blondechick

there is alot in this thread i don't understand and to be honest i don't want to when a excellent pilot has gone in such awful circumstances all i want to know is he's gone somewhere safe and is still watching all his friends and family who love and miss him dearly. Am sure the insights to what happened will come out later. But as someone above said JB RIP u were a great guy x x x

Pace

Blondechick

Take what you are saying as I am sure everyone here is devastated and shocked by this dreadful accident but the fact of the matter is that those poor people have gone.

That makes the rest of us more aware of the potential for a midair and what we can do or not do to avoid something simular.
it also makes us more aware of where the risk holes are more concentrated and the possibilities of where and how technology can help to make a midair less likely.

Sitting and waiting for some report months down the line on what is obvious (the obvious being that for whatever reason two aircraft did not see each other and collided ) is not going to help us now to avoid a simular occurence.
Remember another collision could occur to any of us posting in this forum tomorrow not months away after some AAIB report. Accidents dont wait for the posting of AAIB reports!

Chatting here even if it achieves nothing but making us more allert to the potential of a midair has to be good surely?

Pace

CrazyMonkey

Pace

Well said. It has certainly reminded me of the importance of an exceptional lookout in any class of airspace.

newcomer

Just a little about flying a cessna twin, Ive done quite a bit on the Riems 406, at 3 miles he wouldnt have been clean, most likely gear down with app flaps but still at about 120 kts. Its very hard too see anything that close to you with such a high nose attitude and such huge engines (prop line are in line with the aft nose locker) that are pretty much blocking your viz on both side and you wouldnt be able to see anything thing below them. And no RVL a/c are fitted with TCAS. Its just a real same, You guys will really be missed

blondechick

Oh i totally agree i wasn't having a go. forget it when ever i say anything on here it gets totally out of context! am just going to delete my profile i was just giving my condolences seeing as i know one of the men. and u have a go. have some compassion for people who are grieving ie me

flyinginthesun

I have been reading this thread with interest, I am not a pilot but married to one who flies out of Coventry - so some of what I have read on here makes slightly worrying reading - I understand your sentiments Blondechick - but I also agree with what Pace is saying - it is important for those who fly to try and make some sense of this and understand the potential for this situation to occur again - In this situation people feel the need to do something and to almost be connected to their fellow aviators and this is the site where that happens. This does not in my very humble opinion detract from the absolute horror and tragedy of what has happened and the fact that there are families and friends grieving at this time. Everyone on here whatever their opinion or seemingly insensitive comments will I am sure be sending their sympathy, heartfelt thoughts and love to those people. Rest assured Blondechick that your friend is at peace and in a safe place.

avlerx

Got to agree with Chilli Monster, East Midland are very good at giving transits. Can't remember the last time I heard a refusal.

Rod1

A lot of comment on “see and avoid” on this thread. I am an ex glider pilot and have had the honour of flying 300 hours with an ex member of the Royal Observers in the right hand seat. See and avoid may not be 100% but some people are much better at it than others. The more effort you put in and the more experience you gain trying, the better it will work for you. Nick (my ROC mate) can spot an aircraft, identify type and tell you the threat level very early in an encounter. By seeing what can be done I have improved towards his standard, but I still have a long way to go.

It is also worth investing in an aircraft you can see out off, as some are much harder than others and therefore less safe.

Rod1

IO540

One should not forget the statistics though. Flying above 1000ft or in IMC appears to offer virtually total protection. The risk is in low level situations which, for most people, are when taking off or landing, and during those times one's ability to look out is compromised by various factors e.g. nose up attitude during takeoff.

Enroute, the risk is negligible unless one is really crawling in the gutter. I know many pilots do fly low, but they don't have to.

NIGELINOZ

I am not making any comment about the circumstances that led to this tragic accident as i do not have enough information to make any judgements,but I do remember on my very first lesson of my PPL course in Australia my instructor told me the first rule of flying is A.N.C.
Aviate,Navigate.Communicate.and I have always taken that to mean that flying the plane whilst keeping a lookout was a fundamental principle of safe flying,but as I said I am NOT suggesting that the pilots involved in the tragedy were not doing exactly that,it is not for me to judge,others with more knowledge will do that.
All I know is that it is a tragedy and people have lost their lives,and that is the fact we must all remember,regardless of the cause of the accident.
Condolences to the families of those involved.

ComJam

Newcomer

We understand he was practicing ILS Calibration approaches, these are generally flown to a low go-around gear up.



I'm particularly upset by this accident as Calibration flying is what I spend my time at work doing. Unfortunately some of us have to fly at low level VFR outside of CAS in order to do the job.



Blondechick

I know the thoughts of the aircrew at Teesside are with all at RVL.

stop, stop, stop

My condolences to all involved with this tradgic accident.

As is usually the case with air disasters, I just hope that many lessons are learned by the aviation community, and that the rest of us can go about the rest of our days that little bit safer.

RIP.

SSS

Rod1

The Pilot of the Rand KR2 has been named as Brian Normington, the details of the Cessna 402 crew are yet to be released.

Rod1

one post only!

Still bothers me that this collision occurred while one aircraft was flying the ILS and one was making a VFR approach. Fortunately I'm in the position where I don't ever find myself doing an ILS outside of controlled airspace!! You do expect certain protections though surely, particularly at a time when workload can be very high. Lookout may be brief and at random intervals (even with 2 crew) making it very difficult to spot the constant bearing target! At other airfields Tower always passes circuit traffic information so we can attempt to spot them. Normally the VFR traffic is second to us and will have to pick us up visually before they can continue. Frightening that 2 aircraft can be on approach to the same runway both in radio contact with the tower and meet in mid air!! I hate to say it but I do think the IFR traffic should take precedent and VFR traffic should be instructed to follow us when we are both coming in at the same time. One aircraft on instruments, one visually operating, makes sense but those instructions need to come from somewhere....ATC.
Could this just be a horrible set of circumstances where both aircraft were in blind spots to one another? How then can you totally rely on the mark one eyeball? If you are practising an ILS calibration you cannot weave down the approach to look beneath you to the sides!
This is a dreadful accident and I wonder if it may lead to a review of some airspace's around the UK. Any loss of life is dreadful be it 5 in a 402/KR2 or 150 in a 737. Could this lead to GA being moved further out of the way???? Would be a shame but......! The press would have had a field day had it been a 737!

The findings from the AAIB may make quite sobering reading. Sad day indeed.

Rod1

Any further narrowing of the Birmingham / East Mids gap will have a significant impact on VFR traffic density. The corridor is already very busy with light aircraft and military aircraft, all operating VFR. I hope we can at least get a LARS to help. This is the second fatal mid air in the corridor in the last 12 months. The other was at 1450 ft AGL, so even the “ok above 1000 ft” idea will not necessarily save you.

Rod1

Pace

BlondeChick

I was not having a go at you either as you expressed the sentiments very well as to how most probably feel especially if you knew the people and it was close to home.

I used to fly the citation that crashed at Biggin and knew the pilot so I understand where you are coming from.

Often text is misunderstood and my comments were not aimed at you but only to make a point as to why it is important with current pilots to discuss accidents even if by doing so it can come across as cold.

On the face of it this appears to be one of those 1 in a million tragic accidents and we can only take note and be extra aware of that potential.

So thanks for your warmth and take care

Pace

CRX

ONEPOSTONLY -
A few points regarding your post,
I believe that the IFR ILS approaches you fly differ from the VFR ILS approaches being flown here. Stay with me on this...
When I first started flying in Inverness I was treated to a discussion with the SATCO about the difference between VFR, IFR and VISUAL approaches. As I understand if you started out IFR and want to make a VISUAL approach then you will still be treated in the eyes of ATC as being an IFR (and still expected to fly the published missed approach if you went around) despite being able to see where you are going.
If you 'cancel IFR' (normally using that phrase) you are now treated as a VFR flight (because you now are!) and seperation now VFR against VFR, ie not given. You are now responsible for see and avoid, although of course FIS may be provided with traffic info given. (if you go around you will be expected to fly a visual circuit by the way).
The relevance of this is that although we believe the 402 (not a 406 by the way, there is quite a difference) was flying practice ILS approaches for CALIBRATION purposes, therefore I believe that the purpose of the two pilots up front was to provide safety pilot look out whilst the other was busy. Remember this is a single crew aircraft and will be flown as such with single crew SOPS, there will be no challenge and response stuff and the HP (or PF if you prefer) will be doing it all. The second pilot in this case was probably also acting in an instructing capacity too as he/she was a CRE/line trainer.
Incidentally it is not unusual for aircraft to fly ILS approaches as VFR traffic for several reasons, most commonly for training OPC LPC stuff. In Inverness we choose to do this when the conditions allow of course, because otherwise the slots available for IFR training (as a pukka IFR flight with seperation) are much harder to get.
I believe this accident would be highly unlikely to happen with larger IFR commercial traffic because that aircraft would retain its IFR status down to the ground and ATC seperation would apply. Of course there is nothing to stop anyone flying across the path of an ILS outside the ATZ, but that is not peculiar to CVT, try Blackpool, Filton, Cambridge, and Cranfield for starters...
I have worked for the Atlantic Group (and spin off companies) for 12 years and have flown over 200 hours in EYES. I am very sad for those affected by this accident.

CRX.

Ps: ATC comment about my understanding of the above is welcome.

one post only!

Sorry, knew it was a 402, slip of the finger, corrected that ta.

Totally correct, thanks for that. I was thinking with an airliner brain and was thinking ILS at the end of a IFR flight. Didn't think they might have done it after a VFR sortie. So long since I have done it forgotten it happens!!!! Very much stuck in the IFR world it seems!

As you say, there is nothing but "airmanship" to prevent someone flying across the instrument approach path while outside controlled airspace. Just have to hope it prevails!!!

Thanks for that post, cleared a lot up.

Such an unfortunate accident.

VP959

SAS wrote: Not what I wrote at all, as you would have realised if you took the time to read it properly, instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

I merely restated the rules under which both of these aircraft were operating, and didn't comment as to whether or not the rules were either sensible or able to be complied with.

You may care to note that I also made an observation regarding the ease of keeping a good lookout, or otherwise, in some types, without making any comment as to the personal skills of any type of pilot. It's a fact that if your flying a paraglider, a glider or some types of microlight, then it's very much easier to keep a good lookout than it is when flying some other types with more restricted visibility. Add in congested skies, occupied by aircraft with widely differing speeds and the inevitable higher workload when flying an approach through the midst of all this and the chance of ANY pilot maintaining a first class lookout is pretty slim.

I'm frankly surprised at the venom that's being directed my way at pointing out what seems to be obvious, and equally amazed at the way that some have opted to deliberately misconstrue my meaning.

VP

CaptRicardo

I would just like to express my condolences to the families and loved ones affected by this. Coventry Airport is a very special and close knit community and this tragedy will have affected everyone to the core. There is nothing more I can say.