Mid air over Hertfordshire

[yintsinmerite]

BBC carrying headlines of a mid air between a light aircraft and a helicopter over Hertfordshire.

A helicopter and a light aircraft have been involved in a mid-air collision above fields in Hertfordshire.
A Hertfordshire Police spokesman said the accident took place above Welham Green just before 1300 BST on Tuesday.

Both crash landed in separate fields in the Dixons Hill Road area near Hatfield.

Full details of the accident are not yet known and it is not clear if there were any casualties. Police are asking people to avoid the area.

[Bol Zup]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/3870629.stm
Edit: Sorry the link only gives the same info. you have given.

[airmail]

BBC News Ticker now reporting that 2 people are dead and 2 are injured.

[1.6vs]

apparently, a helicopter, operated by Cabair Cranfield and a microlight- ( 2 fatalities)

[tonyhalsall]

Are you sure about one being a microlight? The ITV news link mentioned 'microlight' but all the news items still refer to it as being a light aircraft

[bar shaker]

Its proving to be a very black week for private flying :(

[valenii]

Our SR22 was flying this morning, and also had a close shave with a Senaca.

She was doing some general training in the open FIR, at about FL40. They were monitoring Brize Radar, and heard the Senaca on frequency being advised (far too late it would seem) that they had traffic at 1 o'clock same level less than a mile.

At this time in the SR22, the SkyWatch system was already alerting, changing the target (closing head on at about 300knots) to yellow and screaming "Traffic Traffic" over the intercom.

Both our pilots started scanning ahead about 20 seconds before impact, and after aquiring the target visually took avoiding action.

I believe that if it was not for Skywatch and Mode C transponders, we would have had 2 mid-airs today.

We need better radar services or compulsory transponders....

[Fly Stimulator]

Welham Green is close to the BPK VOR.

It may have nothing at all to do with this tragic accident, but the 'honeypot' effect always worries me a little, especially around (and beneath) the London TMA.

[Inverted81]

I live over the road from Welham green, i haven't seen anything but apparently the emergency services could be heard for a very long time.
I think all our thoughts should be with the families following this tragic accident before we start debating about radar control services etc.

God Bless.

Chris Fleet & Family

[bar shaker]

It was an R22 and a flexwing microlight. Both occupants of the microlight were killed.

How can something like this happen in perfect viz?

[Johnm]

Seeing is one thing avoiding another. I often see gliders under the London TMA, it's always difficult working out which way they're going to be headed when you get close and it's not always easy to give them a wide birth without a gigantic detour.

[QNH 1013]

Bar Shaker, I believe most "mid-airs" occur in good visibility.

[Capt. Manuvar]

I don't think that mid airs are necessarily caused by stupidity. Yesterday an aircraft flew about <50ft under me from my 01:00 position. I didn't notice it till i saw a white flash @ 08:00 low. I had just completed a steep turn so there's no way i would have seen him, and he was a high wing aircraft and he wouldn't have seen me until the last few seconds. Luckily we were both a few feet above/below 4000'.
While the Mk.1 eyeball is inadequate for maintaining adequate traffic avoidance in the busy airspace we have today. Unfortunately most collision avoidance systems are to expensive for GA. Until someone comes up with an affordabl system, we should use the facilities we have available to us to the maximum: RAS, RIS, FIS, Listening Watch, and most importantly switch on your bl@@dy XPDRs. Most useless things in aviation :altitude above you, fuel in the bowser, RWY bhind you and a transponder on OFF/STBY. There's an increasing no of airliners flying into airport in class G e.g. coventry. I think all aircraft that have mode C onboard must be required by law to operate them, just like head/taillights and cars.
condolences to the families, could have been me:ugh:
Capt. M

[Mike Cross]

Sunday I had someone overtake me from behind. He suddenly appeared at the top of my windscreen about 150 feet above.

Just for a moment let's assume he HAD seen me.

At some point I disappeared below his glareshield and it would have taken him some time to overhaul me. If during that time I had decided to climb we could have had some more fatalities. I would have remained out of his vision until I hit him.

If you are overtaking someone please keep him in view.

Eight fatalaties in little over a week is horrendous and we have a very busy weekend coming up.

Mike

[QDMQDMQDM]

My solutions to midairs are never fly at round number heights and when in congested areas get down in the vicinity of 1000 feet agl or lower.

Scary stuff and, as someone has said, Kemble this weekend. Abingdon was congested enough for me. I'm going to stay clear.

QDM

[eagerbeaver]

Awful week indeed, had a furkin' close shave today aswell near bedford, did not see the aircraft till he passed in front and only slightly lower, i did not even react just watched in disbelief as we crossed paths. There is no way the guy saw me because he made a radio call seconds later and unless he is the coolest dude in the world sounded perfectly calm.

I sometimes hate flying at the prospect of us all trying to find our own little space in the air.

On another lighter note, i was hitting a few golf balls at kingsway near melbourne and fowlmere aerodrome tonight about 7.50pm when a Merlin flew directly across the range at about 50ft spectacular but f@cked my shot.

[Monocock]

Must say QDM x 3, your view on staying clear this w/end is the one I tend to support.

As far as I'm concerned (and this is NOT an open invitation for a flare) there are just too many a/c in just too small a space in too short a period of time.....

I'll either be cycling this w/end or heading the other way.

[TonyR]

It worries me that some pilots will go to the rally without even a thought of the danger.

Some I know are not even getting the "big picture" around their local airfield.

Scotland sounds good to me this week end.

Tony

[rotorcraig]

Bar Shaker, I believe most "mid-airs" occur in good visibilityBBC News story has been updated to include:

Air accident investigators said the chances of a crash on a sunny afternoon with excellent visibility for pilots were "a million to one". RC

[Avalon]

Fewer and fewer radar services of any sort will be available to aircraft flying outside controlled airspace because ATCOs, their bosses and particularly their paymasters are unwilling to accept the risk that if, for any slight reason, their service doesn't come up to scratch and there is an incident/accident/worse - then they could all be sent to prison. So why should we bother?

:confused:

[Buster the Bear]

valenii, who is going to pay for this protection? Nothing in life is free, well apart from obtaining an ATC servive in the FIR?

If you want radar coverage someone will have to provide it for you, so are you and all other private flyers prepared to pay for such a service?

Probably no? Anyway, there are not enough validated radar ATCO's available in the UK to provide airport radar, let alone LARS and if you expect the MOD/Smiler Blair/You & I as tax payers to foot the bill, think again.

10/20 years ago life was different. Sadly today, airports and ATC units are there to maximise profits for airport operators and until such time TCAS is mandatory for ALL flyers, Mark 1 eyeball is all that can be relied upon.

I was totally gutted when I was told about this today, but would ATC actually see a microlight on their radar? Depending upon the range from the head and the radar frequency, possibly? Would one or both flights be in R/T communication with the same ATSU outside CAS? Would that controller have offered a LARS service due to his/hers workload?

Sadly, who knows. I offer my deepest thoughts for those that have perished as I know a few barmy micro pilots. For them this a cheap way to enjoy flying for fun.....just as it should be, fun!

[AlanM]

I wasn't working today but I can tell you that the chances of seeing microlights are virtually impossible, with todays digitally enhanced processed radars. Not always possible to see all non squawking light aircraft.

God Bless

[boomerangben]

First of all my sympathies go out to the families and friends of the victims of this tragic accident.

Having spent many an hour jammed between Luton and London and squashed down by the TMA above, I am not surprised this has happened. It was only a matter of time before something like this or more tragic happened. I have personnally witnessed a couple of prats doing aeros close the one of the entry points to Luton's VFR lane, in another instance, a pilot hidden deep in thought behind a charts. It never ceases to amaze me what poor airmanship some people demonstrate.

It is an extremely busy bit of airspace, with a huge variety of aircraft, from microlites to private jets. Only goes to show the importance of a proper look out and good airmanship.

Safe flying everyone.

[Chilli Monster]

I was working, and although not microlights (which, as AlanM says, hardly show in radar) I was treated to two streams of gliders stretching from just outside of Lyneham to the Malverns and the other from the same point up to the East side of Gloucester. 30 or 40 in each stream, the streams stretching 20 miles from front to back.

Avoiding action - fat chance! All you can do is call it out and hope for the best :(

[flower]

Microlights paint so poorly on our radar screen they are at times impossible to see.

My thoughts are with those affected.

[2Sticks]

As QDM says, Kemble will be busy - let's not forget the British Grand Prix weekend at Silverstone. Not sure how many helis will going in on Sunday but it's bound to be around 150 with many more flights than that from all the feeder sights around there. Be a good place to steer clear of.
Picking up what ChilliM says, there can be quite high concentrations of gliders on competition weekends which are quite popular at this time of year. While the Notams I think usually declare the comps. there isn't an easy way of communicating the tasks which are always set immediately before the comp starts, to the general GA fraternity who are likely to be passing and it can lead to 20 or 30 gliders all in the same general area.

My thoughts and sympathies are with the families of those who died today.

2Sticks

[SATCO Biggin]

Firstly my sympathies to those related in todays accident.

Secondly, regarding the statements here about the density of traffic below/around controlled airspace. Has anyone got any figures to support the view that traffic density is getting any worse?

In my opinion things that are difficult to see in flight are:-

1 microlights
2 gliders
3 small helicopters
4 any aircraft on a fixed straight and level for long periods.

It is partly down to pilots to make themselves as visible as possible as well as looking and avoiding others. Gentle turns will display a bigger profile than someone sticking to a dead straight line on a GPS !!

[VP959]

With regard to traffic density, the one thing that has changed markedly in recent years is the popularity of light aviation. Microlights, for example, seem to make up a significant proportion of the new registrations published in the mags every month.

The other key issue is the "honeypot effect" around VORs, VRPs, bottlenecks between controlled airspace etc. How many people routinely plot a VFR route using convenient VRPs on the chart?

If we were to get into the habit of using other features as TPs or waypoints, then I'm sure could reduce the concentration of traffic in some areas. I routinely fly into an airfield where on weekdays the joining and leaving procedure is via one VRP to the South. You need a dozen pairs of eyes on occassion, as aircraft travelling in opposite directions, some non-radio, all converge over one small village.

Plaistows is a busy microlight strip, complete with a thriving school, yet also happens to be in an area where low level traffic will be routing around the gap between London CTR and Luton CTA. As the strip is close to a very prominent motorway junction, often used as a waypoint when routing around that way, it's almost inevitable that traffic densities there will be higher than average.

Add in the fact that en-route VFR traffic may be concentrating on checking where they are at that waypoint, and microlight traffic heading into Plaistows will be concentrating on their join and approach to the strip, and you have some of the ingredients for a terrible tragedy like this.

[bookworm]

Only goes to show the importance of a proper look out and good airmanship

On the contrary it could equally well indicate the utter futility of "proper lookout".

The history of human factors in most areas of aviation progresses along a similar path. It starts with the pilot getting blamed for not being good enough. Gradually, as science and medicine advances, and particularly as those well known to the guys who make the rules turn out not to be good enough either, we realise that the human animal is not capable of reliably performing the task that some of us have been proven not good enough to do. So then we take a rather more practical approach, and start to make some real progress by teaching pilots about their limitations and associated risks, as well as using technology to supplement the frail human.

For some reason, probably related to the fact that all the money is in commerical aviation conducted under IFR in controlled airspace, we're a long way behind in this process with regard to see and avoid in GA.

[WorkingHard]

Buster the Bear said "
posted 6th July 2004 20:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

valenii, who is going to pay for this protection? Nothing in life is free, well apart from obtaining an ATC servive in the FIR?

If you want radar coverage someone will have to provide it for you, so are you and all other private flyers prepared to pay for such a service?

Probably no? Anyway, there are not enough validated radar ATCO's available in the UK to provide airport radar, let alone LARS and if you expect the MOD/Smiler Blair/You & I as tax payers to foot the bill, think again.

10/20 years ago life was different. Sadly today, airports and ATC units are there to maximise profits for airport operators and until such time TCAS is mandatory for ALL flyers, Mark 1 eyeball is all that can be relied upon."
Well Buster ALL airplane users pay a significant amount in taxation (duty as well as VAT). As we dont yet have hypothecation here then we must assume those taxes may be used for services to GA and CAT alike. There are many many arguments about this of course and one major problem is the extent of controlled airspace that may or may not be used except on occasions. If we are going to all have to pay for that which we use then perhaps we should be looking at the airports paying a "rent" on the VOLUME of airspace they wish to control. I bet that would reduce the amount of controlled airspace where one can be told on first contact "keep clear"

[alphaalpha]

I'm with bookworm on this. How often have you been given very precise traffic information when under an RIS, but totally failed to see the traffic -- even when you know where to look. Personally, I fail to see more than half the radar contacts called. See and avoid does not work well alone.

RIS works because you are given a 'heads-up,' you are looking out, and you will (almost always) see the contact if it's going to become a real collision hazard.

Most of us complain about compulsory Mode S for VFR in the future. However, compulsory squawking will greatly reduce the chance of collisions such as this Herfordshire one, either through better visibility to radar services or through better technology in the cockpit, such as the mini-TCAS systems which are now coming on the market.

AA.

[TonyR]

There has been an increase in VLA and Microlights (perhaps we should ban them)JOKE and with the lower skill level involved in pilot trainning, combined with a cockpit full of stuff to look at, many pilots don't look outside.

I have flown with pilots who just continaully fiddle with their GPS etc, and fail to see any other traffic.

VFR means LOOK OUT THE WINDOW

Tony

[Aim Far]

If you want radar coverage someone will have to provide it for you, so are you and all other private flyers prepared to pay for such a service?

Can't speak for others but, personally, yes I would be willing to pay for this. I'd expect to get a service though.

I think this kind of thing shows the fallacy in arguing for continuing to have aircraft/balloons/microlights etc flying around without a transponder. Whether its Mode S or Mode C is possibly a different argument.

[boomerangben]

Bookworm,

My point exactly. We as humans are not very good at it, so we should spend proportionately more time doing it. I, like TonyR, have experienced pilots to whom looking out is secondary to other less important tasks.

Alphalpha,

As has already been pointed out on this thread (I assume by ATCOs) radars are not reliable for picking up light aircraft. If everyone in that area was receiving a RIS, there would be bedlam. No one would be able to get a word in edgeways.

As for Mode S. Yes it would be a good idea, but the affordable GA versions of TCAS (as far as I know) do not give an azimuth for contacts. It would be worse than a RIS. Also will microlights be required to carry a mode s Transponder?

[Algirdas]

QDM,
the problem with 1000' and below is the military boys - how many times have you been directly underflown by helicopters, transporters etc....... I know I have been spooked a couple of times because of how late you sometimes see these things.
A

[QDMQDMQDM]

the problem with 1000' and below is the military boys - how many times have you been directly underflown by helicopters, transporters etc....... I know I have been spooked a couple of times because of how late you sometimes see these things.

But not at weekends and not generally in very congested areas. They have more sense than that.

Most VFR traffic seems to try and stick at 2000 feet on the nail. Most unwise.

QDM

[tonyhalsall]

Tony R

<<There has been an increase in VLA and Microlights (perhaps we should ban them)JOKE and with the lower skill level involved in pilot trainning, combined with a cockpit full of stuff to look at, many pilots don't look outside.>>

Not sure about your comments re micro / VLA pilots and a lower skill level - presumably you refer to NPPL.

Just the sort of divisive comment to split the flying community. To be frank, most micro pilots I know achieve 100+ hours a year rely totally on VFR and are exceptional pilots displaying great airmanship. More than can be said for Club renters who stay current with 10/12 hours a year and are distracted with electronic nav aids and other 'in cockpit' toys.

The crash yesterday sickened me to the stomach as it would any individual and the thought of rotor blades and flex wing pilots is enough to give anyone nightmares. Praise the heli pilot for getting down safely and deepest sympathy for the micro pilot and passenger. But please don't start suggesting that the fault is at the door of the NPPL or perceived poor skills of the micro pilot.

Maybe an unfortunate choice of words, but Tony - that didn't come across too well to me and smacked of laying the blame before an investigation has even started

Tony (H)

[Mike Cross]

I think you're misinterpreting TonyR's comment.

In essence he is saying that we now have licenses that are less demanding to acquire.

At the same time we have more cockpit gadgets to distract us.

This is general and not aimed at any particular group as the gadgets tend to be in SEP rather than microlights.

I would add to his comments:-

We have a wider disparity between speeds. There are a lot of hot-ship SEP's both production and homebuilt and we also have a large increase in the population of low'n'slow types, including powered parachutes and flexwings.

There is, rightly, more emhasis on airspace busts. Maybe everyone knows about the prosecutions and is spending too much time heads-down checking their nav.

With conventional radio nav you set the OBS and keep the needle centred. There ain't much to look at down there so you are looking out of the window most of the time. Many people do not seem to take the same approach to GPS nav, i.e. enter a route before getting airborne and follow the HSI.

We as pilots do not seem to be coping well. I wonder whether "invisible motorbike syndrome" also has a part to play.

Mike

[bookworm]

My point exactly. We as humans are not very good at it, so we should spend proportionately more time doing it.

No that's precisely the opposite of my point. We shouldn't be spending more time doing it, because however much of our precious cockpit workload we spend on it, we're not good enough at it to make a significant difference.

[alphaalpha]

Boomerangben:

The point that I was trying to make was (a) see and avoid in general does not work well; (b) squawking makes you more visible both to radar units and to mini-TCAS devices -- both of these will give you a 'heads-up' on potential conflicts and increase the chance of see-and-avoid working. Hope this is now clearer.

QDMQDMQDM:

The advice from the military (when discussing the military low flying system at the CAA safety evenings) was to avoid the height band below 2000 feet and especially below 1000 feet. This was, I guess, to minimise the chance of conflict with low-flying military traffic, rather than other GA traffic.

AA.

[Whirlybird]

While there are some interesting discussions going on here, I can't help feeling that this is going a little over the top. Such accidents as this are horrendous, of course. We do seem to have had quite a few recently, which is worrying. But it's still very very few. It hasn't suddenly become incredibly much more dangerous up there. So while it's natural that an accident such as this should make us think, and it's good that we should all consider the best way to stay safe, let's keep a sense of perspective. Flying will never be 100% safe. More training, good lookout, Mode S, RIS, TCAS, flying at 2324 feet...none of those will guarantee safety.

I'm not suggesting complacency, just a sense of proportion. And an acceptance of the risks involved - if we don't like it, maybe we should stay on the ground. And how many people do you think were killed in road accidents last weekend........?

[bar shaker]

Bookworm

You seem to be saying "I'm not very good at spotting other traffic so I'm not going to bother looking any more".

Have I misunderstood you?

[MichaelJP59]

I'm not suggesting complacency, just a sense of proportion. And an acceptance of the risks involved - if we don't like it, maybe we should stay on the ground. And how many people do you think were killed in road accidents last weekend........?

All the talk of mid-airs certainly worries me, but then I look at the current GA fleet and if this sort of thing was common we wouldn't be flying all these vintage planes around!

- Michael

[robin]

Quite - there is too much emphasis on technology solving a problem.

When you think of the numbers of lo-tech machines about, not falling out of the skies or banging into each other.

Wasn't Teneriffe a bang that happened under ATC control?? Similarly the Swiss crash.

I'm with Whirlybird on this.

[Mike Cross]

Wasn't Teneriffe a bang that happened under ATC control?? Similarly the Swiss crash.
Of what relevance is that?

I believe the conclusion was that the Swiss crash could have been avoided if one of the crews had followed the correct procedure and obeyed the TCAS rather than ATC.

Apologies if I've got it wrong but it seems a circular argument.

Tenerife

KLM: "KL4805 is now ready for takeoff. We're waiting for our ATC clearance."

ATC: "KL4805. You are cleared to the Papa beacon. Climb to and maintain Flight Level 90. Right turn after takeoff. Proceed with heading 040 until intercepting the 325 radial from Las Palmas VOR."

This clearance is for after they are airborne and is not takeoff clearance. As First Officer Meurs began to read back the ATC's message, Van Zanten released his foot from the brakes and began advancing the throttles for takeoff.

KLM: "Roger, sir, we are cleared to the Papa beacon, Flight Level 90 until intercepting the 325. We're now at takeoff."

The ATC clearly believed that this meant the KLM was at takeoff position, awaiting clearance, at the end of the runway:

ATC: "OK. Standby for takeoff. I will call you."

Pan Am: "We are still taxiing down the runway!"

Tragically, the KLM only heard the "OK" but never heard the rest of what the ATC said
Doesn't sound as though your implied criticism of ATC holds water to me.

[bookworm]

You seem to be saying "I'm not very good at spotting other traffic so I'm not going to bother looking any more".

Have I misunderstood you?

Close. I'm saying "We're not very good at spotting other traffic so we'd better have a plan that's a bit more constructive than 'must try harder next time'".

[Bol Zup]

Re. the Tenerife incident, that is why en-route clearances are now passed as "After departure..."

Back on thread...from someone who has only had 20 hrs flying in light aircraft, I find it most difficult to pick out grey aircraft against a grey background, how about compulsory flourescent paint schemes? Or is VFR maybe archaic in todays high density fast (compared to the old days anyway) traffic situation.
As for the military's suggestion don't fly between 1000' and 2000' that's a non-starter for VFR flight most days in the UK. Below 1000' and you're dicing with the fast jet jockeys and Rule 5, above 2000' you're usually skirting the cloud base.

[boomerangben]

Close. I'm saying "We're not very good at spotting other traffic so we'd better have a plan that's a bit more constructive than 'must try harder next time'".


So what do you suggest? Compulsory IFR seperations (by banning VFR)? Compulsory RAS?

Sorry, but we are going to have to agress to disagree on this one. My view is that if humans can only spot a aircraft 50% of the time, then the more time spent looking out, the more chance we have of seeing other traffic.

When flying VFR in an SEP, there is no reason to spend more than 10% of your time looking inside.

[robin]

My point wasn't a criticism of anyone, esp ATC.

My usage of ATCOs is mostly under a FIS - that means that they pass me information if they have it. Note that they do not have it all. Neither do I.

On an airfield I would assume that I will follow commands as they are likely to have a better view than me.

There have been situations in the air where ATCOs have given instructions to me which I am unable to comply with. I am driving the thing, and if I screw up the CAA will hit me, not them.

There are situations, such as when someone on the ground shouts 'Stop', or when an ATCO says 'go around', you will follow the instruction - you are daft if you don't.

However, if they say 'nothing known to conflict......' that doesn't mean there is nothing about.

My point is purely that accidents and misunderstandings will happen regardless of ATC or technology. We've just got to try to minimise the possibilities.

[englishal]

how about compulsory flourescent paint schemes
Now that is a good, sensible, cost effective idea. If I ever get a plane, it'll be flourescent red, and not white. Other aircraft are sometimes damn hard to see (been within quater of a mile of another, almost head on and didn't spot it until the controller was screaming traffic alerts. Two pilots onboard, both sets of eyes firmly out of the window).

You don't hear of many mid airs involving Banner towers after all....

EA

[IO540]

boomerangben

I very much doubt that anyone spends more than 10% of their time "playing with the GPS" (or whatever people who navigate using "non approved" methods get accused of).

I don't think there is an answer which can be presently and immediately implemented. What could have been done, say 10 years ago, was to have made Mode C mandatory. Transponder technology is mostly 1970s/1980s and low power transponders suitable for gliders and such would have been developed way back then. There would have been huge fuss of course, appropriate to any occassion when a GA pilot is asked to spend more than £10 :O but the fuss would have died out by now.

And then, somebody who wants reliable traffic warnings could buy a traffic warning system. The prices of those would in turn have come down a bit, perhaps down to £5k.

The remaining pilots would have to look out of the window, or just keep their fingers crossed; either is probably equally effective.

[TonyR]

I am not having a go at the microlight pilots, and I too felt very sad when I heard about this.

I had my first flying lesson on the 11 july 1974, 30 years this Sunday and in several thousand hours I have had 3 airprox incidents, 2 in Northern Ireland and 1 at POL VOR in all three cases I was receiving a flight information service and the other aircraft were talking to some other ATC, Aldergrove radar did not see the first 2 and Leeds did not see the 3rd (about 2 years ago).

We all need to look out the window as much as possible, with practice you will spot more aircraft.

Tony

[yintsinmerite]

As whirlybird said x posts back, flying will never be 100% safe and to be honest, that may well be one of its attractions. It gives a chance to pit yourself against nature and yourself in the same way as riding/driving a motorbike/car at 120mph does (on private roads only of course :O).

Having said that, there are a few things that people can do to make themselves safer : Things like not flying at the regular 2000 feet as used by so many ppl's is one, switching landing lights on when for some reason visibility starts to deteriorate being another because you may not see the other plane, but anything that you can do to help him see you will help. This still relies on pilots keeping a good lookout and I dont always think that they all do. Equally, too many have a poor radio manner, ignore danger areas and when given a height to fly by ATC, seem unable to stick to it.

Can't wait for my next flight :}

[chopperpilot47]

I own a helicopter school in the USA. I also fly a helicopter over here sometimes. We try to fly 500 - 1000' agl all the time to stay away from light aircraft. The visability in our Bell 47's is good so we invariably spot aircraft before they spot us. Many, many, times we take avoiding action when clearly the aircraft did not see us. We have HISL's and leave the nav and landing light on all the time, pointing forwards. What worries me is being hit from behind. We are cruising at 75-85kts so are usually slower than other aircraft. I try not to think about it all the time but it does cross my mind now and again.

I don't know what else we can do to minimise the chances of a collision particulary from behind.

I'm not knocking airplane pilots; I fly them too. Before anyone mentions the 500' rule, there is no such thing for helicopters in the USA so we can fly as low as we like.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[R1200GS]

It maybe a daft question, but why can't strobe lights be made bright enough to see during the strongest daylight conditions?

And isn't the most conspicuous colour for an aircraft supposed to be black?

Dave.

[phnuff]

And isn't the most conspicuous colour for an aircraft supposed to be black?

Tell that to the SR-21 Blackbird

[map5623]

I try where possible to fly just below 2000ft on the basis that aircraft at the same height and above will be above the horizon and may be seen against a light background. Not many pilots seem to like flying that low either.
Or above 3500 as less aircraft seem to be below this height.
2 pairs of eyes, especially another pilot does also seems to help.

Mike

[VP959]

Dave wrote: "It maybe a daft question, but why can't strobe lights be made bright enough to see during the strongest daylight conditions?

And isn't the most conspicuous colour for an aircraft supposed to be black?"

Strobe lights can be made very powerful indeed, but then that may cause problems from them being too bright under certain conditions. Also, they require a fair bit of electrical power, which is something that the average microlight (or quite a few light aircraft) doesn't have in abundance.

As for paint schemes, I was involved in the air ranges high conspicuity colour scheme trials about twenty odd years ago. Prior to that we had always painted things we wanted to see clearly flourescent orange or yellow. We discovered that high contrast was the key, and a mix of black and white was far and a away the best scheme for flight over all terrains, including the sea. The RAF did a similar trial for the training fleet, with the result that they changed their aircraft over to black, as this shows up best when looking against the sky (range requirements meant that often we wanted to see things against the ground or sea as well). I can vouch for the fact that all black isn't very good if you're looking down at them beneath you flying up the glens though!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Wasn't Teneriffe a bang that happened under ATC control??

Maybe you mean not 747 / 747 ground collision, but the much earlier Dan Air 727 given a confusing and non-standard hold entry (IIRC) and flew into a mountain in cloud? Such things are exremely rare - unheard of in UK AFAIK.

It's irrelevant anyway. Radar vectoring with seperation of all GA is impractical unless we all become IR pilots with suitably equipped aeroplanes.

Technology won't make mid-airs impossible - until perhaps when the day dawns that we all fly 'hands off' behind autopilots that communicate with each other. No attraction in that for me, or many other aviators methinks.

But as Whirley says, the most important thing is that, although this is an awful tragedy - keep it in proportion. Aeroplanes are NOT regularly falling out of the sky due mid airs. Thankfully, it's a very rare occurence.

And, most important of all - keep those eyes and necks swivelling. The radar-protected airline pilot can afford to be 'eyes in'. We can't.

SSD

[D 129]

Just a few minor observations on this very sad occasion ...

1/ Quadrantial flying in VFR/VMC if at all possible. (UK). (Won't stop speed difference / overtaking accidents though). Take a friend - doubles the lookout.

2/ Flying "Just Off" the levels "everyone else" will be using - +/-100 ft - If people can fly this accurately (!)

3/ The gliding and microlight folks - and plenty of the GA community too - can't come up with "only" £ 5 K for new transponder kit. You can buy an aeroplane (or a large part of one) for that !.

4/ To (glass) glider pilots - take a roll of aluminium foil up with you - it will really increase your radar return !. (I was told this by my old PPL instructor - Possibly an old wive's tale - any ATCOs know ?).

5/ Why can't we expect good LARS coverage ?. Where does all that duty on the AVGAS go ?.

D129

[Irish Steve]

Very Very sad.

Trouble is, even with all the relevant radar services in place, close encounters of the wrong kind can still happen.

I still have very vivid memories of looking at a Dan Air BAC1-11 over Midhurst VOR whilst doing IMC training, over 15 years ago, and it was close enough to be able to see rivet lines down the side!

We were flying beacon hold exercises, just under the TMA at 2400 Ft, with a full radar service from Dunsfold, and suddenly got a call "late call - be aware of opposite direction traffic". We looked, and there it was, fortunately turning away from us, but it was way too close for comfort.

The instructor had a chat by land line with the Dunsfold controller when we returned to Shoreham, and to his credit, the controller filed it as an incident, and it eventually transpired that the problem was the controller at Gatwick. The 1-11 was positioning back to LGW from Lasham, and being worked by Gatwick. Trouble was, the Gatwick controller had suppressed all non Gatwick transponder returns, so he didn't even see us on his screen, so allowed the 1-11 to operate on the base of the TMA visually!

Hopefully, all concerned learnt from that experience, and it's not happened again, as it was a serious pucker moment for us!

I've also had a couple of other close encounters in the SE of England, and yes, some of it is the way that things are so cramped, and some of it is people that won't work within the system, like the Belgian Cherokee that went through the Lydd ILS pattern at 1500 Ft without talking to Lydd, so we missed him by about 300 Ft as he popped out of a cloud in front of us, and then went back into another one. We had been warned that he was sort of in the area, but not communicating with Lydd, the cross channel controller had called Lydd when he saw where he was going, and the height he was at.

At least that pilot did get his ear bent when he landed shortly after in one of the closer to London airfields.

I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this, VFR means Visual, and to really keep an eye on what's out there is sometimes much more easily said than done.

A sad day all round.

[Teddy Robinson]

I won't add to the list of near misses.

Isn't it about time an "entry level" TCAS was introduced ... and yes .. sorry to say it .. made an airworthiness requirement in certain areas ?.

GPS is now available over the counter for less than a laptop computer, surely something very very simple ie switch on switch off + a small display can be manufactured ?

My heart goes out to those who lost their loved ones.

[TonyR]

Be careful what you wish for.

I think we just have to keep looking outside.

[boomerangben]

Yes TCAS would be wonderful, complete with compulsory Mode C, S, X,Y & Z. Unfortunately all these black boxes have at least 3 modes: On, Off and F:ooh: ed. What is more, pilots have several modes inlcuding Select that annoying squawking TCAS to Off, Can't operate that TCAS, select off, or even worse (while flying) I wonder how this box works - lets have a look.....

Mk1 eye ball aimed outside. And I hope I never have to share airspace with those that can't see the point of keeping an active lookout.

[Whirlybird]

This looking outside is all very well, and I entirely agree with it, but....

Fixed wing aircraft have wings in the way, either above or below them.

Microlights have a great big wing in the way, above them, and nobody can see them anyway.

Helicopters can't be easily seen anyway, and can't see behind them.

Gliders are white and hard to see, and even harder to avoid since they don't fly in straight and predictable lines.

We all have to navigate and change radio frequencies and so on, and 10% of the time with head inside is enough for an accident...if it's the wrong 10%.

Maybe what we really need is a reliable LARS, or even just FIS, in the crowded airspace around London. Something we can all use, or even that's compulsory. Maybe even just a dedicated frequency, with blind calls being compulsory. Not the situation as it is now where everyone talks to a different person, or simply doesn't bother to talk at all. It wouldn't be that expensive, and it might save lives. Lookout is far easier if you know what you're looking for and when you need to look.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Something we can all use, or even that's compulsory.

Oh no, Whirly. Leave us a little freedom and pleasure in life. As you have said, we all take risks when we fly. Trying to eliminate them completely will make life not worth living. The authorities are already trying to strangle us with this Mode S rubbish. let's not strangle ourselves.

QDM

[Monocock]

Whirly...

Maybe even just a dedicated frequency, with blind calls being compulsory. Not the situation as it is now where everyone talks to a different person, or simply doesn't bother to talk at all. It wouldn't be that expensive, and it might save lives.

I'll second that one.

M

[Banjo]

No system will ever be perfect so don't knock yourself out looking for it.

Feel sorry for the relatives and remember there but for the grace of god etc. then go home and give your kids a big hug.

and when all is said and done, sh*t happens.

[Whirlybird]

QDM x 3,

Normally I would agree with you. I don't want any more rules in aviation either. When this thread started I hadn't realised where the mid-air had been. When I found out, I remembered just how crowded that bit of airspace is, between London and Luton and Stansted, with most traffic following the M25, and traffic coming in and out of Elstree, Stapleford, and North Weald. I don't have a chart with me; this may not be quite right, but anyway, it's crowded round there! So all I'm suggesting really is that we have blind compulsory radio calls in that area, not anywhere else...unless there's anywhere else that really needs it. Maybe, on reflection, also in the Manchester Low Level route.

I'm trying to find a sensible balance between freedom and safety, before there are too many accidents and they take away our freedom completely.

Finally, for all those who believe in see and avoid...

Back in 2002, we were doing the Dawn to Dusk competition. It was a beautiful sunny evening, with infinite visibility. We were approaching Cambridge, to orbit and take photos. Most small airfields were closed, so we started to make blind calls, mainly so that we could say, hand on heart, that we had, and get some brownie points for good airmanship. We hadn't seen any aircraft, or heard anyone on the radio, for a while. But within a few minutes, other aircraft followed suit, making blind position calls. When we were overhead Cambridge, so was someone else, one was approaching, and there were a couple of others close by. We didn't see any of them!!!!!!!!!! So much for see and avoid.

[AlanM]

London LARS?

Given the amount of traffic in the area I was talking last year about a London LARS unit.

As an ex Farnborough, current Thames, and now training on Luton ATCO it is amazing how busy it looks on radar under the TMA on busy afternoons in the summer.

As for staffing a London LARS.... where and by whom? (Let's not even appraoch the subject of funding!)

[bar shaker]

I have flown through this area many times, its pretty local to me, and have referred to it amongst friends as the Triangle of Death. Its rare to fly through and not have something come close. Its normally a big heli or twin, heading into or out of London. I suspect that most of them are air taxies into/out of City or the Thames heli port.

They are never looking, at least not the ones I've been close to. You can often see them doing other things as they pass by. Its dangerous airspace and you need you wits about you. God help the day when Bookworm flies through there.

Thinking about this tragedy and with my own experiences in mind, I am still surprised that a school teach there. I don't know where the microlight schools of Plaistows and Hunsdon train, but I do hope its away from the ToD. I know that Stapleford train over Hanningfield, well away from it.

Anyone flying up or down the east of the country is going to be going through here. Stansted transits are notorious, but I say that without having yet requested one myself and my comment is based on the reports of others.

Either way, I suspect that this bit of airspace is probably the busiest bit of class G in the UK and it cries out for an ATC service.

North Weald is ideally placed to offer this and CAA funding should be made available for it. Two lives lost is two too many. North Weald could do with a new Raison d'Etre (not that it needs it, in my book) to help its fight and a decent service through this area would make it a lot safer.

The area is dangerous enough for the CAA to post advice on transiting it, so why not actually do something serious about making it safer.

I know that this doesn't relate to the two people who lost their lives and will be small comfort to their wives and children, but we really are bound by airspace that crams us all together so that commercial aircraft have a good safety zone.

The en-route fees from all of this traffic should pay for some safety for us too.

[Whirlybird]

Alan,

That's why I'm suggesting merely a dedicated frequency and blind calls, because it doesn't take staff and money. All it takes is someone to make the decision.

Is there anyone reading this who could do it?

QDM3, non-compulsory blind calls, OK? Just the option, for those of us who'd like to tell the world where we are, and hopefully hear who else is around, in a crowded area. It works for helicopters in LA - and there are really a lot of them. Why not for GA around London?

[bookworm]

And I hope I never have to share airspace with those that can't see the point of keeping an active lookout.

God help the day when Bookworm flies through there.

Why bar shaker and boomerangben, you've given me a wonderful idea for managing risk by decreasing traffic density around my flights:

ATTENTION ALL PILOTS: AT 1200Z on SAT 10 JULY, BOOKWORM WILL FLY THE FOLLOWING ROUTE WITHOUT LOOKING OUT ONCE... :)

Anyone flying up or down the east of the country is going to be going through here. Stansted transits are notorious, but I say that without having yet requested one myself and my comment is based on the reports of others.

So let me get this straight... You've flown through the triangle of death many times, and not once have you even requested a routing that would allow you to avoid the area of high traffic density. Instead you fly through it, in the belief that you will see anything that represents a potential conflict in time to avoid it.

We're not very good at spotting other traffic so we'd better have a plan that's a bit more constructive than 'must try harder next time'.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I favour the mandatory introduction of ModeS and TCAS on all aircraft including Gliders, Micros and Balloons.

Its a mature system, idiot proof and it works very well in practice. The box of electronics now need be no more than a packet of fags in size and the display could be one taken out of a high street PDA or multimedia mobile phone for about £60.

The key is certification. Its the authorities that cause these advances to be so expensive. Yet the cost of accidents is very high by any measure. The CAA should fund a low cost, quick and smart certification of a GA wide TCAS system.

Anything without it would still be allowed to fly but only in an ATZ or under a RIS. Very few aircraft would be without it.

Hundreds and thousands of times a day airliners at 9,000ft are being spuriously vectored around and held high/low because of someone chugging around with their ModeA in a C152. I regularly get "avoiding action - turn right, right heading 180, unknown traffic no height information 3 miles in your 1 o' clock"...

Suddenly 50odd tons of airliner is cranking round a steep (for us) turn with people falling over in the cabin and two pilots scrunching their faces up expecting a loud bang. Although we actually know full well its someone bimbling along at 1,500ft along Weston Super Mare front having a nice day out.

Cheers

WWW

[boomerangben]

Whirly,

It would be nice if we could have a frequency for blind calls. But there are pilots out there (and I have in mind some well trained (ex mil) pilots) who simply hate using the radio and would not use it. What is more, the standard of some pilot's navigation and RT would mean that it would be useless anyway.

Perhaps we should all remember the rules of following line features, after all we are talking about the M25 corridor.

[TonyR]

Would some of you get real.

Mode A, C, or S will not totally prevent mid airs.

Suddenly 50odd tons of airliner is cranking round a steep (for us) turn with people falling over in the cabin and two pilots scrunching their faces up expecting a loud bang.
Come on WWW, how often does this really happen.

VFR means look out the window.

Last night I had a close encounter with a large sea bird we both took avoiding action because we both were looking, so is it mode S for seaguls etc.

Tony

[Teddy Robinson]

This is a tough one to call.

I used to teach at EGTI when it and EGTH were still open,
and am suprised that there have not been more incidents in this airspace.

With the amount of transit traffic routing around Luton, Stansted and Heathrow CTR's, all capped by the TMA at 2400 feet the only survival strategy I could offer my students was to keep a very good lookout for the majority of people who were obviously not doing so AND get Radar Information Service from the appropriate agency.

The latter was fine in theory, but the frequencies involved were overloaded more often than not because RIS for GA traffic was not their primary role.

There is in my view a case for a dedicated GA RIS in the areas capped by the TMA but this would mean a significant investment by the air traffic service and I cannot see it happening.

These accidents are devastating to the families involved, and there has to be a set of solutions that can, if not eliminate, at least mitigate the risk, if that solution is fag packet sized and AFFORDABLE so be it.

[2Donkeys]

These accidents

Obviously, people's minds are quite appropriately focussed on this most recent tragedy, and any loss of life is a bad thing.

However, taking the longer view, is there really a disproportionate number of mid-air collisions under the LTMA? Midairs are thankfully surprisingly rare in any event, and I don't recall a cluster of them in that neck of the woods.

By contrast, there is a relatively larger number in ATZs between aircraft joining, leaving and participating in the circuit pattern; just the time when people should be most aware of the position of other aircraft.

2D

[burn the mullal]

Hello all.

This is just a note to ask anyone who may have seen or heard anything with regards to this incident to please call the number below as the two men killed in the microlight were serving Hertfordshire Police officers both of long service to the force, so it was not only a sad day for aviation but a very dark day for the Hertfordshire force aswell.... again our thoughts are with the famillies who they have left behind and to the close colleauges of the men.

If you saw anything or even if you think you did or could help with any enquires with regard to this incident pls call.......

01707 354236.

Thanks.

[robin]

I agree it's very sad, but does it matter that they were police officers? Surely all aviation deaths affect all concerned whether they are civilian or otherwise

Hope we can find out why and how, and learn from the lessons

[bookworm]

Is it normal for the Hertfordshire Police to investigate aviation accidents, even if off-duty police officers were involved? Should this not be left to the AAIB?

I don't doubt that this is a very troubling incident for the force, and you have my sympathy, as well, I imagine, as everyone else's on the list. But surely that's all the more reason to leave the investigation to those with experience of air accident investigation, isn't it?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

TonyR - it happens to me at LEAST once a month. Three times in a week very recently.

It can be very unnerving when at say 7,000ft under a FIS at 250kts weighing 52tons to receive this franticly imparted information. When given the phrase 'avoiding action' then thats what you get from me.

I am not lying or exageratiing. I get this regularly as do thousands of other pilots. A suddenly appearing ModeA transpoder is presumed to occupy all levels from one to ten thousand feet and it scares us regularly. Scare us. Note that.

The closure rates and likelihood of seeing and avoiding at 250kts+ offer no comfort whatsoever.

ModeS now.

WWW

[ozplane]

WWW, last night's sheep must really have got to you mustn't it? If you fly as well as you spell I'm glad I'm not down the back. You can put as many boxes as you like in GA, micros , helis and balloons but if the driver doesn't switch them on then it won't do anybody any good. Mark One eyeball is the answer but if you insist on Mode S transponders, perhaps you'll be kind enough to post your address then we can all send you the £3000 bill for fitting them.

[IO540]

ozplane

Mk1 eyeball is only marginally better at spotting genuinely collission-course traffic at 100kt than it is at 250kt.

Like it or not, TAS/TCAS or whatever one calls it IS the only sure solution. And yes it does require mandatory Mode C. I bet that if Mode C was made mandatory say 10 years ago the fuss would have died out by now, there would be loads of used Mode C units to choose from for those who have less to spend, and there would be a lot less pressure on GA to go for Mode S, which currently goes for £3k+VAT from either Garmin or Honeywell.

And yes it does require people to leave their transponder switched ON, but I think any pilot with enough braincells to pass the PPL exams does know how to switch on a transponder. So those that routinely don't switch it on must be doing it for a reason. It could be training, or the desire to avoid persecution in case of horizontal or vertical airspace busts. The latter reason takes us back to training of course; novice PPL holders should not be expected to be able to navigate accurately in today's airspace using the WW1 methods taught in the PPL. In the end, training has to be the answer because nobody can stop the pilot pulling the transponder circuit breaker and, should it be subsequently investigated, claiming he didn't touch it.

The only counter argument is the statistical reality that mid-airs are very rare. But evidently this won't stop the powers to be from looking for a rather more rigorous solution, which is what's happening.

Now, if the CAA was at all smart, they would have got somebody to develop a low cost transponder, approved it immediately and marketed it. Up Yours to Garmin and the other avionics rip-off merchants; the manufacturing cost of an XP is about 300 quid.

The FAA was smart; they spent some money (vastly more money than the CAA would spend doing the above) on providing traffic info to those pilots who bought a Mode S transponder. You just need a multifunction display. That is a huge incentive because an active traffic detection system currently costs £20k+

[englishal]

After flying through the LA special flight rules area numerous times without talking to ATC, it works well being able to make blind calls, and hear other peoples calls. The only stipulation there is that you sqwark 1201 which lets ATC know your intentions, and that you're not simply lost and bimbling into LA Class B willy nilly.

It'd work well in this country as well, there would be no cost to ATC, they could see on their radar screens that the target is sqwarking 7001 and they know that they'll be at a certain altitude even if they only have Mode A.

Until a GA friendly TCAS unit arrives for a reasonable price, and becomes mandatory, it'd be one cheap, useful way to avoid collisions in certain busy parts of G airspace. You never know, they could even open up more VFR corridors through airspace using this system.......

EA

[PPPPP]

I agree fully about the need for Mode C to be used wherever possible, however in the two years I've been flying I've lost count of the number of club aircraft that bear the sticker "No altitude information" on the TXP. This is a large part of the problem as I suspect many club aircraft may be in a similar state...

[robin]

For those of you you are flying machines able to use TCAS and all the other gadgetaty.

Where do you think PFA types and gliders are going to get the power required for radio, nav aids etc and then to add Mode S and TCAS?

If you have ever been in gliders cross-country you are always looking out, mainly to see if the next thermal has a glider that is doing better than you.

Please please don't assume that technology will keep you safe. We are pilots working in a risky environment. You may have all the gadgets in the world, but the one who hits you may not.

I'd like to know is there an arc of coverage for TCAS, or does it take in above and below or from the 4 o clock/8 o clock positions?

[bookworm]

Where do you think PFA types and gliders are going to get the power required for radio, nav aids etc and then to add Mode S and TCAS?

Where do you think a bicycle is going to get the power for lights at night? The answer is not difficult -- either batteries, or a dynamo.

Dynamo? Dumb? Well shall we do the math? Say we've got a 500 kg glider with a 1:40 glide ratio chugging along at 20 m/s. That's a drag of 125 N, which means that you're burning 2500 W just to stay in the air. Is 25 W from a ram air turbine for a transponder really too much to ask to keep us all a bit safer?

It is? I know some cyclists who feel the same way... :)

[map5623]

On a slightly different note, I would like to know why for instance the Heathrow zone is as big as it is and the ceiling around it is 2500 feet. Sitting here now, I see traffic departing Heathrow turning over Burnham and all upwards of 5000ft and climbing. I would suggest to the powers that be, have a look at the reasons for having these limits, after all the aircraft now using our major airport are able to climb to altidude much quicker than before. Come on CAA what about a bit of lateral thinking and do us all a favour.

Mike

[VP959]

Bookworm,

Go check the peak power requirements of a transponder, then come back here and remind us just how much peak current they need, eh?

Just to save you checking, most transmit around 200W peak. Tx efficiency is low, around 30 or 40% at best, so peak power into the transponder is around 500W or so. Mean power is certainly much lower, but to supply the peaks needed you will need a pretty hefty battery. Gliders, microlights etc would find it difficult to fit a battery, in fact some microlights would probably go over the legal empty weight limit if so fitted, and end up grounded.

Finally, I don't really want a couple of hundred watts of microwave energy emanating from a small antenna a few inches under my bum, with no effective RF screening from a non-metallic structure.

[AlanM]

Map5623

Yes - a majority of traffic DOES make 5000 feet+ (I have seen a BA319 make FL90 during at BUR when the wind was 270-35kts!)

However, NOT all traffic does. The minimum climbout gradient is 243ft/nm for LHR SID's. Pilots MUST advise if they are unable to make it. ANZ1 and a few others (esp the older A340's) just make it - but anyone who flies around OCK on a hot summers day will see loads of slow climbing heavies going over the top at 3000ft ish struggling to stay in controlled airspace. (and loads of PPL's showing 2600 on the Mode C not talking). Not sure I would want a TCAS climb when the stick is alrady back against my chest.

As for the zone size - Yes it may appear big. but then look at the inbound approach profile. Also - we get aircraft clipping it by one mile CONSTANTLY. This would be even more sporty if the zone was brought in more.

It is there to protect the IFR traffic. Simple.

[slim_slag]

www,

not sure why you would demand Mode S, mandatory Mode C for GA traffic flying below "positively controlled" airspace would work very well for your requirements in a busy TMA. Thats how they do it in other countries with lots more traffic than the UK sees. See FARs for mandatory Mode C use and you will get an idea.

Forgive me for asking stupid questions, but why are you moving a jet around when you get a mode A target? Plenty of very authoritative posters suggest you should only do so when you get an RA. I thought TCAS RA only tell you to climb or descend, how can you do that when you don't know the altitude of the intruder? I thought TCAS is poor at determining bearing, why would you turn, surely you might hit the target? What about other traffic around, don't you think you should be concerned about separation?

[bookworm]

Go check the peak power requirements of a transponder, then come back here and remind us just how much peak current they need, eh?

Just to save you checking, most transmit around 200W peak. Tx efficiency is low, around 30 or 40% at best, so peak power into the transponder is around 500W or so. Mean power is certainly much lower, but to supply the peaks needed you will need a pretty hefty battery. Gliders, microlights etc would find it difficult to fit a battery, in fact some microlights would probably go over the legal empty weight limit if so fitted, and end up grounded.

Do you not think that the fact that most transponders are fitted with 4 or 5 amp circuit breakers means that Mr Honeywell has worked out how to smooth out these peaks within the transponder unit itself?

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

slim_shag and WWW

Forgive me for butting in here, I am sure that WWW can answer for himself, but I have got some spare time!

It is important to distinguish between a TCAS RA, which as slim_shag correctly states should be responded to in a vertical plane and avoiding action given by ATC against a mode A target.

Under a RAS (WWW obviously operates to airfields which involve flying outside CAS and most companies require crews to get the best service they can from ATC), ATC are trying to provide 5nm from mode A returns and 3000'/5nms from unvarified mode C returns. (ref MATS 1 1.4.1 e). If separation falls to less than this, then avoiding action results. Now, if everyone used mode C, the 3000' part of this separation could be used and it may become easier for standard separation to be maintained under a RAS.

As it happens, "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC" is called by the TCAS against mode A only traffic regularly. It is worrying enough at FL80 at LAM, it must be scary as hell in IMC in class G airspace. If the offending traffic had mode C, the warning may not occur and besides WWW would have more information available to enhance his situational awareness.

Just some thoughts. I haven't decided how I feel about mandatory mode C, but then I fly mainly inside CAS these days.

G W-H

[map5623]

AlanM, I accept what you say, the point I am trying to make is that the zone is one size fits all approach. For example how about modifying the SID so traffic that cannot make the height gain must climb straight out intill at the required height. I think some of the problem is that airlines/business/money think they own the sky and everything should be done to make life easy for them. Whilst I agree we need safety, I cannot see why the Heatrow zone could be made a bit narrower. Improving the lot of traffic stuck between Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead.

Mike

[VP959]

Bookworm : "Do you not think that the fact that most transponders are fitted with 4 or 5 amp circuit breakers means that Mr Honeywell has worked out how to smooth out these peaks within the transponder unit itself?"


Have you looked at the response time of a circuit breaker?

A typical GA circuit breaker trips after about 200 to 300mS if you are lucky (some of the older ones are actually slower than this), which is shorter than the transmit pulse length. The net result is that the circuit breakers are rated at the mean current draw, rather than the peak. It is still perfectly possible to draw many times the circuit breaker rating for short pulses, which is pretty much exactly what a transponder does.

You only need to take a look at the current pulse profile on the feed to a transponder to see these high peak current pulses. It's one of the reasons that the darned things can introduce interference into comm systems if not wired into a low impedance source supply, hence the need for the battery.

[Aussie Andy]

Bookworm, VP959: As a former avionics engineer I find your debate of interest.

Power consumption specs for GA transponders are readily available online, e.g. http://www.garmin.com/products/gtx320a/spec.html which indicates Power Requirements: 11.0 to 33.0 VDC
Max Power Input: 12 watts @500 prf(There is also a wirding diagram on page 31 of the install manual here http://www.garmin.com/manuals/168_InstallationManual.pdf but it just shows a connection to "aircraft power" and so does not explicitly confirm or deny the need for a battery.)

However, although they don't say it explicily in this summary spec, I would be surprised if a battery was not required in addition to a dynamo because (I am guessing) the dynamo output might not be steady, depending on flight conditions, airspeed, turns etc. and the transponder unit's design probably assumes a steady rail voltage so it may be that fluctuations, which would be smoothed by a battery if fitted, would cause grief for the transponder. We'd need more info on the dynamo specs to be sure.

Andy

[bar shaker]

Andy

From memory, VP has a bit of "previous" in this field too

[VP959]

Spot on AA. The current draw quoted (around 1 amp from 12V) is the mean current. The battery is needed to cope with the high current pulses without causing the supply voltage to droop below the lower voltage limit when the thing is interrogated (or ident is pressed).

Either way, until low tx power transponders can be proven to work effectively, and become available at a reasonable price , then they really aren't practical for those who fly sub £5k aeroplanes with no electrical system.

QinetiQ Ltd were trialling a low power portable transponder a year or so ago and I heven't heard much about it since. I heard somewhere that one of the problems they encountered was that to work effectively and reliably ground SSRs would need upgrading. Presumably this was to cope with the lower tx power such a device could put out.

I suppose this discussion should really be about whether we want the open FIR to become either controlled airspace, or whether in addition to transponders we want all flying machines to be equipped with TCAS as well. Even this isn't foolproof, as it would rely on 100% illumination of all airspace by a primary radar, in order to trigger all the transponders in the first place.

Someone invented a rather neat strobe detector a while ago. As I recall it was just a cheap and fairly simple box with some photo sensors, plus some clever discriminator circuitry to detect strobe flashes much more effectively than the human eye. I wonder what happened to it?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Giles has explained my situation precisely.


What - out of these two options - do you want?


a) An airliner of some description has a mid air with a GA aircraft. Media outrage. Knee jerk reaction - no GA aircraft allowed to fly without TCAS + a massive overnight extension of Class A + a horrendous jaw dropping increase in GA insurance premiums as you just downed an aircraft insured for £750,000,000 as my works transport usually is.


b) A £9,000 per aircraft phased introduction of a bang up to date technology that means you know precisely about 99% of the traffic 99% of the time and reduces the numbers of PPLs killed every year and totally avoids a)


Vote now, get it right and GA may have a future.

Cheers

WWW

[Aussie Andy]

Hi VP,

Yes I had heard of the Qinetiq project too, but have not heard of any update since last Summer (ref. http://www.rin.org.uk/pooled/articles/BF_NEWSART/view.asp?Q=BF_NEWSART_66107).I suppose this discussion should really be about whether we want the open FIR to become either controlled airspace, or whether in addition to transponders we want all flying machines to be equipped with TCAS as well. Well, I'm all for the Open FIR but I don't see why we couldn't have some low-cost improvement to the BNN - BPK - LAM corridor which is quite a choke-point these days. We should be clear that there is no proven link between the accident which triggered this thread and the issue we are debating now, but still it seems there may be a case for enhancing safety in that area if possible.

Why not optional blind-calls on a special "north London lane" frequency? Maybe there is a case for a "south London lane" also, i.e. BLK - OCK - BIG? Cheap and easy to implement, and the template for this sort of operation exists elsewhere (e.g. LA as described above, and also similar "V1" low-level route along Sydney beaches in Australia).

Meanwhile, I also think there may be a case for mandatory mode-C within 30NM of LON... just like the "mode C veil" they have surrounding Class B airspace (e.g. SFO) in the US. Why not? I think (but this may be ignorance on my part) that it's not as big an issue to fit SSR transponders to microlights as it is to gliders, so I presume microlights could cope with this if they had to (yes?).

And as far as gliding goes, although there is gliding within the 30NM, e.g. Lasham is about 28NM, Dunstable (London Gliding Club) about 24NM and Wycombe about 15NM for example, I think it would be possible to declare segments of airspace where gliding is permitted without transponders, avoiding IFR approaches, which AFAIK wouldn't imply much - if any - change to their current freedoms. Gliders don't transit what I described above as the "north" or "south" London lanes, do they? If not, then would it be OK if they were excluded from the "north" and "south" lanes? That way, the lanes would effectively be mandatory mode C.

Before anyone says it, I know this leaves scope for pilot error, forgetting to switch the transponder on or forgetting to put it into mode C (sorry to say, I managed to do this myself last week... didn't notice until Brize asked me to cycle the transponder :(!), but I think that together with the optional blind calls on a dedicate "lane" frequency these measures a) wouldn't cost much; b) wouldn't curtail anyone's freedoms too much, and c) might just help make these choke points safer. And if it were marked on the charts "north London lane - mandatory mode C, self-announce when entering and leaving on freq XXX" then you would be less likely to forget..!

But I wouldn't be surprised if someone tells me I have some dangerously wrong assumptions in the above... looking forward to hearing what others think. Maybe if there is some concensus we could ask our AOPA what they think and if its worth lobbying for. I for one would put (a little bit!) of energy into this!

Andy :ok:

[bar shaker]

WWW

You are living in a dream world.

Neither of your options is going to happen.

[robin]

Well said Bar Shaker

What is actually needed is for there to be fewer pinch points - not to increase controlled airspace. I'm trying to think of the last time I got anywhere near an airliner in flight - no, still can't.

I was at an airfield once where the ATCO got in a paddy because there were 4 aircraft in the circuit. He said if anyone else asked to join he would go off-duty and declare the airfield unlicenced.

Compare that with the Rally or a Popham event where many more aircraft (generally) fly in safely, using see and avoid.

On my earlier point, does anyone know the arc of coverage of TCAS - is it just forward pointing, and how far up and down does it look? If so how does TCAS protect you from someone who's electrics have failed or where they've forgotten to switch it on?

[bar shaker]

I think a simple review of where the schools in this area do their training could make a major contribution to safety in the corridor.

Look at it this way. Almost all traffic in the North London Corridor is either flying East/West or is going up/down the Lea Valley. At present, the only other traffic is going to be students, doing stalls, 60deg turns, PFLs, climbing and descending... all in the UK's busiest bit of sky and with a low ceiling.

Such a move would also cost nothing as there are open areas a few miles to the east and west and could be implemented this weekend.

Fitting transponders will achieve nothing if there is not also the budget and resources to provide a good RIS in the area. And there isn't.

[bookworm]

I think you're likely to need a battery of some sort for practical reasons, regardless of the power source requirements. But I'm not sure about "hefty" -- battery technology move rapidly.

The strobe thing died because of install costs. I'll try to find out more about the low power lightweight transponder and report back.

Fundamentally, the transponder is the wrong approach. What would be far more effective is an ADS-B system, where each aircraft broadcasts its position periodically. This is already on trial (http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/) in the US. Garmin has developed the UAT datalink avionics -- I don't have the spec but I don't think the power consumption is high.

[IO540]

"it would rely on 100% illumination of all airspace by a primary radar, in order to trigger all the transponders in the first place."

The (presently) £20k+ GA systems are active and don't rely on SSR activity. I had a quote for a passive-only system for about £15k. These all return the azimuth to the target, and are pretty accurate. There is no reason why a passive system could not be sold for far less than £15k; the technology is straightforward and SSR trigger availability isn't a problem.

Also I can't see the difference between one transponder returning 1 watt (at a given distance) and another transponder returning 100 wats (10 times further away). The former one will need to be 10 times nearer for the same visibility but for TCAS purposes that would be just fine.

[robin]

>>I had a quote for a passive-only system for about £15k<<

Bl**dy h*ll - thats £3k more than my plane is worth.........., and £6k more than I got for my last one.

[TonyR]

Can we have a bit of common sense please. How often do mid airs happen?

Ho often does an airliner have to do a steep turn to avoid a light aircraft?

I for one don't want this ***** in my aircraft, CAS was designed to protect IFR traffic and when I fly in CAS I don't mind using Mode C etc.

When I fly from home outside CAS I just want to have FUN, No radio, No transponder, just look out the bloody window and have a bit of FUN

Tony

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Well said, TonyR.

1) Keep a sense of proportion.

2) Don't look to technology to take the place of basic airmanship.

3) Be careful what you wish for (value our current - but reducing - flying freedoms).

And (4), a note to the airline industry:

Don't expect 'fly for fun' VFR bimblers outside controlled airspace to carry thousands of pounds worth of electronics (which might call for power the aeroplane hasn't got, and which will require expensive maintaining and fixing from time to time) to make your life easier, but which are of no benefit to said bimblers.

SSD

[IO540]

That reason I would never spend that sort of money on traffic detection is because much or most traffic in Class G is non transponding, so it's a near-complete waste of money.

Nobody should moan about somebody spending the money though; it's a free world. Lots of GA planes are worth £200k+ - so what?

What people do moan about is having a mandatory transponder, and that should not be the big deal that it is made out to be.

[Aussie Andy]

Hi guys,

It strikes me that the people least concerned about congestion in the north/south London corridors variously appear to live in Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Cheshire. Perhaps if you flew through these lanes more often you'd be more interested in the self-announce blind-calls idea? (I appreciate that the Manchester/Liverpool LLR is a similar situation, but if SSD is happy with it as it is then perhaps that is because the traffic densities "oop north" are lighter than "darn sarf"?) I also note that another opponent of these ideas has only been flying 1 year according to his profile: maybe your views will change over time...

The benefit of transponders and e.g. the 30NM mode C veil in the US is different: its to help out the chaps in the controlled airspace and the radar controllers. But if it doesn't cause too much grief for the thriving recreational GA community in the US, why should it be too tough for us here?

ADS-B is a great idea, but its not going to solve the problem of the congested lanes... but as implemented in the Alaskan Capstone programme it requires a data-link radio and GPS to be fitted to aircraft as well as other expensive displays etc (ref. http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/pp/phI_files/slide0223.htm)so you might be barking up the wrong tree there if your goal is to avoid the cost of a transponder!?

Other than the special case of gliders, and maybe ultralights(?), I don't see that carriage of a mode-C transponder is onerous: the vast majority of rental a/c have a transponder fitted as standard in my experience.

Seems I'm a bit of a lone voice on the idea of a "lane" frequency... hey ho!


Andy :ok:

[TonyR]

AA,

I fly to the London area usually and on to France every week and I have a mode C, but when I fly VFR I like to look out.

I am not against anything that will help us stay safe, I just don't think we should be forced to spend thousands on equipment that will make very little if any difference to airprox or mid airs.

And before you start counting again I've been going 30 years and have 3 airprox incidents, the last one was an aircraft out of Blackpool and I was out of Leeds.

We both arrived at POL VOR at the same time and the same alt, by the time the Leeds ATC saw him pop up on RAD we had both turned right and passed by about 50 feet, both in light twins at a closing speed of well over 300 knots, but were both VFR and looking out.

Perhaps this has made me more than a little concerned about the value of FIS or RIS when flying around hills etc, and the often minimum information shared between ATC units.

Tony

[robin]

>>>Nobody should moan about somebody spending the money though; it's a free world. Lots of GA planes are worth £200k+ - so what?<<<

Er....... I have no objection to people spending the money in the way they wish. I just have a slight problem (called a bank manager).

I think this debate may start to go down a route which could get nasty.

Just what is GA?? Does this include the 1000s of gliders, PFA types and 'recreational' pilots, cos I know no-one with shares in planes worth 1/4 of that amount. We are just as much safe pilots as those flying the bigger jobs - possibly even safer, as we don't have autopilots.......

I often fly in the Welham Green area also in the corridor near Booker and would object to another implied suggestion that lightly equipped aircraft should not be permitted to access that airspace.

This accident may prove to be one that is just that - a tragic accident. Look at the videos at a CAA Safety evening. Mistakes do happen and in the air they may well lead to fatalities. But that is part of life and is a non-escapable hazard of flying.

So long as we do our best in the air using best available technology not incurring excessive cost (as the Environment Agency say), that's all we can do

[QDMQDMQDM]

A £9,000 per aircraft phased introduction of a bang up to date technology that means you know precisely about 99% of the traffic 99% of the time and reduces the numbers of PPLs killed every year and totally avoids a)

What utter rubbish. You are dreaming.

And if Mode A is such a problem for the TCAS, why not just ban Mode A?

QDM

[andrewc]

If you fly under the Schipol TMA (<1500') the controllers
ask you to switch off mode-A transponders and mode-C
transponders which aren't giving an accurate altitude
read-out to them.

This applied under the London TMA might well alleviate a
lot of the problem heavy traffic has with GA under their
controlled space. That said a reasonable quid-pro-quo
for that restriction would be the provision of some dedicated
LARS for the Luton / Stansted corridor.

I'm not sure about the truth of most traffic being
transponder-less...my experience with Skywatch, an
active-TCAS system, on a Cirrus SR-22 is that it detects far
more aircraft than you would normally see while keeping a
good visual look-out. In fact it makes you realise exactly how
busy the south-east is with aviation traffic.

-- Andrew

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It strikes me that the people least concerned about congestion in the north/south London corridors variously appear to live in Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Cheshire. Perhaps if you flew through these lanes more often you'd be more interested in the self-announce blind-calls idea? (I appreciate that the Manchester/Liverpool LLR is a similar situation, but if SSD is happy with it as it is then perhaps that is because the traffic densities "oop north" are lighter than "darn sarf"?) I also note that another opponent of these ideas has only been flying 1 year according to his profile: maybe your views will change over time...



Thank you AA for pointing out how sleepy airborn life is for us provincials out in the sticks. Have to try that one on Manch App next time I want a VFR clearance. :rolleyes:

Some of us, BTW, have been known to venture south of the Watford gap from time to time, and actually - we don't notice much of differerance. Wonder why that should be?:hmm: And some of us who'se views differ from your own have been flying for a tad more than a year.

Glad you metioned the LLR. Most southern pilots of my aquaintance think it be haunted by dragons, such is their fear of that 5 mile by 1500 foot corridor. Biggest thing I ever met in there was a Lancaster with Hurricane on one wingtip and a Spitfire on then other; got a salutary barrell roll from the Spit as we passed, one vintage British taildragger to another.

Keep it proportion, AA.;)

SSD

[ShyTorque]

"If you fly under the Schipol TMA (<1500') the controllers
ask you to switch off mode-A transponders and mode-C
transponders which aren't giving an accurate altitude
read-out to them. This applied under the London TMA might well alleviate a lot of the problem heavy traffic has with GA under their
controlled space. That said a reasonable quid-pro-quo
for that restriction would be the provision of some dedicated
LARS for the Luton / Stansted corridor".


For goodness sake, NO! Please do NOT switch off your Mode A transponder, least of all in that congested piece of airspace with its chokepoints! A TCAS return without an altitude readout, whilst giving only a general warning of a possible confliction, is better than nothing. Some of us fly aircraft with TCAS outside controlled airspace, it is in all our interests to publicise our presence to other pilots. Even better, if you have mode C please use that all the time. An effective lookout is the only real answer in VMC but TCAS helps enormously, especially in marginal weather.

In the worst case, if the cloudbase is below MSA, the cloud up to 2400 feet under the London TMA (Class G airspace) is quite likely to contain aircraft legally and necessarily operating under IFR and IMC. A TCAS alert without a mode C altitude marker puts the IMC pilot in a real dilemma as he probably cannot climb more than a couple of hundred feet and that may not be the correct action in any event. As already pointed out, TCAS azimuth accuracy is not assured! But at least he/she will go to "much enhanced alertness" (actually, the hairs on the back of the neck stand up very quickly in my case). If the other aircraft isn't fitted with TCAS, and it's unlikely if mode C isn't, at least one pilot is aware and may be able to resolve the conflict with the help of ATC or intuition.

Be aware that an aircraft "scud-running" may be only just clear of another aircraft above in cloud, or no separation may exist at all.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Tragic.

Would it not be better if we discussed the rest of the issues raised elsewhere?

FD

[Aussie Andy]

Hi guys,

TonyR: this has made me more than a little concerned about the value of FIS or RIS ... I'm not arguing with that point... Perhaps there are too many criss-crossing arguments too keep track of (for me!)... What I am in favour of is a self-serve blind-calling frequency in the crowded London lanes: costs nothing and enhances safety. I also happen to be in favour of the mode-C veil system, as used in the US.

andrewc: I have flown under the Schiphol TMA too and been asked by ATC to "squawk standby" (not mode-A) especially when passing under the approach path.. but the big difference there is that you must be in communication with the APP guys (even if just FIS) so they know about you. This avoids generating TCAS alerts when the approaching a/c are only say 500' above you as you scoot over e.g. the PAM VOR.

SSD: I somehow knew I risked winding you up ;) Not intended that way..!

So, anyway, does anyone object to the idea of dedicated A/A freq's for the n/s London lanes? If so I would be interested to understand that argument.

Cheers!

Andy :ok:

[AlanM]

As an ATCO I am in despair at the suggestion of asking an aircraft to turn Mode C off. (OK, if it is outside the 200feet legal tolerance that is different)

What are the legal "duty of care implications" of me telling everything in the BPK-BNN-LAM area to turn off the Mode C - when a TCAS equipped aircraft (as ShyT says there are loads of TCAS equipped Heli's in the area) - not to mention Citation, LearJet and even 737's out there on a regular basis has a midair!

The idea of a freq where blind transmissions are made sounds good. It works well under the Jo'burg TMA..... When I flew there everyone made accurate calls and we responded accordingly - but it wasn't exactly busy. For our area, When should they be on the blind freq? What if there is other IFR traffic in the area?

Who knows what the solution is. (apart from a London LARS FULLY funded by the CAA!!!!!!)

[bookworm]

So, anyway, does anyone object to the idea of dedicated A/A freq's for the n/s London lanes? If so I would be interested to understand that argument.

I think the efficacy would be very limited AA. A relative bearing and distance, as provided by a RIS or by a TCAS-like device, makes it vastly easier to detect other traffic in time to avoid a collision. Knowing the general area the traffic was operating in a couple of minutes ago is not much help. I can't remember an occasion when I've spotted another aircraft on the basis of FIS traffic info alone, and when I have spotted an aircraft that had previously been called to me in that way, it wasn't where I would have expected it to be.

ADS-B is a great idea, but its not going to solve the problem of the congested lanes... but as implemented in the Alaskan Capstone programme it requires a data-link radio and GPS to be fitted to aircraft as well as other expensive displays etc (ref. http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/...s/slide0223.htm)so you might be barking up the wrong tree there if your goal is to avoid the cost of a transponder!?

The Capstone project is a validation of many different aspects of the UAT datalink. ADS-B definitely does require a GPS or similar positioning system in the broadcasting aircraft, but that's a low power-consumption device that can be integrated into the system. A cockpit display is only required if you want the benefit of seeing other aircraft yourself, but the underlying broadcast of your own position does not, in the same way that there are benefits to having a transponder without having TCAS.

It's more that likely that ADS-B will be implemented using Mode S extended squitter in Europe as everything with an electrical system will have to have a Mode S transponder from 2008. But for the lighter stuff, I do believe that UAT provides a valid alternative that would allow a higher proportion of equippage than Mode S.

[bar shaker]

AA

You may have marked me down as a detracter. The blind calls idea has many merits but also has failings. I feel that the benefits should not be ignored and would like to see it used, or certainly trialled.

I'm not sure we can really get this any further, without the outcome of the AAIB report. We are all talking about avoiding each other when straight and level, transiting a known choke point. At least one of these two aircraft was not straight and level and at least one was not transitting the choke point.

This CAA Safety Leaflet (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/299/DAP_ACD_StanLut.pdf) may be helpful to some. Its always surprised me that the narrow VFR routes around the M25/Lea Valley crossing point (the most congested bit in my experience) are bi-directional!!

bs

[Whirlybird]

I actually suggested the blind calls idea. I thought it was a good idea, and so did several people I ran it by at the PFA Rally. So I suggested it to David Cockburn of the CAA at the Rally (BTW, he probably reads this thread; he knows who I am, and always seems to know what I've said!!!). He pointed out that aircraft flying in and out of Elstree, Denham, Panshangar, Stapleford, and North Weald are all talking to the relevant airfields...so would yet another frequency help? He suggested people transiting that area talk to the airfields concerned, and London Information in between times. Now, I didn't say it at the time (didn't think, sorry) but as a single pilot with one radio, changing frequencies that often is head inside cockpit for far too long for my liking. And I agree that expensive electronic gizmos are...well, too expensive. so, back to the drawing board...

What about...
Aircraft going in and out of said airfields, not above 1000 ft. Aircraft transiting that corridor going west, 1500 ft. Aircraft going east, 2000 ft. And something similar for the Manchester low level route, though it would have to be, say, 900 ft, and 1200 ft.

Probably a snag, but haven't thought of it yet. I'm just trying to think of a cheap, simple idea that might work.

[2Donkeys]

Sounds like an elaborate scheme in response to a recent regrettable but vanishingly rare occurence.

Putting lots of aircaft in the same airspace at the same altitude worsens, rather than improves the current position.

2D

[ShyTorque]

The problem with giving altitude bands according to direction is that ATC will sometimes need aircraft at a different altitude. For example, AlanM and his colleagues usually want helicopters joining the London Zone via a Special VFR Clearance at 1500 feet by the boundary of Class A. This applies whichever direction the aircraft is joining from. I'm sure the local residents will soon be up in arms if every aircraft joining the local airfields flies at 1000 feet, there is a noise problem at all of them already.

The other idea of blind calls is a sensible one but the calls may not be heard by all traffic, bearing in mind that the choke points are about 25 miles in length and it takes quite a while for aircraft to transit the area. It would require all pilots to keep repeating the calls to make sure everyone is aware and this may cause saturation of the frequency. As AlanM said, there will still be other aircraft on a Radar service, possibly IMC, on a different frequency but in the same airspace.

Heathrow, Luton, City and Stansted do a very good job between them but I'm sure they don't want all aircraft on their frequency. A dedicated ATC service IS probably the only real answer.

Rather than the present bi-directional routes at the NE corner, what about using the BPK and LAM beacons like road roundabouts? Traffic only being allowed to fly past them clockwise. To give separation on a/c flying through the space between these two beacons, all pilots could fly within a maximum range of 4nm from the BPK when going south through the gap and aircraft going north no more than 5nm from LAM. With the very obvious water feature between the two beacons, that also means the right hand rule would be complied with. Publish that on the CAA charts instead.

Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons, how about making Mode C mandatory for aircraft transitting under the London TMA unless able to obtain at least a Radar Information service? :E

[Kolibear]

How about having a dedicated transponder code which means 'I am VFR traffic keeping clear of controlled airspace' ?

At least that way the airline traffic wouldn't have to take action to avoid traffic several thousand feet below them.

[ShyTorque]

That's a good idea but it already exists. 7000

[Mode C completes the picture but then we're back where we started].

[charlie-india-mike]

Koli

we already have it 7000 , hey man I'm here but looking out the window


C-I -M

beat me too it

[vintage ATCO]

TCAS doesn't decode and therefore differentiate what mode A code an aircraft has selected.

ATC ignore what radar returns (primary or secondary) are operating near or underneath CAS on the basis we assume they will stay outside. Only if positive info is received that someone is lost, or the mode C indicates someone might be inside, or there is a feeling in the water, do we take action.

[bookworm]

How about having a dedicated transponder code which means 'I am VFR traffic keeping clear of controlled airspace' ?

That's a good idea but it already exists. 7000


7000 is the conspicuity code. It does not imply VFR. I think Kolibear's idea is a good one. I'd adapt it slightly and suggest a different code for those flying IFR outside controlled airspace rather than VFR.

The Germans have two different VFR squawks according to whether the aircraft is above or below 5000 ft. I don't know if that was specifically designed to accommodate Mode A only aircraft.

[vintage ATCO]

7000 is the conspicuity code. It does not imply VFR. I think Kolibear's idea is a good one. I'd adapt it slightly and suggest a different code for those flying IFR outside controlled airspace rather than VFR.

For what purpose? :confused:

[AlanM]

As VA says - Why??

It would neither positively identify an aircraft or verify the Mode C.

[Whirlybird]

On reflection, I'm going back to thinking a dedicated frequency and blind calls is the way to go; here's why...

1) A new LARS service, TCAS, Mode S etc - all too expensive; will never happen, and we wouldn't like it and couldn't afford it if it did.
2) present situation - everyone talks to London Info, Luton, Stansted, or the GA airfields...so no-one can actually hear all traffic. And have you ever tried to get hold of London Info on a sunny day when everyone's doing day trips to France..." Standby G-XXXX, you are No3..."
3) Blind calls could be fairly precise in that area; loads of ground features. While not compulsory, it could be strongly recommended. Like most things in aviation designed to keep you alive, really.
4) The objection that aircraft flying out of the GA airfields are talking to the airfields is not a problem. I fly out of Sleap, into crowded Shawbury MATZ. As soon as I leave the ATZ I talk to Shawbury. It works. Suggested typical call: "North London (or whatever we call it) Traffic, G-XXXX, C152, just departed from Elstree, presently at 1000 ft and climbing to 1800 ft....etc".
5) Even knowing where most of the traffic is could be helpful, better than not knowing where anyone is.
6) One frequency, no changing of frequencies, so eyes kept outside cockpit.
7) Cheap and easy to implement, and only requires aircraft to have a radio...a handheld will do.

CAA, if you're reading this, please have a think about it!

Lastly, the usual answer to complaints of the dangers of the Manchester LLR, and probably this North London area too, is that no accidents have occurred there, so it can't be a problem. Now, one has, and everyone says not to over-react...yes, I know I said it too, but I think SOMETHING needs to be done, just...not so much that we lose our freedom. I'm looking for a balance of safety and freedom. I think this would do it.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Current situation:

The SE of Englands airspace is dangerously overcrowded. One day an airliner and a GA aircraft are going to have a collision which TCAS would have prevented.

In the aftermath we will see several things happen.

1) Public outrage. A mature simple technology costing only thousands of pounds was not fitted to the light aircraft.

2) Public demand for an enquiry by some Barrister or other which will be granted.

3) A series of recommendations that no Government will be able to ignore in case it happens again.

4) These will include a massive increase in CAS, mandatory ModeC + TCAS, 'improved' training for PPLs.

5) Don't worry about the cost of 4) as by the week after the mid-air the insurance industry reeling from a potential £750,000,000 claim will have withdrawn insurance on GA aircraft or if fitted with the kit still increased the premiums by 500%

-------

With this sword hanging above your heads don't you think the GA community ought to be doing something more proactive than insinuating they have better Mk1 eyeballs than us Autopilot junkies. Which you don't.

I still fly GA, was an instructor for over a decade and hope to buy a microlight and operate my own strip in the future.

I fly at 60tons 250kts in the open FIR from 10,000ft - 3,000ft most days of the week. 'Dodging' TCAS Mode A returns is a regular occurence. Just because its a world you don't know about doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Cheers

WWW

[bookworm]

[IFR conspicuity code] For what purpose?

If I'm cruising at FL60 in solid IMC, I'm willing to believe that a Mode A squawk of "VFR" does not represent a potential conflict, so there's no reason to take avoiding action. Under the current arrangement, there's no way that I can distinguish that from an IFR flight at my level.

If everyone has Mode C, I agree it's pretty pointless, as I'll believe the encoder's assessment of the altitude over the pilot's assessment of flight conditions any day. ;)

[robin]

www

That is a fairly apocalyptic view. What sort of GA type would that be?

If the airliner were to hit me, it would have the same effect as if it had hit a bird. They might wonder why there was a bit of a thud, but that would be all. Bit different for me though

As I go nowhere near where airliners fly - they won't let me near them on my licence and aircraft type - I don't see I'm that much of a problem to them.

I'm much more worried about being hit by the military who operate on UHS not on our frequencies.

I have no wish to be blown out of the sky by anyone, and my sense of self-preservation means I'm always looking around (electronically as well as Mk1 eyeball)

When I am gliding, esp xcountry, power should give way to me, but I'm coward enough not to stand on my rights - I don't assume the pilot even knows I'm there and 99% of the time I'm right - they are head down in the cockpit as I give him a 'friendly' wave.

[M609]

They might wonder why there was a bit of a thud, but that would be all.

I bet a few airline captains might disagree. When you see what a big bird can do, I won't take my chances sitting in the 737 etc hit by a common spam can, glider, microlight, you name it.

See this case: 727 vs Cessna (http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=09251978&reg=N533PS&airline=Pacific+Southwest+Airlines)

[slim_slag]

robin,

www does have a point, he just needs to think things through a bit more. A large transport jet went down over San Diego after a collision with a C172. As predicted by www, questions were asked, changes were made to airspace and mandatory transponder use in certain places, and GA still flourishes in the US in a way the Brits can only dream of.

I think it's reasonable for TCAS to have situational awareness of any nearby GA aircraft, and GA pilots should help out with this. We all fly in the back of 737s and I don't want the pilots to be performing aerobatics either, if only because they might be uncoordinated and I will spill my Gin and Tonic :)

Mode S is not the answer though.

Is SE England airspace really 'dangerously' overcrowded? Should I be scared to get into a jet out of Heathrow? I know the check in areas are overcrowded and some people look like they might punch me, and it takes an age to get onto stand sometimes, but the air looks remarkably empty compared to places like NY and LA. In both those places all traffic (with waivers for a few) has to have mode C, and ATC have the resources and desire to provide radar services to all.

[Bird Strike]

If the airliner were to hit me, it would have the same effect as if it had hit a bird.

I somehow find that a bit hard to believe. Light aircraft is substantially larger than a bird and quite capable of causing a major damage, which may render the airliner uncontrollable.

[Capt. Manuvar]

With regard to XPDR codes, how about a dedicating the last two/three digits to altitude(regional/fligh level?) e.g flying at 3500' squawk 7035, or an aircraft at 12500' will squawk 7125. I don't know too many people who fly at 50000, 60000 and 70000, so it shouldn't conflict with the emergency squawks. It's not perfect, but it will eliminate the need for a upgrade from Mode A to C. While it might be of no use to TCAS equiped aircraft, i think the scope-jockeys:} will appreciate it.
Robin,
like most private flyers you wrongly assume that airliners don't fly in class G. I suggest you speak to a controller at one of the increasing number of regional airports in the UK, you're in for a shock. For example, thomsponfly as well as a lot of bizjets operate out of Coventry. The ILS 23 approach to coventry starts for DTY at 2500 (yes, 2500) ft flying northward in class g airspace to intercept the localiser at 1700ft. Airliners flying into east midlands are routinely vectored out of CAS. I live near East mids but not under their CTA, and quite often i look up at an airliner and think "he's a bit low isn't he?"
Like you I used to look up at the contrails high up and feel safe, until i saw an airliner fly over my local airfield at no more than 3000ft.

Capt M

[Aussie Andy]

Whirlybird: spot on... I vote for your suggestion re- lane frequencies! :ok:

WWW: as per slim_slag, what you fear did occur in LA areas (OK, San Diego perhaps...) and this led to introduction of the 30NM mode C veils surrounding Class B over there AFAIK.

Capt. Manuvar: there are already insufficient codes so no scope AFAIK to use last two digits as you suggest. Also it would be very prone to human error given that we are already capable of forgetting to put the thing on or in mode C at all :(!

Andy

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I'm sorry but hitting the engine block of a C152 at 300mph is going to have a seriously negative impact on the controllability of an airliner.

Mode S is the answer and mandatory Mode C would be a leap forward. Think about it chaps. The last ten years alone have seen Ryan and Easy alone put an extra 150 Boeings into UK skies. Everything is expanding at breakneck speed and its only going to get worse. What's a bit ropey now will be unacceptable in another 10 years time. And I include the use of airspace by the fast jet community.

The US has universal RIS everywhere. We don't have that and we never will. Given the topsy turvey piled on top of itself complex airspace we have to live with on this congested Island it wouldn't work very well anyway.

See and avoid is rubbish. An invention from the 30's that relies on Big Sky Theory. The hours I've spent trying to spot 757s coming head on at 10 miles and not being able to... Just because YOU don't fly anywhere near any other type of commercial flying doesn't make a good argument for saying therefore nothing should be done nationwide.

I'm all for keeping the cost down. Lets have Mode S for GA and lets get the CAA to subisidise it and levy a special quarter percent tax on every airline ticket for a year. That would cover it all easily.

Cheers

WWW

[Whirlybird]

WWW,
I'm all for keeping the cost down. Lets have Mode S for GA and lets get the CAA to subisidise it and levy a special quarter percent tax on every airline ticket for a year. That would cover it all easily.

Hello!!!!! Reality check please!!! :confused: Do you honestly think this is ever going to happen? From what I know of the CAA, the airlines, competition, the travelling public, attitudes to GA, plus life generally, it ain't - not never no how. Nice idea, but...let's be realistic here.

[Kolibear]

It occurs to me that we have to seperates issues here - GA vs GA and GA vs Airlines.

As WWW says, airliners are being forced to divert to avoid a non-existent threat from GA aircraft thousands of feet below them . Fitting TCAS in this case will be of no benefit to the GA aircraft but of real benefit to the airlines. In this case, it would be nice if the end user was to pay. If a commericial case could be made for the airlines saving money by fitting the entire GA fleet with TCAS, then it might happen.

In the GA vs GA case, it would require us to stump up for the avionics and it would also require a massive expansion in ATC services just to keep an eye on GA fliers. That will just not happen.

[TonyR]

When I were a lad, it was the job of ATC to keep IFR traffic away from VFR, and VFR was simply visual flight rules.

What has changed?

[bookworm]

When I were a lad, it was the job of ATC to keep IFR traffic away from VFR, and VFR was simply visual flight rules.

Nothing has changed. It's still not the job of ATC to keep IFR traffic away from VFR. ;)

[M609]

Nothing has changed. It's still not the job of ATC to keep IFR traffic away from VFR

Some might argue that is is subject to debate, it's not all class D or G you know..... ;) ;)

(Hint, C and B)

[robin]

Surely they do if IFR traffic is operating under a RAS. I thought they aim to maintain a 5nm/3000' separation where practicable

[PPRuNe Radar]

With regard to XPDR codes, how about a dedicating the last two/three digits to altitude(regional/fligh level?) e.g flying at 3500' squawk 7035, or an aircraft at 12500' will squawk 7125. I don't know too many people who fly at 50000, 60000 and 70000, so it shouldn't conflict with the emergency squawks.

What do I set if I fly at 8000' or 9000' ?? :}

[FNG]

Oh great: change your squawk every time you change altitude. What if you forget? Fly around broadcasting that you are at xxxx feet when you are at yyyy?

[englishal]

You could have a little mechanical unit containing a barometric altimeter which attaches over the code knobs. As you change altitude, it could automatically twist in the new code :}

(hang on, thats almost inventing Mode C ;) )

[PPRuNe Radar]

Good idea ... in fact, do the twisting internally and send it as another data part so that it is transparent to the pilot, is done automatically as the aircraft changes altitude, and can only be seen by ATC bods. That would free up the 4 digits for other uses.....

I like your name for it englishal ....... ''Mode C'' ... sounds very snappy :)

[bookworm]

Nothing has changed. It's still not the job of ATC to keep IFR traffic away from VFR.
...
Some might argue that is is subject to debate, it's not all class D or G you know.....

(Hint, C and B)

Point taken M609. I acknowledge that the response was a little parochial. But this thread is focussed on avoidance of collisions in the airspace below the London TMA. In the UK we have no class C and no class B below FL245.

[Capt. Manuvar]

My crazy idea is aimed at those who have mode A but are can afford or don't want to upgrade to Mode C.
Englishal
I'm very much aware of Mode C and how it works, thank you.

[AlanM]

And who is going to provide the RAS outside CAS in the South East??

Luton, Thames, Heathrow, Essex, gatwick etc all too busy with there own airways traffic!! That just leaves Farnborough and Southend (Southend are primary radar only so harder to do!)

And yes, 5nm or 3000 feet isn't too easy in a busy choke point when the base is 2.4A! That is why we seldom offer a RAS - it is unachievable.

[slim_slag]

Don't worry, CM, the airlines are going to have a whip round (or rather pass the cost onto the passenger via a ticket surcharge) and pay for you to have a nice new Mode A transponder with ten numbers in it! Mode W they will call it, yeah right....

I think it's reasonable to say that a fair part of the GA community will spend money on kit if they think they are getting a benefit. If I was flying under London TMA (or anywhere in the wildest parts of the UK for that matter) I'd consider something that increased my safety by reducing the chance of a mid-air a major benefit. I tend to agree that 'see and avoid' doesn't really work outside the traffic pattern and the best way to improve safety is to get a radar service. Unfortunately ATC in the SE of England are under-resourced and have their work cut out working scheduled air services. So the GA plane cannot get a decent radar service most of the time. The only time I really use a transponder for my own benefit is when I'm receiving a radar service, and if it isn't available there really honestly isn't any point in me paying for a decent transponder.

So back into cloud cuckoo land. If the airlines were so worried about GA traffic (and I don't see any evidence of this), and they are also worried about creaking ATC services (I think there is evidence of this) why don't they just pay to hire a bunch more of those very well trained controllers? As well as working the heavy iron, these extra controllers will also be able to provide a decent radar service to GA traffic in the choke points around London. Now as a GA pilot, if I thought I had a very high chance of getting radar service in busy airspace I'd pay for my own transponder. If everybody else thought the same way then the chances of two GA planes colliding would be reduced significantly.

One can dream!

[PPRuNe Radar]

My crazy idea is aimed at those who have mode A but are can afford or don't want to upgrade to Mode C.

I'll ask again then ... what do I set if flying at 8000' or 9000' ????

[boomerangben]

PPrune Radar,

I reckon that you would be ok above 7400' - not much GA traffic up there and ATC might give you your very own one anyway.

Whole "Squawk your height" idea is unfeasible, since most squawks are already allocated.

[VP959]

All this talk of radios, transponders etc is grand, but what about the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of us more impecunious aviators?

Take the flying machine sat outside my abode at present. It has two seats, no electrical system, a "yachtie" disc-in-a-tube type air speed indicator, no fuselage, no instrument panel (so no instruments bar the above mentioned ASI). I paid the princely sum of £1,800 for the whole machine, including a road trailer and full set of covers.

The annual cost of maintaining and permitting the thing would be less than £150 all in, yet it has the capacity to provide endless hours of very cheap, fun flying, more or less just for the cost of the fuel.

Why should I be forced to pay far more than the aircraft's value just to fit a bit of kit that I will never have occasion to need? At present that's just what the rules say I will have to do, if compulsory Mode S comes about.................

[Aussie Andy]

Why should I be forced to pay far more than the aircraft's value just to fit a bit of kit that I will never have occasion to need? If you lived and wanted to fly in the US then as I understand it (could be wrong..) I think you would have to invest in a transponder at least if you wanted to fly within 30NM of e.g. SFO or other major Class B airspace so that your primary radar return did not cause grief for the radar APP controllers in that area who are vectoring IFR traffic through Class E, D & B airspace whilst permitting maximum freedom to other airspace users. The equivalent to that here would be when IFR are vectored through class G when approaching a number of airfields (e.g. Biggin).

Such a mode C veil would give you the choice of either choosing to comply by either equipping your current steed if feasible, or doing as the rest of us do and renting (or buying a share in) an aircraft type which is equipped with a transponder for flying in the more dense areas. Or, you could limit your flying to less dense areas away from the mode C veil and continue with your current type of flying there.

That would be the argument - but I don't see it happening here. Instead we seem to be leapfrogging this and forcing everyone to use mode S for little or no apparent benefit to GA. My view on mode-S would be different if ADS-B was to be part of the plan here, but it doesn't seem to be (whereas in both the US and Australia there not only clearly detailed policy goals in relation to this new form of surveillance, but there are also pilot programmes under way).

Andy

[englishal]

I think you would have to invest in a transponder at least if you wanted to fly within 30NM of e.g. SFO or other major Class B airspace
OR....get prior ATC permission to operate with out a transponder. Depending on what your intentions are, they would probably allow it.....

EA

[Aussie Andy]

I think generally not in the case of the mode C veil - I think its mandatory - but you may be right that you can exceptionally pre-arrange specific flights, as with non-radio flights into controlled airports?

Andy

[englishal]

just for info, I found it in the FARs (91.215(b)(3)):

"Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) [describes the mode c vail] of this section, any aircraft which was not originally certified with an engine driven electrical system, or which has not substantially been certified with such a system installed, baloon or glider, may conduct operations in the airspace within 30nm of the airport listed in appendix D, part 1 [lists the mode c vails], provided such operations are conducted-

Outside Class A B or C airspace
Below the altitude of the ceiling of the class b or c


blah blah"

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. So if you have a Permit A/c, baloon, microlight, etc then the mode c vail wouldn't apply......

EA

[Aussie Andy]

I guess that means it would apply to microlights: do they have "engine driven electrical systems", presumably yes?

Cool, so then I think there's probbaly no harm and only potential good to come from a similar stricture here...

... not that this necessarily has anything to do with the accident that triggered this thread: and I still thinka blind calling system on a lane frequency in crowded pinch points might be a better general solution for enhancing safety in these areas.

Andy

[LowNSlow]

What is all the fuss about Mode A? When I had an aeroplane with a transponder one of the first things I did with it was upgrade it to Mode C. You don't need a new transponder, there are add ons which you can get for 200 or so quid. Make that mandatory and you lose the spurious TCAS warnings that WWW was dramatising. How many mid-air collisions (not including glider - glider collisions) have there been in the last few years? Very few that I can think of. Every aspect of safety has a price fortunately it is not my position to put a price on the risk of a mid-air in terms of mandatory Mode S etc.

I fly in the North London corridor quite often and generally call the airfields concerned to let them know I'm skirting their zones. Most of them don't seem to give a damn. I generally listen out to London Info in between calls as well. My biggest benefit though is that I usually fly during the week rather than the busy weekends..............

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

It can be dramatic receiving "avoiding action turn.." instructions because so bozo bumbling along Brighton beach has just decided to turn his mode A on.

Stick your heads in the sand if you like. But the first time it happens it'll be the end of GA.

Cheers

WWW

[ShyTorque]

Had another close call recently, again very thankfully resolved by TCAS.

Cloud was broken at about 1500 feet. We were just below in good visibility. Called for a transit through an ATZ. No ATC reply but another pilot told us that himself, in a helicopter and one other aircraft were operating in the circuit (which is left hand at 1000ft), giving the westerly runway in use. We had one TCAS target on screen, well ahead, which we took to be the heli operating on the airfield, although we were too far away to see it yet. We were looking for the second aircraft which we expected to be a couple of miles ahead of us and below, somewhere in the pattern. No circuit position calls were heard from it.

As we approached the south eastern ATZ boundary, aiming to route to the east of the field, we suddenly received a "Traffic! Traffic!" alert and a TCAs target simultaneously appeared on the screen, well inside one mile. No aircraft could be seen left or right so we turned hard right to go with the traffic pattern, even further away from the field and hopefully resolve the possible conflict. As we turned, skirting the ATZ boundary, I spotted an aircraft descending out of cloud immediately to our left, just behind and just above! A few seconds later, someone who we presumed to be its pilot called "late downwind".

No mention of the IMC, descending back to circuit height, very wide bit....:ooh:

We might well have hit had we not turned. NO lookout scan could have avoided that situation by itself. TCAS proved its great worth to us yet again (although an earlier call from the other pilot would have helped - I think he might have been "busy" at the time).

UK airspace is becoming more and more congested, the big open sky concept no longer applies. Sad but true. I really don't understand the mentality that objects to fitting and using something like a transponder with Mode C if possible, which greatly enhances the safety of all concerned. Far better than expensive life insurance, which does nothing for flight safety and at best only works retrospectively and for the benefit of others on the ground.... :\

An increasing number of the bigger stuff have the expensive part of the system (TCAS). All we ask is others make themselves conspicuous by turning the mode knob to the appropriate setting if fitted, or even spending a few hundred quid, so we can use the system to the benefit of all.

[bigflyingrob]

Only 5 days after the mid air I looked off the end of our runway to see a Robinson R22 practicing autorotations about 1 mile from the mid air site. Some people never learn. Pity I did not get the registration of the cretin who decided to do a bit of flying between the trees practice followed by the low level escape against the circuit pattern last year. He did this 3 times in 1 hour just to prove he was an idiot. I dunno if it was the same person who decided we would like a look at his plane at 10 feet as he did a low pass up the runway this June though. Still now we have a decent camera on site we should be able to put an end to it.

[boomerangben]

Only 5 days after the mid air I looked off the end of our runway to see a Robinson R22 practicing autorotations about 1 mile from the mid air site. Some people never learn.


Steady on BFG. Let the AAIB decide what happened. Besides, aviation cannot stop because of an accident. People still want to learn to fly and perhaps now is the best time to go flying, with the thought of what happened firmly imprinted on brain. How do you know that the pilot had just done the most involved HASEL checks in his/her life, with the TCAS, Mode S, Radar, RAS, reporting frequency and the No1 and No2 mk1 eye ball all switched on and functioning?

[bar shaker]

If nothing else, that shows a despicable lack of compassion :(

[boomerangben]

BS,

I knew I'd missed something on my previous post. I agree, not a very sensitive thing to do

[FNG]

If someone was flying like a twit, censure them for that, but not just for flying in the same area as a crash. Where's the lack of compassion? If someone crashes and dies on a runway, are we all supposed to avoid landing on that runway, after the wreckage is removed, for some decent interval thereafter? I am very sorry to hear of this collision, but, as mentioned above, flying doesn't stop because there's been a tragic accident.

[PAXboy]

Non-pilot speaking and I have read the entire thread. Things that have staggered me in this thread:
But there are pilots out there (and I have in mind some well trained (ex mil) pilots) who simply hate using the radio and would not use it.
Eh? Folks are manipulating themselves around the sky and NOT talking to anyone??? Sounds like they are manipulating themselves. Just amazing.

When I fly from home outside CAS I just want to have FUN, No radio, No transponder, just look out the bloody window and have a bit of FUN

Eh? In Britain? With our limited air space and all the regional airports opening up and ERJs and CRJs nipping in and out? I can undertsand that you might want to but ...

I was also amazed to read that folks that DO have transponders turn them off! I realise the need to have a circuit breaker, but what are the penalties of making the c/b unavailable to the pilot? This is a serious question - don't just flame - tell me why the transponder cannot be on all the time - just like the sidelights on a Volvo car?

I enjoy a quiet drive around the countryside in my car when I am not working. How about I decide not to signal when I am turning and presume that the traffic lights are set to green in my favour? I have to use everything in my power to stay away from other users of the road. Am I right in understanding that no such laws are required of you in GA? Please tell me what the correct rule of air is.

I can but agree with WWW that, the first mid-air involving a commercial flight that is proven to be the fault a GA (of any type) [Note that I say PROVEN] then you will find yourselves grounded, restricted and more rules and costs than you will ever want.

The concerns about power supplies and batteries and weights are understood and it certainly seems as if the CAA ought to be doing something to generate suitable equipment. But no govt department works on 'Prevention' any more. They all work on 'Clearing up the mess' and then the Politicos say "... that this will never happen again." So the CAA are not going to do anything until after they have received the phone call.

I do hope that GA can continue as I know what it meant to relatives of mine in the past but we are in the future now and the law of averages has a way of making itself known. Of all the threads that I have read on PPRuNe since I joined - this is the one that has surprised, and frightened, me the most.

[bookworm]

I was also amazed to read that folks that DO have transponders turn them off! I realise the need to have a circuit breaker, but what are the penalties of making the c/b unavailable to the pilot? This is a serious question - don't just flame - tell me why the transponder cannot be on all the time - just like the sidelights on a Volvo car?

Transponders can and do malfunction, on all types of aircraft. A misleading reading needs to be switched off. Apart from that, I can't think of a good reason for not having a transponder on.

[AlanM]

I hear BALPA are aiming to get rid of ALL uncontrolled airspace!

WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO CONTROL IT ALL THEN??

I appreciate that transponders can be faulty and go tits up, but aircraft with broken transponders are not allowed in controlled airspace.

[M609]

I hear BALPA are aiming to get rid of ALL uncontrolled airspace!

That is in the long term master plan for eurocontrol as well so.......... :E :E :E

[VP959]

PAXboy: "Eh? Folks are manipulating themselves around the sky and NOT talking to anyone??? Sounds like they are manipulating themselves. Just amazing."

VP:

Pray tell, what do you think the ratio of cars on the roads to aircraft in the sky is?

Do you have a radio in your car? Do you use it to talk to the highway controller to determine whether the congestion level on your intended route is acceptable to allow you to drive down it safely? Surely, as roads are many thousands of times more congested than airspace radios and transponders should be mandatory, to reduce the all too apparent risk of collisions?

Get real! Thousands of us fly sans radio quite safely. We use exactly tha same safety device that you do when driving a car, our eyes. The major difference is that we are pretty unlikely to come close to another aircraft most of the time, unlike someone driving a car.

I think you also need to realise that there are literally thousands of aircraft with NO electrical systems, so they cannot be easily fitted with radios or transponders.

[Whirlybird]

Eh? Folks are manipulating themselves around the sky and NOT talking to anyone??? Sounds like they are manipulating themselves. Just amazing.


Paxboy,

Most uncontrolled airspace is uncontrolled for a good reason - simply that it isn't crowded. North Wales, where I live and spend a lot of time flying, is equivalent to the country roads you talk about...but you don't find traffic lights on North Wales country roads and there are few aircraft in the sky. So it IS safe to fly non-radio - at lowish speeds compared to airliners, remember, about equivalent to you at second gear in your car. And who would we talk to? London Information, the only centre covering that area, have only a map, no radar, and hardly know where any of the places you mention are when you tell them your position. Aside from anywhere near Valley, Liverpool, Hawarden, Caernarfon, Shawbury, or Welshpool, it really is quiet up here. Near any of those places, of course you talk to someone!!!

In Scotland, it's even less crowded. In fact, in some areas of the Highlands you're out of radio range to anyone!!!! :eek: And in Ireland, talking to Donegal, we were told: "No known traffic to affect your flight; report final". Nothing odd in that...except that we were over 20 miles away. :eek:

The area being discussed on this thread is one of the few areas of uncontrolled airspace which IS crowded. That's why so many of us feel something needs to be done. But we don't want regulations made which would have to involve huge expense, and which would apply for those of us flying only in the more isolated areas of the country, OK? It's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I've been refraining from saying you don't know what you're talking about here. The fact is, you don't, but I don't mean that as a criticism. I daresay you speak for thousands of non-pilots, so realising what needs explaining to the world is useful for all us; thankyou.

[Aussie Andy]

Whirlybird - well said, I think that sums up the situation very well, at least as I see it.

Cheers!

Andy

[TonyR]

PAXboy, you are really something,

I said "When I fly from home outside CAS I just want to have FUN, No radio, No transponder, just look out the bloody window and have a bit of FUN"

Well I just did that this morning and it was great.

Tony

[PAXboy]

I've been refraining from saying you don't know what you're talking about here. The fact is, you don't, but I don't mean that as a criticism. I daresay you speak for thousands of non-pilots, Indeed, I do not - and that is why I asked the question. Thank you, and others, for answering it.

TonyR, My question did relate more to the space under discussion, Hertfordshire, and I should have made that clearer. But I have no idea where 'CAS' is, so please enlighten me.

There is no need to use words like "you really are something" when I started the post 'non-pilot speaking'. I am glad to you enjoyed your flight and trust that you have many more but please refrain from insulting a person who is trying to understand an area of which they know little.

[Aussie Andy]

CAS = Controlled Airspace

[TonyR]

PAXboy,

I am not out to insult you or anyone but as someone who flys light aircraft more than most ie. 250 odd hours a year all over Europe, I am more worried about this type of thread sending the wrong message.

I just DON'T see a big problem, sure there are busy spots but not that busy, and usually for short periods.

The other thing that worries me is the amount of airline drivers that rant and rave about light aircraft being in "THEIR" sky and some will tell you about having to do steep turns to avoid us every time they fly, (what a load of tosh)

Most PPLs have more sense than you give them credit for and very few don't know know where they are and what they are doing.

I think some common sense and better situational awareness and understanding of each others position, from both private and comercial pilots, keeping ATC well informed would go a long way to resolve the situation in the London and other busy areas.

Tony

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

TonyR - its not tosh - it happened to me yesterday. Mode A return suddenly sparks up overhead Weston. Pain in the backside but I'm not ranting and raving about it.

What will happen and is in the pipeline is a large increase in CAS to surround Cardiff and Bristol.

Now.

Do you want to fit at least a Mode C transponder to pretty much everything - which is NOT in the same league as going to the moon as some intimate - OR see ever larger chunks of airspace become Controlled?

I prefer the former as someone who flies many different classes of aircraft.

Cheers

WWW

[Whirlybird]

PAXboy,

A friendly word of advice here, if I may. When, in response to TonyR's post, you write:

Eh? In Britain? With our limited air space and all the regional airports opening up and ERJs and CRJs nipping in and out? I can undertsand that you might want to but...

You can really hardly complain if he gets just a teeny weeny bit annoyed at the tone of it. You didn't imply that you knew nothing about it and wanted it explained - it read, to me at any rate, as a criticism. And, I might add, as a criticism of all of us who fly anywhere in "our limited airspace", not just those flying in the overcrowded South-East.

I agree with TonyR and Aussie Andy, and some others - this is not a big problem in most of the UK. It is in some areas...they're pink on the chart and we call them controlled airspace. And there's a few, like the area of Hertfordshire under discussion and the Manchester Low Level Route, where I think something needs to be done. But a simple, inexpensive, voluntary solution like a dedicated frequency for blind position calls by pilots would do the trick, so why are we complicating matters?

[TonyR]

WWW,

Why does it happen more often to you than any other pilot I know?

Please tell me who you fly for as I may wish to avoid them?

Tony

[Kolibear]

PAXboy,

This link may help you to understand the area of CAS that we are discussing. Click on 'London Stansted -london Luton' and open the pdf file.

CAA Low-level routes, congested airspace etc (http://www.caa.co.uk/dap/dapcharts/ontrack/document.asp?groupid=302)


Actually, everyone should have a look at this link as it gives valuable information about flying in chokepoints around Luton, Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and East Midlands.

[slim_slag]

PaxBoy said

"Of all the threads that I have read on PPRuNe since I joined - this is the one that has surprised, and frightened, me the most."

If you want frightening threads on this site go to Rumours and News and find the discussions relating to rosters causing fatigued airline pilots, airline pilots apparently having fuel decisions made for them by accountants, and airline pilots turning up to work drunk (and then the others who crawl out of the woodwork and try and excuse that behaviour!!). You should also be aware that plenty of airline pilots in the UK have come out of training regimes that provide no real experience of general aviation, and plenty of others have obviously forgotten their roots. It's not all bad though, I know quite a few airline pilots who enjoy flying little planes and I think most would be as resistant to blanket mandatory Mode S as the people on this forum who only fly for fun.

[PAXboy]

Thank you ALL very much for replies, explanations and links, which have been very helpful and informative.

I do not normally read this forum but had a specific interest in this ghastly event.

Thanks again.