Risk of Mid-Air Collision At Navigational Beacons

[LateFinals]

Dear All,


Lovely day on Saturday in the south. The world and his wife were out flying, or so it seemed.

As I was returning to Elstree about lunchtime, at BNN got very close to a PA 28 who clearly hadn't seen me, then saw 3 further planes all approaching the beacon within 2 mins. Congestion is of course made worse with the TMA at 2400 ft in the choke spots around London.

Thinking about this later, I wonder why I, and many pilots plot courses to "beacon hop" when going from A to B, and have forgotten to use our dead reckoning techniques , or can't be bothered to put in loads of waypoints on our GPS's. There always will be a greater traffic density around VOR's and really it would be good airmanship, in VMC conditions not to slavishly follow them.

What do others think / do ?

LF

[strake]

I agree with you, in VMC I'm always looking out..and try to fly well left or right..but then maybe everyone else is doing the same.....:eek:

Much the same reason why VRP's were changed from Visual Reporting Points to Visual Reference Point.

[toolowtoofast]

Whatever happened to scudding the coast at 500'? On a VFR flight, what enjoyment does one get from beacon bashing?

[jonkil]

Not only beacons.
Have noticed quite a bit of traffic on a route and began thinking why ?
Concluded that the pilots are flying a direct route between 2 points using GPS...... I never fly the direct line, always off track and never at '000's of feet.

[NorthSouth]

LF:I wonder why I, and many pilots plot courses to "beacon hop" when going from A to B, and have forgotten to use our dead reckoning techniques , or can't be bothered to put in loads of waypoints on our GPSsPerhaps because (a) radio nav is much more accurate and reliable than dead reckoning/pilotage when you're flying over an area you're not familiar with and (b) we don't have a GPS or (c) we reckon that looking out of the window for the inevitable other traffic is safer than squinting into the cockpit at a tiny screen which is obscured by the glare from the sun?
I reckon well-prepared use of radio nav when flying around underneath the LTMA or any other place where there's a high risk of airspace infringement is a sound and sensible strategy. If you've planned it, plogged it and set it up properly it gives you a really solid basis from which you can use your spare resources to (a) confirm your position by ref to map and ground features and (b) look out for other traffic. When you get close to a beacon you can (a) offset a little to minimise collision risk and (b) devote most of your effort to lookout.
NS

[strake]

Whatever happened to scudding the coast at 500'? On a VFR flight, what enjoyment does one get from beacon bashing?

That is so true....but probably a bit difficult if you are going from Sywell to Duxford.:)

I flew from north of Colchester to Goodwood a couple of months ago and on the way down I was "constantly checking that I'm threading the needle" through restricted airspace, talking to anyone who'll listen and so on...

On the way back, straight to the coast, turned left, lovely view past Brighton, Newhaven et al. then left again at Dover, over Whitstable. Then, for the crack, right before Southend, round the coast up to the River Stour and home.

Just the way the fighters did in WW2....only a bit slower...:)

[S-Works]

Well said NS.

I generally always try to fly beacon to beacon, thats what they are there for!!!!

GPS or conventional RNAV with line drawn on the chart and a PLOG (my PLOG is actually drawn on the chart for VFR). Using the beacons from the GPS data base or using the conventional equipment reduces the risks of entering way-points into the GPS or the mistakes made by dead reckoning pilotage which is good airman-ship and reduces the risk of infringement.

I did scud run at 900ftf all the way home from Marcq en Barouil yesterday with a stop at Calais then across the channel still at 900ft to DVR-LAM then home in the Chipmink. It was amazing how many people had to ask me for the type code!

[Fuji Abound]

We use beacons, airports and VRPs because they are convenient.

When planning a route it is far easier to route between such identifiers, whether it be entering them in the GPS of dialing them up on the VOR.

Using other navigational marks would reduce the risk of collision at these choke points but it would be a pain.

It is however worth having a strategy for reducing the risk of collision.

Firstly, there is no need to fly over the navigational mark. Inevitably if you consider a typical route the beacons represent turning points at which you make some change in direction. Given that is what you are going to do, anticipate the change and simply cut the corner - you will be surprised if there is a significant change in direction how much you can cut the corner by.

Secondly fly up to the base of the TMA, that way the bu**ers can only get you from below or the same level.

Thirdly, always request a RIS.

Fourthly invest in a collision avoidance product.

[NorthSouth]

Fuji:fly up to the base of the TMANot sure I agree with that. You get best visibility of conflicting traffic by having them skylined which means being below them. Mind you, doesn't work if everyone tries to do it! But of course your strategy has the same flaw. Plus you put yourself at greater risk of inadvertent vertical infingement of CAS.
NS

[Fuji Abound]

NS

It is interesting from experience how often the other aircraft are below you if you are just under the base of CAS, probably becasue they are also worried about infringing.

However, I do agree accurate control of height is important if within a 100 feet of the base.

[BackPacker]

If you fly very close to the base of CAS, there's another consideration: wake vortex. Here in NL, the Amsterdam TMA starts at 1500', and is used to vector CAS around for Schiphol at 2000'. Wake vortices can drift down 700' to 1000' below the flight path. Here, the informal advice, when flying underneath the Amsterdam TMA, is to stay below 1300' to be safe.

Still, in aviation we're lucky that we can separate in the vertical, and we are (almost) never at the same altitude as the beacon itself. I have heard numerous stories about yachties who use buoys as their waypoints, put them in the GPS and then slave the GPS to the autopilot while they sip coffee in the cabin. Inevitably, the autopilot does exactly what the GPS tells it to do - sail directly into the buoy!

[gpn01]

Could suggest a rather old fashioned fifth strategy of keep a good lookout ?

Also baffles me why so many light aircraft route directly over an airfield thereby, like using beacons, increasing the probability of a collision quite significantly.

[DaveW]

When was the last time a mid-air collision occurred at a beacon?

What are the Airprox statistics like around beacons?

[LysanderV8]

I use VORs and airfields for convenience, and keep a continual scan going, but I also prefer to talk to ATC as well as listen out. I do tend to avoid "common" altitudes.

I am not one of the folks who prefer to keep radio silence outside CAS, and it continues to surprise me that here are so many out there. Some say they listen out, but this is so selfish. If you claim to listen out, you are thus expecting to hear something of benefit to you. It is only common safety sense to speak as well, so that others may have an inkling of where your aircraft may be.

With the introduction last week of the new Farnborough LARS right the way across to Detling and down to the South coast, we should all be making proper use of this excellent enhancement to flight safety. There is no excuse in my book for failing to use it when it covers Class G airspace which gets very congested on sunny days. And I have no involvement in ATC or CAA, just a healthy regard for my own wellbeing in the air.

[Fuji Abound]

Could suggest a rather old fashioned fifth strategy of keep a good lookout ?

You could and have - but the evidence and expert opinion suggests it does not work - it is jsut a good con.

Lysander

Yes, I couldnt agree more. As another example I am always amazed by those who refuse to "sign in" on a FIS but happily listen out.

[Contacttower]

BNN is also a very good waypoint because of Bovingdon airfield so whether you are beacon hopping on not you are bound to get planes massing there, who can blame them considering in bad vis the expanse of built up areas seem to merge into one and there is so much airspace around. Flying at random heights is a good idea and switching you landing light on will help you be spotted.

[denhamflyer]

Ive take to flying slight off track near beacons when hand flying or occasionally going into heading mode when using the AP. Using the keep it to your left idea (when airspace permits).

Good point about the landing lights - BUT has anyone seen someone because of it?

I used this on Friday when flying across the Benson Zone - had been told someone was on a reciprical course at same height so I switched the landing light on and looked very hard - couldnt see a thing :* I just hope they saw my light. I also tend to turn it off and then on again every so often since I (perhaps wrongly) think that the brain is better at picking up the "change" more than just the intensity.

PS. I also agree about the FIS - although lately getting a word in edge ways can be difficult around here.

[trafficcontrol]

Around BNN, Northolt and, or Luton provide a very good RIS. Northolt especially! I highly recomend them!

We are never going to always see aircraft around us, but getting the best possible service from an ATC unit can make it a whole lot easier.

[tmmorris]

You don't need GPS to fly a straight line track. I flew Benson to Sibson the other day - there was no need to do anything else, so we went direct. That's how I was taught - dogleg only if you have to. Dead reckoning all the way.

Tim

[Whirlybird]

In the UK, in good visibility, visual navigation is dead easy...IF you are in practice. I suspect that "IF" is often the problem. :(

[IO540]

In the UK, in good visibility, visual navigation is dead easy

I think there is a limit to how many times the pilots who actually go places are going to bother arguing this stuff.

[Contacttower]

Good point about the landing lights - BUT has anyone seen someone because of it?



I have, flying between Southampton and Bournemouth a plane suddenly appeared dead ahead at the same height- but he had his landing light on and it really showed up, it was quite a dark day. Had he not I probably would have seen him later, but it would have been close...He didn't actually change course which suggests to me he didn't see me; I was in a Super Cub which had no lights at all.

[BillieBob]

Of course, everyone bumbling blindly around from beacon to beacon is aware of Rule 22, viz:

22.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commander of an aircraft shall not make use of any radio navigation aid without complying with such restrictions and procedures as may be notified in relation to that aid.

(2) The commander of an aircraft shall not be required to comply with this rule if—
(a) he is required to comply with rules 35 and 36; or
(b) he is otherwise authorised by an air traffic control unit.

Aren't they?

[Islander2]

BillieBob wrote:
Of course, everyone bumbling blindly around from beacon to beacon is aware of Rule 22 ..... Aren't they?And if you're aware of the relevance of Rule 22 in relation to this thread's topic, perhaps you'll enlighten us!

[scooter boy]

I flew Plymouth to Gloucester today to work and the airspace I transited was the busiest I have ever known it (still far quieter than the US though;)).

I was keeping a really good lookout but my TCAS also helped a lot - I had numerous traffic advisories and would have come very close to conflicting traffic on 2 occasions had I simply been relying on the mk1 eyeball.

TCAS certainly helps me to maintain separation from other squawking traffic and not only that it allows me to plan evasive maneuvres (you can see whether they are climbing or descending and their approximate track).
Yet again it has paid for itself.


SB

[High Wing Drifter]

LateFinals,

From your post you seemed to be using the beacon too. However, I suspect that your experience has little to do with BNN, it seems that regardless of which part of that narrow choke point I choose (it is easily navigable by eye) I have a close encounter with something. It seems to me that one just has to be very alert in that area.

An interesting discussion on risk perception on the Flyer forum. It is the recent Piper crash thread gone OT.

[IO540]

The problem with TCAS is that most GA traffic is below 2000ft, most of it is nontransponding (due to lack the transponders, due to ignorance, or IMHO often deliberately), and while above that level most traffic is transponding there is very little of it.

All UK midairs in past 10 years have been below 1000ft, and you will never find me below 1000ft except when landing :)

I have been very tempted to spend the ~ £15000 on the Avidyne 600 kit but can't justify it relative to the levels I fly at (highest possible OCAS, generally), the heavily slanted vertical distribution of UK GA traffic, the utter scarcity of GA outside the UK, and to the appalling levels of UK avionics shop "expertise" in taking the aircraft apart and putting it back together again correctly. TCAS is a major wiring job, to say the least, and can't be entrusted to the usual butcher.

Of course one can't put a value on one's life so I will never argue with those who want to install it. But, UK OCAS, it will miss the majority of traffic, because Mode C transponders are not mandatory.

Re routing via common navaids, it's better to take a shortcut around it.

[Fuji Abound]

Forgive me for pushing an issue which is a bit of a pet favorite of mine, but I am really impressed with the portable CAS. In fact I would not fly now with at least this.

They work surprisingly well and whilst I would agree with I0 about the traffic not transponding you will be amazed at how many contacts it does positively identify and gives you time to spot and avoid the traffic.

I have also noticed that non transponding traffic as you would expect is often slow moving so at least you have far more time for the mark 1 to spot the traffic. It is the fast moving traffic that is the real issue.

If you do the calculations you will be amazed at the extra amount of time you have to spot traffic closing at 80 knots compared with 160 knots!

[S-Works]

I have a new widget that I am trying out at the moment that connects to the 496 and gives traffic data on transponding traffic. Give me a couple of weeks and I will knock up a few thoughts on it.

[High Wing Drifter]

I recently bought one of those PCAS thingimebobwotsits too. Despite recently purchasing a 496 I decided to go for the tiny battery powered MRX. Have only used it once, not much around except gliders but it went nuts in the circuit.

Unlike TCAS they are passive - they eavesdrop on other aircrafts' transponder dialogues with interrogators (TCAS a/c or secondary radar). Distance is assessed by measuring attenuation based on TSO'd transponder output standards, I can't say if that assumption holds well in practice.

[Contacttower]

or IMHO often deliberately


Why would anyone not squawk C when they could?

[ShyTorque]

All UK midairs in past 10 years have been below 1000ft, and you will never find me below 1000ft except when landing


And for takeoff and climb?

Glad to hear the usefulness of TCAS systems is now spreading. Once used properly, flying without it feels like not having trousers. :O

[englishal]

I have a new widget that I am trying out at the moment that connects to the 496 and gives traffic data on transponding traffic. Give me a couple of weeks and I will knock up a few thoughts on it.
I'd be interested in reading that..

Another reason to VOR hop is in case the weather is worse than forecast - in otherwords you could continue the flight in IMC if nescessary....That's my reasoning behind it anyway.

[IO540]

Since the day I got my UK skills test, I always planned and navigated every flight as IFR. (Exception: local area sightseeing flights)

This means using waypoints that are not visible from above.

If there is a view, it's a bonus, and obviously on a given day the flight (UK OCAS) would normally be done 100% VMC, and there is plenty to see.

So, what waypoints to use? Navaids make an obvious backup for the GPS, so one uses VORs and NDBs. If there are none suitable (which is often the case esp. if doing some weird routing around CAS) then I will chuck in an airways intersection (NEDUL, TIGER, etc). These are also dead handy for marking the FIR boundaries on a flight plan if going abroad VFR (SITET etc).

The catch is that if the primary nav device fails, and you fall over to the backup, you can't navigate to waypoints which are not VORs - except by map reading etc, or with KNS80-type RNAV. But I have almost never had this happen... just once over the Alps (IFR) and then I requested a VOR-VOR route.

It's an easy way to fly, and in 800hrs I have never been lost or even unsure of position. Anywhere.

The slight drawback is that I am not the only one doing this - most pilots that go places for real do it also. So there is extra traffic crossing navaids. In Class G, nobody cares where you are, so taking a shortcut is OK.

[soay]

I am not one of the folks who prefer to keep radio silence outside CAS, and it continues to surprise me that here are so many out there. Some say they listen out, but this is so selfish. If you claim to listen out, you are thus expecting to hear something of benefit to you. It is only common safety sense to speak as well, so that others may have an inkling of where your aircraft may be.
That bears repeating, so I just did. The only justification is if you can't get a word in edgeways.

[LateFinals]

very interesting to see all these responses showing than there are many different opinions. If everyone offsets of course that may increase collision risk !

It will be interesting seeing how the LARS service helps us around the London area, too many times Farnborough have declined to give me a RIS service because they are too busy, which leads me to another point of this thread :

Under what conditions do you request an RIS service from an ATC unit offering this facility ? Always or just in poor vis ? My instructor used to say this should only be used in poor vis / IMC, others feel it should be requested whenever it is available.

Are NATS, who hope the London LARS will reduce airspace infringements really going to be able to offer it to all pilots who request it ?

LateFinals

[Fuji Abound]

Under what conditions do you request an RIS service from an ATC unit offering this facility ? Always or just in poor vis ? My instructor used to say this should only be used in poor vis / IMC, others feel it should be requested whenever it is available.

Ah well, just goes to show instructors cant always be right. :)

[denhamflyer]

If everyone offsets of course that may increase collision risk !

LF: Not if you offset using the Right Hand Traffic Rule i.e. if you were flying head on north/south then the one flying north moves east a bit and the one flying south moves west a bit - doubling the distance! (Never actually flown down a railway track but isnt this part of the training? keep the track to the left (out of pilots window) )

Also I find the risk of collision on good VMC busy days to be the worst - orrible weather and suddenly your very alone.

[Magp1e]

FA,

Look up the definitions of RIS and FIS and then decide which service suits your conditions best. Normally a FIS should suffice if the wx is good VMC and you are happy with your routeing. If the wx is not so good and/or you're not comfortable navigating through "tight" airspace close to CAS, ask for a RIS. Under RIS you should get a warning if you are approaching CAS, ATZ's etc.
Asking for RIS in good wx conditions in high traffic density areas when every man and his dog is up flying could lead to non-stop traffic information blocking thr freq!

[englishal]

I'd use RIS if available anytime I'm going somewhere...WOuldn't bother with FIS unless someone needs to know you are around i.e. flying into an airfield under a MATZ, (or no radar and over water). Normally then they'll give you a transponder code anyway and be watching you to make sure you don't miss your destination so you may as well ask for a RIS....

[Magp1e]

not good advice Englishal! If everyone operating in busy airspace asks for RIS as a matter of course, the frequency will get very busy. Secondly, you will detract the attention of the controller from other users that really require a RIS. If FIS will sufice, use it and leave RIS to those that need it.

[englishal]

It is not advice, it is what I do....;)

I am happy not to bother the SAME controller for a FIS if the weather is crystal, but if I feel the need for a service, then a RIS is what I ask for. If I am flying near a military aerodrome who offer LARS and I don't want to be run down by a Eurofighter I'd ask for a RIS. Otherwise I wouldn't ask for anything.

[bookworm]

Normally a FIS should suffice if the wx is good VMC and you are happy with your routeing. If the wx is not so good and/or you're not comfortable navigating through "tight" airspace close to CAS, ask for a RIS.

There's a commonly held misconception that collision risk is higher in poor wx. Collision risk depends upon two factors: the density of aircraft you might collide with, and the probability you might not see them before it's two late. Most pilots overestimate the effectiveness of sighting an aircraft on a collision course in good VMC. The traffic density factor is probably the more significant, in that in good VMC the traffic density at lower levels tends to be much higher.

Asking for RIS in good wx conditions in high traffic density areas when every man and his dog is up flying could lead to non-stop traffic information blocking thr freq!

But ironically, this is exactly the time when you need the most collision aavoidance help from ATC.

Under RIS you should get a warning if you are approaching CAS, ATZ's etc.


No, you shouldn't. If you have been identified and issued a discrete squawk, whether under a FIS, RIS, or RAS, there is a higher likelihood that ATC will offer navigational help of that sort. But navigation is the pilot's responsibility.

[Cusco]

Our Arrer has a natty facility on its very ancient RNAV (NS800) called VOR PAR(allel) which allows us to fly a course to a VOR, but offset by 1 -5 NM to fly a parallel course to the VOR:

I don't see why this facility shouldn't be available in GPS units: it would certainly dilute the 'honey-pot' effect, until of course everybody had one and everyone was flying offset by 5 NM......

Safe flying

Cusco;)

[bookworm]

I don't see why this facility shouldn't be available in GPS units: it would certainly dilute the 'honey-pot' effect, until of course everybody had one and everyone was flying offset by 5 NM......

But the offset principle is that everyone offsets from the centreline to the right. So while you may encounter another aircraft going in the same direction as you, you shouldn't encounter one in the opposite direction.

The offset facility is available in GPS units at least to the extent that it is in your NS800. With both, you can allow the CDI to indicate 1 mile right of the "desired" track and keep it there.

[Fuji Abound]

I think it is worth repeating some information from an American study.

It takes 13 seconds from seeing an aircraft and realising it is going to hit you before your aircraft reacts to your command to avoid the collision.

At typical fast GA speeds at 3 miles head on you have less than 20 seconds to spot the aircraft, and at slower speeds maybe up to 40 seconds.

A good 180 scan takes between 20 and 30 seconds - try it out on your watch.

Next time you are receiving a RIS listen out for the range of the aircraft - see what you can spot when you are told where to look. I do the same with RIS and TCAS - it is really interesting the distances on most days at which you see the traffic WHEN you know where to look.

In short, dont kid yourself, see and avoid really doesnt work at all well - I think it may be one of the significant myths of light avaition.

The real reason there are so few collisions is due to the big sky or electronically aided avoidance.

[Magp1e]

I think you missed the point of my post. I implied that if you ask for RIS as a matter of course, even when FIS would suffice, then you would increase the controller's workload therefore degrading the service provided to fellow pilots who really needed the extra services RIS provides. If you find yourself inside the melee then of course, ask for RIS; but if you're in a quieter piece of airspace listening in to a "free for all" over BNN then ask yourself if FIS would do.

Point 2, RIS is not an collision avoidance service...it is a traffic information service...the pilot is responsible for collision avoidance.

Point 3, Yes! you should get a warning if you are approaching CAS/ATZ's, unless you have informed the controller that you have clearance to enter. The reason being that a controller cannot provide a service in CAS/ATZ unless he has had permission to enter it. This will not always happen under FIS as there is no requirment to identify an ac under FIS as it is formally a non-radar service.

[Pitts2112]

A tip my instructor gave me when I was doing my PPL training:

Beacons of any kind are airoplane magnets. Don't overfly them. Cut the corner short by a couple of miles. I never overfly beacons because of that little tip.

Pitts2112

[ShyTorque]

Very good tip; I do this whenever possible; especially BNN and DTY.

I fly a TAS equipped 150 kt IFR helicopter; if necessary I get by in Class G without adding to the ATC workload (and level of RT chatter, which affects everyone) by listening out and building up a mental picture of the traffic situation around me and avoiding controlled airspace, rather than requesting a clearance through or a FIS/RIS. I often elect do this if someone ahead of me in the RT queue has been told to "Stand by" by ATC (he's busy).

Having said that, in such instances, if I think my presence might affect someone else, then I speak up to ATC at first opportunity, even if I'm not required to.

TAS / TCAS is a huge help but ONLY if pilots of aircraft fitted with a transponder use it for the purpose intended whenever possible. It should be remembered that a mid-air collision affects two aircraft, so it's in the interests of all to use transponders, where fitted, to everyone's best advantage. By doing so, pilots of TAS equipped aircraft operating in Class G have an even better chance of seeing and avoiding.

I always bang on about this but if your transponder has Mode C, then PLEASE use it, rather than just Mode A. A relative height readout allows me to gain vertical separation from my TAS readout. If your transponder only has Mode A, then just use that, but please do use it all the time, not just when ATC request it.

The "big sky" principle is OK to some lesser extent, but around a choke point such as a beacon, it suddenly isn't so big! I know one pilot who has survived TWO mid-air collisions in helicopters - I work on the principle that I'm not that lucky, not even half as lucky.

[S-Works]

150kts, what you flying Airwolf or Blue thunder......

Or i it like permit builders where there aircraft all done 140kts on 3lph of Mogas....

:p

[bookworm]

I think you missed the point of my post. I implied that if you ask for RIS as a matter of course, even when FIS would suffice, then you would increase the controller's workload therefore degrading the service provided to fellow pilots who really needed the extra services RIS provides. If you find yourself inside the melee then of course, ask for RIS; but if you're in a quieter piece of airspace listening in to a "free for all" over BNN then ask yourself if FIS would do.

I think there's some merit to your suggestion, but a particular pilot is often in a poor position to assess the traffic density in the airspace around, and therefore if the RIS is "really needed". IMO a FIS is never "sufficient" if a RIS is available, as it fails to take reasonable measures to mitigate risk as far as practicable.

Point 2, RIS is not an collision avoidance service...it is a traffic information service...the pilot is responsible for collision avoidance.

The primary objective of (practically) all air traffic services is to assist with collision avoidance. The manner of that assistance differs according to the level of service, but traffic information is obviously provided to assist with collision avoidance, not as a running commentary to airborne aircraft spotters!

...This will not always happen under FIS as there is no requirment to identify an ac under FIS as it is formally a non-radar service.

We'll see how this works out after the new ATSOCAS stuff is introduced. I stand by my point that, with the exception of an aircraft receiving vectors under a RAS, it is unwise to rely on navigational warnings from ATC.

[Magp1e]

it is unwise to rely on navigational warnings from ATC.

That is probably very true from the pilot perspective:). BUT believe me, if a LARS controller is giving you a (radar) service as you approach a CTR/ATZ and doesn't warn you, then he's not doing his job!

[Fuji Abound]

I fly a TAS equipped 150 kt IFR helicopter; if necessary I get by in Class G without adding to the ATC workload (and level of RT chatter, which affects everyone) by listening out and building up a mental picture of the traffic situation around me and avoiding controlled airspace, rather than requesting a clearance through or a FIS/RIS. I often elect do this if someone ahead of me in the RT queue has been told to "Stand by" by ATC (he's busy).

The problem is that if everyone adopted the same approach no one would be receiving a service and you would not be able to form a mental picture of where the traffic was.

Mental pictures also rely on accurate reporting.

En route to France today another aircraft called up the field to say he was south abeam and reported his level as I departed. He could well have not bothered but because he did I knew roughly where he was and when I would over take him. Trouble was he reported his level at 2.5 and about 5 minutes later he was apparently at 800 feet, although when I spotted him on TCAS he was at 3 as I climbed through his level. That re-enforced that you should never assume the levels or positions are reported accurately. Both I and the ATCO were slightly bemused!

I also always worry when aircraft are requested to report a range from somewhere. Do you bleieve them? Often the circumstances help determine. For example the same aircraft was asked by London Info to report his range from the beacon - 10 miles he said. It was clear form his track that he was probably not using the beacon and even if he had been, he was past it. He piped up very quickly with ten miles. I suppose you should always be suspicious when a distance is given so quickly in circumstances it was unlikely to be dialed into the DME, and it was a round number. A joy of the G1000 is you can toggle to anything on the map and it will give you an instant range and bearing. It takes a few seconds. I was also asked my range which was 8.4 miles, and yet I had passed him about 10 minutes earlier and I guess I was going 70 knots faster. The quickness of his repsonse and the earlier "confusion" over his height already had me wondering. Later the same traffic claimed he was VFR, and yet I had gone through the same airspace maybe 15 minutes earlier and he could not have been VFR at his height. I think it is vital pilots are accurate and honest in their reporting. If I think there will be any chance of a conflict I will adjust my level to avoid and tell the serivce I am working that I have, however if the other pilot is inaccurate with his position reports or more importantly his height, it all become pretty pointless.

I can think of many occasions I have heard I am south abeam of x and you spot the traffic quite clearly north abeam.

[ShyTorque]

The problem is that if everyone adopted the same approach no one would be receiving a service and you would not be able to form a mental picture of where the traffic was.

Obviously - but I'm paid to make captaincy and airmanship decisions and I adapt to the circumstances. If the frequency is quiet then I'll get an ATC service myself. If it's obviously very busy then I'm better equipped than some pilots are to make do without making RT contact with ATC.

Bose-x, It'll go a bit faster still if needed. and I'll bet the owner wishes it was only 3 lph; unfortunately it's more like 3 gpm!

[Fuji Abound]

captaincy and airmanship decisions

So what is the difference between the two?

[ShyTorque]

Depends whether you are single or multi crew.

Do you have an issue here, Fuji Abound? You seem to wish to find criticisms away from the main topic.

[Fuji Abound]

Do you have an issue here, Fuji Abound? You seem to wish to find criticisms away from the main topic.

Who me .. .. ..

I was just commenting on your comment in repsonse to my comment about the topic :confused:.

.. .. .. and so the two are different depending which you are then?