly beloved Air Atlantique plus various larger commercial operations like ThomsonFly from time to time. They must have almost bombproof procedures with all that instruction and testing going on. Has this type of conflict been a problem previously? Background noise on PPRuNe earlier indicated vicinity of CT locator can be a bit busy. Are all those training on instrument approaches taught that either they or their instructor will be keeping eyes peeled as they 'encroach'? into the circuit from long final? Seems a bit unlikely to me ...

I certainly do not remember it being drilled into my brain at ANOther airfield where CX & long straight in ILS are mixed. There was Radar coverage and I am now sorry to say that I relied heavily upon it unless particularly warned otherwise on the day. Whilst I expected to be aware of any radio clues of upset in the circuit, I certainly wasn't looking left or right while I was trying to hand fly the ILS...I will go as far as to say that by 3 miles and cleared to land then it was MY ILS, and I was Number 1 ...

Is Coventry a one-off? Has it always been eyes out all the way down the ILS for a full scan?

I DO recall having it drilled into me to look back (out) along final before turning final, but that's just one pair of MkI eyeballs as a last resort - again at a busy airport like this I think as circuit traffic I'd anticipate some correspondence whilst downwind on whether I had contact with the ILS traffic?

Each such airfield is different of course but though I hesitate to say it because it plays to media speculation i.e. 'what if it was a big jet', the background noise on this accident suggests we must surely see the Coventry instrument approach/radar coverage urgently re-evaluated. I only hesitate further to ask the counter question "Well if there was anything wrong with it, there would surely have been other incidents over the years ... and there haven't been ..."(?)

I hope we don't have to wait long for an official synopsis of this one because it takes a rather good GA pilot to nail an ILS and to do a full effective scan left and right at the same time, and it is easy for one pair of eyes on base to miss a fast one on long final unless told it's there and potentially conflicting.

frontlefthamster

A quick word of reply about a couple of things:

First: lookout and see and avoid. I fly aircraft, both big and small, in and out of CAS. Lookout is my last line of defence. I don't trust it, but it works most of the time. I simply know that because I'm human, it can't be relied upon. Interestingly, I fly with some people who are very recently experienced in air combat, and I give myself a huge pat on the back if I spot something before they do (this happens quite rarely). This tells me that, generally speaking, you can be better at lookout if you've been trained properly and your life has depended on it in a serious way.

Second: Mode S and Mode C.

Mode S is here; it works; and it's not terribly expensive compared to Mode C. Any move towards mandating Mode C would be pointless.

Yes, there are technical problems with the ultra-compact Mode S kit which is under development, but there's nothing like a blossoming market to sort out the geeks.

There are things afoot in the regulatory world which appear likely to put a stop to commercial operations outside CAS, because it's impossible to put together a reliable safety case against mid-air collisions, and mid-air collisions are quite common.

This might have one of three rough outcomes: either the commercial world stops operating outside CAS, or the other operators have to do something to address the threat that they (leisure pilots) pose to the commercial world (who are there for a purpose, not fun), or there's some sort of elastoplast job in the short term with a view to a better resolution in the longer game. No prizes for guessing how that might play out.

Finally, to mm flynn, the safety case has nothing to do with individual accidents; it's 'big picture' stuff, and I'm not even sure whose work covers the circumstances of this collision. Certainly, it's something the major ANSP would not be keen to associate themselves with, in my view.

Put1992

How will that help matters in any shape or form?

SA120

Condolences to the pilots that have lost there lives and their families that now have to deal with this tragedy.

I dont think it is helpful to portion blame to what happened but look at the evidence and try to find out what occured and why and what could be done to avoid a re occurence. (In Aviation learn from everyone and everything all of the time).

The Cessna is assumed to be on final approach but as mentioned earlier the gear was still up (what where their respective speeds )as clearly seen on the sky news film showing the aircraft upside down. Was the aircraft intending to land ? The aircraft is equipped for survey and calibration work, was the aircraft calibrating the ILS ? or testing its own equipment involving all crew on callibration/survey equipment question on board.

If both aircraft where talking to CVT where they talking to Radar or Twr. Where both aircraft reporting their correct positions. Did ATC warn of the other at any stage.

How many times have pilots been informed of other aircraft by a ATC service provider whether FIS or RIS on open airspace and being looking very hard for it and never seen it pass by. ( I have lots of times )

It would appear the smaller aircraft (what ever type) is approaching from one side and would have needed to look at 90 degrees or more to see the faster approaching C402. It would seem the C402 may have had the smaller aircraft ahead/to one side and the C402 would likely be travelling a lot faster in a clean configuration and a much higher powered machine.

Did the smaller aircraft have a transponder. Whether it did or did not is a good question. ATC would be able to see it. Did G-EYES have TCAS ? I think likely not therefore it would not pick up anything anyway.

The airspace around there and between Birmingham and East Mids and around Coventry is very busy with lots of users funnelled into the class G condensing the traffic. Birmingham and East Mids can ask pilots to remain clear of CAS usually initially and ask pilots to standby due a variety of factors and can sometimes be too busy to get back to them before they are approaching the CAS for a transit which will keep pilots in the corridor Also many pilots weaker on radio, not liking radio or not wishing to encumber anybody will not ask for a transit and will be happy to fly using gps or other means around any airspace increasing traffic density at certain periods in these hot spots, sometimes there is so much traffic in the hot spots that ATC may be unable to give a service of much value. Is there a way better to use Class D in order to help to reduce hot spots in class G or open FIR ? This was not likely a factor in this accident however could be worth noting to increase vigilance in these areas.

This is a terrible tragedy but this type of accident will happen again it is just a question of when and all pilots should be as vigilant as possible and practise good look out and scan techniques however ther will be always be times when you have to look inside the aircraft or even just in the other direction.

There for the grace of god go I.

Fuji Abound

I dont know these pilots but I am part of their community. I am very sorry for their loss.

My remarks that follow have potentially nothing to do with this accident but I cant help but comment on see and avoid.

I fly with TCAS for much of the time. Recently, and for the first time, I used TCAS to find and then formate with another aircraft (not the usual way I go about this). If you get the chance try it. It is a very good way of demonstrating even when you know where the traffic is just how difficult it can be to spot, particularly when you are moving parallel and at a similar speed to the traffic.

I have had three close misses. On one occasion over Germany I wasn’t the handling pilot and was looking at some papers. A brief look up and another aircraft was coming straight towards us. I could not believe the other pilot had not see it, or it us for that matter. Very rapid intervention on my part avoided and almost certain mid air. The handling pilot to this day can not believe how it was possible he hadn’t seen the traffic.

On final it is very likely a pilot will become fixated on the threshold or will momentarily avert his gaze to operate the gear, or flaps, or some element concerned with configuring the aircraft for the landing.

There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that see and avoid is not reliable even at GA speeds. See and avoid is not the salvation of avoiding collisions most of the time.

In a few thousand of hours of flying in VMC I become more and more concerned to use everything I know and every aid I have to minimise my reliance on see and avoid. Having done so I try to be meticulous about maintaining my scan as the arbiter of last resort.

As another example of course our scan should have started in the climb out. Anywhere in the circuit and the risk of a collision is high. The fact is the vast majority of low time pilots will not see an aircraft that cuts through their climb out from a position above them and to the left or right.

The fact is in my opinion see and avoid does not work. It does not work because we are fallible. Fly with most pilots and watch what they are doing after the take off. Are they doing anything to look above the aircraft? Are they scanning left and right? Nah. They are fixated on what’s ahead, and tasks in the cockpit.

Fortunately collisions are very rare but don’t kid yourself that this is because we are all really good at seeing and avoiding each other. Fact is the "perfect" pilot might do a reasonable job relying on see and avoid most of the time but there are very few among us that are perfect pilots.

In my opinion you are deluding yourself if you believe see and avoid will always ensure you avoid other traffic - I think we all dance on that particular pin head, and stay on the head but for the Grace of God - sadly in this case whether for this reason or some other reason these pilots luck ran out.

If you can guarantee me you would have avoided this collision or any other 100% of the time you have a great deal more courage in your convictions than I would or you have caught a healthy dose of blind faith.

IMHO if you take nothing from this thread other than more than a few pilots telling you that in their opinion see and avoid is not reliable which in turn leads you to question your approach to VFR flying outside CAS something will have been achieved.

Flybywyre

On the subject of lookout/radar etc a few of you may be surprised to learn that some composite type aircraft have been known not to paint on radar..............
EVEN WITH THE TRANSPONDER TURNED ON

Voroff

A lot of comments on this thread about CAS being an issue here however if the incident happened as a lot of reports have said between two aircraft inbound to Coventry then it isn't really the main issue as both aircraft were hopefully in contact with ATC as they were landing at the field.

CAS is all about creating a known traffic area so that ATC can deconflict transit traffic against inbound or outbound traffic. So CAS in my view isn't the main factor here as an incident like this could quite as easily happen between an ILS inbound and circuit/visual joining traffic in CAS as it could at an ATC airport in class G.

The only difference between this situation occuring just outside an ATZ in class G and at an airport in CAS is that you could say that there is no legal requirement for pilots outside CAS airspace to comply with ATC instructions however In my experience this has never been an issue.

singleacting

Great posts guys, I hope you are all proud of your conjecture, especially when you realise that relatives and friends of those that have perished can look in and read all your ramblings.

Crash one

I am finding it difficult to believe that educated aviators can be so far up their own arses to speculate, decide on what happened, blame, pontificate & generally write a load of egotistical garbage. My thoughts are with the relatives & Cov ATC. Why not let these poor unfortunate people deal with this tragedy & wait till someone who knows what they are talking about tells you what happened.

flybymike

Frontlefthamster, when you say that there are things afoot in the regulatory world which appear likely to put a stop to commercial operations outside controlled airspace, do you mean that commercial operations outside CAS are to cease ? or alternatively that all airspace encompassing commercial operations is to become controlled?

There are incidentally many GA users who are out there "for a purpose" and not for fun, (including business use and aerial work etc,) just as the majority of holidaymakers in the metal tubes are out there for fun and not for a purpose.

radar707

All aircraft requesting a transit of Birmingham controlled airspace will be allowed to do so subject to traffic conditions and controller workload. I have never refused a transit to anyone wanting to do so. We routinely advise pilots to remain outside controlled airspace to remind them that they haven't got a clearance to enter not because we are refusing a transit, thereby preventing a potential incursion of CAS The majority of GA traffic inbound to / outbound from EGBE generally has no requirement to transit controlled airspace. If you want to transit, call 118.050 and ASK!


Coventry have secondary radar

prx

Likewise East Mids are also good at ofering transits - I can only remember being refused once and it was clear that the controller was quite busy. They sounded almost apolgetic at having to refuse.

Birminghmam, I guess has more issues as their runway is largely N/S as will be (I guess) most of the light GA traffic wanting a transit. That siad, I've heard quite a few transits given and have had one myself.... It was offered. I didn't even ask!

athonite

What was the ATC policy at EGBE re mixing of IFR and VFR trafiic (rwy23) on the day of the accident. Was it possible for:

(a) VFR traffic to commence base leg while IFR traffic was localiser established

(b) VFR traffic to commence base leg while IFR traffic was inbound from CT (finals).

I think I know what in reality was the situation over the years has been at Coventry regarding IFR/VFR traffic, but I would be interested to know what the experience of others have been over the years.

IO540

As I think somebody wrote already, once you get handed from approach to tower (which happens when you call Localiser Established) you lose the "radar service".

So the last 6-8nm, possibly more depending on vectoring etc, is flown without a radar service.

My guess is that the tower controller is not allowed to pass traffic info even if can see a radar screen (for the same legal reasons that e.g. London Information cannot), but in an obviously dire scenario the approach controller could tell the tower controller to warn the pilot.

But if e.g. the SE aircraft was not transponding, there would not be a height readout and what assumption would a (any) Radar controller make then? I don't know the rules. I do know that if you fly through the Luton-Stansted gap without a transponder, Radar will assume you are OCAS i.e. below 2500ft (nothing else they can realistically do).

And if the SE aircraft had a poor/nonexistent primary return (e.g. largely non-metallic) then you have nothing at all. But is a zero return possible this close to the radar?? The engine is still metallic, and pretty rough shaped.

OCAS, any "protection" on an approach is no more than what you get when you get under any radar service. They will pass traffic, workload permitting. If the whole approach was in CAS, you get the additional protection that conflicting traffic is less likely to be there because if they were in there they would be illegal (but obviously they can still be there of course). Also different rules apply in that IF the CAS extends down to ground then ATC can take immediate action if they see even a primary return. AIUI.

There are no absolutes.

seaskimmer

Why all this unhealthy speculation?

I don't need to remind you that aviation is inherently dangerous, but that is part of why we do it, theres a romance to it.

for me there is no issue of who or what is to blame, that is for another group of professionals to decide.

I just feel sad for the loss of fellow aviators, and particularily the 4 dedicated to specialised duties.

500 above

RIP JB. You will be missed mate.

Condolences to all the families involved.

Chilli Monster

I have refused ONE transit of EMA CAS in the last 2 years - and that was because he called half a mile from the edge of CAS and I was working like a one armed paper hangar.

Yes - you will be told to remain outside in the initial call, so as to stop you blundering in. 9 times out of 10 you will also be told that either you're not YET cleared in or you'll get transit clearance when you get closer. I have data at work that will show the number of refusals is probably less than 0.1% of requested transits.

As far as Brum is concerned - I've asked for transit 7 times (normally 4000ft through the overhead) and got 7 transits in the past year.

I think you owe some people a retraction / apology.