incident at EMA (midair over Leicestershire) [Archive]

DX Wombat

16th Dec 2007, 16:27

Pilot's Wife, I, and I'm sure everyone else here, will be very happy for you as well as sad for the families and friends of those who died. That's the lovely side of this site - everyone will pitch in to help whenever there is a real need and it's good that you felt free to ask.
Llanfairpg - I don't know about Tatenhill and I fully understand your concern. I was worried at first that it might someone from EGBO as Blithfield is on one of the QXC routes and was even more worried when I couldn't get through to the FTO. Whoever, and wherever they were from it is very sad indeed. Hope all your friends are safe.

llanfairpg

16th Dec 2007, 16:36

Thanks DX and your reassuring posts to pilots wife are noted.

That photo on the BBC site reminds me of the wreckage i saw of a C150 once thats what made me think of Tatenhill, but HG as you say must operate that way too.

The gap between BHX and EMA has always been quite a busy a corridor for north south transitions with Blithfield reservoir being one of the best landmarks.

woodpecker

16th Dec 2007, 16:36

SKY's update suggests that rather than a "mid air collision" there is a report that "one aircraft flew into the other".

DX Wombat

16th Dec 2007, 16:47

SKY's update suggests that rather than a "mid air collision" there is a report that "one aircraft flew into the other".:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Well if that's NOT a mid air collision can you please enlighten me as to what it is?
Llanfairpg, I did a similar thing to you - looked at the tail and thought Cessna. :( did a lot of my cross country training round there in a 152. Whoever and whatever it was, it is still dreadfully sad.

Contacttower

16th Dec 2007, 16:50

Having just watched Sky News the aircraft that crashed in a field appears to be a blue Luscombe and according to the AAIB official who was being interviewed by reporters had 'taken off from an airfield near to the crash site'.

llanfairpg

16th Dec 2007, 16:50

Funny how the meadia can never find anyone who knows anything about flying when these things happen and come out with the most ludicrous statements.

There is a locally based blue Luscombe at Yeatsall Farm, Abbots Bromley

will5023

16th Dec 2007, 17:15

Second aircraft appears to be a Fletcher turbo prop or a PAC 750XL, used for para dropping ? Very sad to hear 2 lost.

Will.

2close

16th Dec 2007, 17:48

Sincere sympathies extended to the families, colleagues and friends of the victims of this very unfortunate tragedy.

RIP.

Skidkid

16th Dec 2007, 18:32

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7146895.stm

carbonfibre

16th Dec 2007, 19:54

As always my thoughts are with the families of those in the aircraft at blithfield.

I fly regular in that area from T'hill and know the traffic north - south is heavy.

I am interested in the 2nd aircraft to see if it is indeed a PAC750 as I drop chutes and know pilots who fly the Cark aircraft, can anyone confirm?

Again I feel for the families and friends during such a traumatic ordeal
Carbon

Sam-MAN

16th Dec 2007, 20:17

Hello.

I very much hope that one of the aircraft involved is not a XL750. If so, it is almost certainly ZK-KAY which is used for parachute drops at Cark Airfield in Cumbria. I certainly hope it is not ZK-KAY as I used visit the airfield regularly when we had a caravan at the Haven site next to it. (Photos I took of the aircraft HERE (http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?&aircraft=-2&airline=-2&category=-2&photog=11059&country=-2&keywords=ZK-KAY&keywordrange=all&keywordlimiter=2&year=-2&sort=1&genre=1&display=&displaymode=&mainsearch=search&newsort=1&size=)).

I just sincerely hope the North West Parachute Club pilots are ok :(

Condolences to all involved, a tragic accident.

foxile

16th Dec 2007, 20:43

Sam-MAN
Sorry to advise but reports on an East Midlands group indicate the aircraft involved in the emergency landing at EMA was ZK-KAY. However, although the aircraft was forced to land with apparently some damage to its undercarriage, other reports seem to indicate that those on board exited the aircraft unharmed, if not a little shaken.
Foxile

Sam-MAN

16th Dec 2007, 20:45

Thanks for the update Foxile.

I am relieved that the pilot/pilots of ZK-KAY managed to get out of the tragedy un-harmed.

But still, RIP to the other 2 souls who lost their lives :(

FREDAcheck

16th Dec 2007, 20:55

The Sky link (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1297212,00.html) has a video link which includes an interview with the AAIB man (Atkinson) on the scene.

timelapse

16th Dec 2007, 20:56

RE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7146895.stm

I think this paragraph wins the 'most USELESS addition to a news article ever' award:

Chip shop manager Mr Chamberlain, from Stapleford, Nottinghamshire, said he did not see the collision itself, which happened 14 miles away, but said from what the pilot said it happened at about 1,800 feet up.

Seriously, WHAT?

Clearly a tragedy, my thoughts go out to all involved.

Paultuk

16th Dec 2007, 20:58

The AAIB spokesperson said "The weather conditions were good." Maybe so for non VFR flying activities?

I was in the air at approx the same time as the incident this afternoon and can certainly say that there was a layer of haze from approx 1500 - 3000 feet which inhibited visibility somewhat greatly! We were operating around the shawbury zone which is approx 20nm from the area and must have experienced the same visibility as we had.

If the involved aircraft were climbing / decending through this layer of haze at the same position, then they most certainly would not have had much time to take appropriate action to maintain adequate separation should they even see each other? Also as they were reported not to be under any radar control they had little chance of this occurrence being avoided if indeed caught up in the haze layer and on a relative heading?

The TAF's and METAR's are a useful tool to use and must be carefully studdied if VFR flight like in todays conditions are to be attempted.

My thoughts are with all involved this evening. A sad day for aviation.

P.S I stand to be corrected on any errors i may have posted.

nav3

16th Dec 2007, 21:09

TimeLapse,

I think I understand what you are saying. It is like a newspaper running a story about a guy who has had a car crash "his wife was informed just after 9pm when she arrived home in the £55,000 SLK Mercedes at their £450,000 detached house in xyztown. I agree.....totally irrelevant

Anyway, back to the point, the way I read it was that Mr Chamberlin (who just happens to be a chip shop owner) had heard the Mayday call on his scanner from where he was 'spotting' at EMA and obviously that contained the 'position and height fix'. It does actually indicate then that the aircraft were around 1800ft when the incident happened which does, from what paultuk says about the haze, indicate a lack of good viz.

Sam-MAN

16th Dec 2007, 21:10

From what I gather all the pilots of ZK-KAY hold CPL liciences to operate parachute drops. I know that some of them are commercial pilots aswel.

Sam

timelapse

16th Dec 2007, 21:13

Yep I agree - wonder what the actual vis was that high up in the mist layer.. I think the only reason this doesn't happen more often is because of probabilities. We hit cars on the road because it's a 2D thing, with aviation being 3D the chance of 2 planes being in exactly the same piece of sky is fairly remote.. just luck wasn't with them today :S

The more airspace we get confined to sadly the more likely these things are gonna be :/

HeliCraig

16th Dec 2007, 21:35

Obviously my thoughts are with the families of those involved - a very tragic day at the worst possible time of year.

I was in the vicinity of the accident today, flying the corridor between BHX / EMA (Pvt Site 3NM NNW of Ashbourne to Sywell, via Measham VRP); and missed the mayday call only briefly. I did wonder why EMA were handing heavies over to BHX at the time I was talking to them; now fully understand why a RIS was not available!

I can fully agree with earlier posts about the viz; at times it was far from great - even at the 1500 I stuck to most of the way home from a fantastic evening the night before; leaves a sour taste to the whole weekend in my mouth.

Once again my sincere thoughts are with the families of those no longer with us.

Pudnucker

16th Dec 2007, 21:54

Terrible news. It was very mushy during my flight today in dorset and lots of unseen a/c on radio. Worrying.

Thoughts with the families involved.

To the CAA Airspace guys - the more class D airspace you allocate the more this will happen.

Chilli Monster

16th Dec 2007, 22:10

To the CAA Airspace guys - the more class D airspace you allocate the more this will happen.

Possibly the most useless comment on this thread as it had little or no bearing on the incident - Both were operating in class 'G', neither were being "funneled" down a narrow gap. A radar service / transit of class 'D' would have been available had it been asked for - it wasn't.

ATCO Fred

16th Dec 2007, 22:19

Quote:
To the CAA Airspace guys - the more class D airspace you allocate the more this will happen.

Possibly the most useless comment on this thread as it had little or no bearing on the incident - Both were operating in class 'G', neither were being "funneled" down a narrow gap. A radar service / transit of class 'D' would have been available had it been asked for - it wasn't.

Here, here, CM - what tosh!

To the crew that didn't make it, bugger, very sorry, RIP.

Sgt.Peppeh

16th Dec 2007, 22:29

From the suviving pilot`s mayday call..." think I have hit something.." it appears to me that the ill fated plane was below and was hit by the surviving pilot above taking off all of his wheels and probably killing the pilot below having smacked the cockpit.
I`ll never forget my instructors words..scan high... scan low......

My deepest sympathy to their families at this time.

P/s: Pilots should not die on roads,pilots die in the air. I pray the lord my soul to keep when my time is up either as a pax or PIC.

The Sarge.

Sgt.Peppeh

16th Dec 2007, 22:38

As far as it was announced,both planes were on a pleasure flight and were not directed by a controller at the time.

Cheers.

May their souls R.I.P.

Life's a Beech

16th Dec 2007, 22:45

ShyTorque

Separation in class D? You need to look up your Air Law, mate! Separation is given in class D airspace only between aircraft flying IFR. That is why it is easier to get clearance across Luton zone VFR than IFR, as I have occasionally found.

You are right that it is safer, and they will give you traffic information if they can, but you are still "see and avoid"!

Sgt.Peppeh

16th Dec 2007, 22:46

Now...now I was tempted to make a statement,but that is for the Crash Investigators as I am not experienced or authorised in this delicate area of work.I try to use common sense in my deductions from what was printed in the news i.e the pilots mayday call. As such it is not for me at this time,even in an Air Forum to guess why it happened....who was not looking or strayed altittute. My heart goes out to my fellow beings as we reach out to touch the face of God for what ever the reasons be.

The Sarge.

G-SKIP

16th Dec 2007, 22:46

My thoughts go out to the two families.

Friends of mine were flying the other plane. They are okay i believe.

G-SKIP

2close

16th Dec 2007, 23:04

Takes me back to a VFR flight down the west coast of FL, USA.

I teach my students now, if there is a radar service available then USE IT!!!
In any case, back in '94 low hours PPL in a PA28 decides that, because the ATC controller sounds busy I won't climb to Class B airspace and request flight following (to all intents and purposes a RIS) but just bimble down the coast below CAS at 2,000'. Now I am not going to go down the 'ah ah ah' spooky road and don't ask me why but for no apparent reason I just felt this coincidental impulse to lean forward and look up, just to see a wide mouthed, white faced Cessna pilot just about to descend into my roof; one hard, diving turn to the right saw me miss the bloke by God knows how few feet. The bottom line is 'an inch or a mile, we still missed', however, for the sake of 1,000' and a single radio call that potentially disastrous scenario would have been avoided. My c*kc up!

Please, if the service is available then use it!

No, you may not always get what you ask for but you do stand a damn sight better chance with than without and if you don't ask you don't get.

Edited to emphasise the following post - RIS will help but Mk1 eyeball is a bloody brilliant tool and should never be underestimated or ignored and I would never wish to suggest for one second that a radar service under VFR should or would absolve any PIC of his 'see and avoid' responsibilities.

llanfairpg

16th Dec 2007, 23:05

Hows about we just put TCAS on every single aircraft?Hows about we just use the Mk 1 eyeball more and lookout and dont try flying VFR in IMC.

The above comment is not speculation about the cause of this accident but a remark on a previous post.

2close the information available at this time suggests that the lower aircraft was in the climb out from a private strip so taking part in reliable radar service may not be an issue

2close

16th Dec 2007, 23:20

LLanfairpg, isn't is quite frightening that you still hear some claim to be VFR in IMC????????:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

llanfairpg

16th Dec 2007, 23:27

2close

16th Dec 2007, 23:37

LLanfairpg, isn't is quite frightening that you still hear some claim to be VFR in IMC????????

I very much agree but I have to say I have done it myself, mainly though low hour ignorance buy on other occasions when i should have known better. So many people only see IMC as being in cloud not as a reduction in visibillity even my airline colleagues will try and call visual when we are obviously IMC

Ditto! Mea culpa!

I can also say that I have sat alongside the person who, having taken off VFR, has climbed into solid muck and called for a RIS being "VFR in IMC".

Really???

robin

16th Dec 2007, 23:58

>>>I teach my students now, if there is a radar service available then USE IT!!!<<<

In the three flights I made this past week I asked for a RIS but was only offered an FIS.

Foxy Loxy

17th Dec 2007, 00:23

OK, I'm gonna bite.

A RIS can be refused for reasons outside the requesting pilot's knowledge. eg
1) Poor radar performance in some areas. This can be because of such things as high ground, wind farms and the like.
2) ATCO workload. We do not possess infinite capacity. There is only a finite amount of time to monitor progress of flights, and to speak and receive transmissions and pass flight and traffic info.

Just for starters!

However, I would like to refer back to llanfairpg's point that it was likely that the "lower" a/c was climbing out from a strip, and therefore renders the whole radar point a bit irrelevant.

Thankfully, "mid-airs" are rare. Anything that we can learn from this will be valuable, I hope, to ALL of us.

Foxy

Helen49

17th Dec 2007, 05:40

Foxy Loxy

Thankfully, "mid-airs" are rare. Anything that we can learn from this will be valuable, I hope, to ALL of us.

It would be good if the GA fraternity in particular did 'learn from the experience of others'. Although mid-air collisions are rare, many other GA accidents are merely repeats............where the pilots did not learn from the experience of others.

H49

Chequeredflag

17th Dec 2007, 08:14

Out of interest, does anyone have any idea if the Traffic Awareness units on sale for under £400 actually work? At that price, it might be worth splashing out if they are any good.

mm_flynn

17th Dec 2007, 08:23

... Hows about we just use the Mk 1 eyeball more and lookout and dont try flying VFR in IMC. ...

Although in situations like this (Class G, likely below the TA, ground visible) the UK Instrument Flight Rules don't really add much to reduce the risk of hitting the ground or another aircraft vs the Visual Flight Rules.

As an aside, the IFR's don't add much for avoiding midairs below the TA (where most happen) even in IMC :(.

LateFinals

17th Dec 2007, 08:26

Very depressing post that I imagine all of us who fly are reading closely to try to learn from and reduce this very rare tragic occurence.

I was flying yesterday and it was very hazy, as we went over Brize Norton airfield under RIS control going north, a high wing appeared on a direct collision course to us and a very quick manoeuvre was needed. The brize radar had had no contact with the pilot who may be asked on landing to conact them. The point I'm making is not to name & shame but to remind us all that if you are going into airspace, controlled or not where there are ATC's operating for heavens sake talk to them. The more traffic information we all have the better.

(We were in a cirrus where you could see all the transponder active traffic, but this conflicting plane was not squarking charlie, an obvious limitation to TCAS)

Thoughts with all famillies concerned, especially just before Christmas.

LF

tmmorris

17th Dec 2007, 08:49

LateFinals,

What altitude were you over Brize? Their CAS extends only to 3500ft.

Llanfairpg,

I believe that the last mid-air in IMC in the UK was in WW2. Mid-airs seem to happen invariably in VMC. I'm not sure what that tells you about IFR vs VFR - the big sky theory might just work better in IMC...

Tim

Whirlybird

17th Dec 2007, 08:57

This is very, very sad....but it was a one in a million chance, even with the poor vis. I fly in that area all the time. I take trial lesson students over to Blithfield Reservoir, because it's five minutes fromTatenhill where we're based, it's very pretty, students can have a go at flying round the reservoir (nice beginner's challenge) and IT'S NOT AT ALL CROWDED most of the time. You can't prevent or legislate against one in a million chances!

S-Works

17th Dec 2007, 09:01

the big sky theory works better in IMC because the reality is that very few people actually fly outside of controlled airspace in IMC. The controlled airspace traffic is separated.

soay

17th Dec 2007, 09:09

The point I'm making is not to name & shame but to remind us all that if you are going into airspace, controlled or not where there are ATC's operating for heavens sake talk to them. The more traffic information we all have the better.
Hear, hear! I don't know if those who think the "Mk. 1 eyeball" alone is adequate are flying slow aeroplanes, but simple arithmetic makes that unlikely at 120 kts or faster. It's not much use for a high wing climbing into the path of a low wing either. The big sky is the only thing keeping most aircraft apart, although the technology is available to improve the odds, if there wasn't so much resistance to it.

DFC

17th Dec 2007, 09:15

If poor visibility was a factor then I hope that the investigation has a look at;

The ICAO requirement that lower visibilities down to 1500m for VFR in class G are only permitted when the probability of encountering another aircraft is low.

There is very little of the Class G over England South of Manchester that one can claim the probability of encountering another aircraft is low.

Regards,

DFC

fireflybob

17th Dec 2007, 09:16

Steep Turns (I believe they are called "Advanced" Turns now!) are in the PPL Syllabus but Emergency Avoiding Action turns are not. The latter are trained in the UK military and, as I have said on other threads previously, I think they should be included in the PPL syllabus.

I honestly do not think we will ever completely eliminate the risk of a midair collision. When I trained at Hamble in 1969 two cadets were killed in a midair in the circuit (one joining and another already in). I also recall a Varsity (I think) in the Cambridge area colliding with a Cessna 150 in the Cambridge area in the early 1960s.

Of course visibility is a factor but like many accidents I suspect the Swiss Cheese model will prevail - when all the holes line up you get an accident - its never down to one thing only.

RIP and condolences to all who know those who tragically died.

HeliCraig

17th Dec 2007, 09:20

Just going back to the asking for a RIS but getting a FIS point made earlier (although if one of the a/c involved was taking off it does seem to make it a little redundant)....

... I flew the corridor described twice this weekend. On Saturday I asked for, and was given a very helpful RIS by EMA; on Sunday I asked for RIS - was offered "FIS plus a little bit" (controllers words). I was grateful for that alone and made it known so; the controller offered some conflicting traffic information while I was a Measham. I just assumed he was too busy to provide every piece of GA with RIS; I get home to find out he was dealing with this mayday and resultant closure of EMA. I'm surprised he managed to give me any traffic info! First rate job, thank you very much to the controller(s) involved. :D

Last time I flew there, I asked and was given. Always ask; the worst that can happen is they are unable and you get FIS - but always be grateful for that. If you NEED a RIS then are the conditions really suitable for VFR? (Flying rotary not many of us have an IR, so little flight in IMC!)

Anyway back to the topic....

Flying Binghi

17th Dec 2007, 09:25

the technology is available to improve the odds, if there wasn't so much resistance to it.

Soay, there's the little matter of cost. Of course you could mandate it and have only the wealthy fly. Less aircraft... less risk... problem solved.

soay

17th Dec 2007, 10:01

Soay, there's the little matter of cost. Of course you could mandate it and have only the wealthy fly. Less aircraft... less risk... problem solved.
Even mode C transponders would help, especially if they were switched on! How often, when you're getting a RIS do you hear "altitude unknown"?

Phil Space

17th Dec 2007, 10:25

There is a blue Luscombe based at Abbots Bromley airstrip.
latest here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7147344.stm
Air crash deaths inquiry begins
Police at crash site
Air crash investigators are examining a site in the Midlands where two people were killed in a collision involving two light aircraft.
One of the dead is Peter Leigh, 60, of Baldwin's Gate, Staffordshire, BBC Radio Stoke has learned.
The plane crashed into a field near Blithfield Reservoir in Staffordshire on Sunday.
The other aircraft landed at East Midlands Airport where three people on board scrambled to safety.
Cumbria Police officer Sgt Rupert Johnston was among those to survive.
He said: "We were flying from Cark, near Flookburgh, to Cranfield in Bedfordshire.
"At around midday, as we were flying over the Midlands, we were hit by what we now know was another plane."
He added: "My thoughts are with the families of the two who died.
"We were on a pre-arranged trip with my son James, aged 10, and my friend the pilot Mike Carruthers, who is also from Cumbria."
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is leading the crash examinations.
Tim Atkinson, of the AAIB, said a detailed technical examination of the scene would take place on Monday. He said it was too early to say exactly what had caused the collision. Weather conditions were clear and visibility was fine.
"Aircraft do collide," said Mr Atkinson. "Mid-air collisions are mercifully very rare, a great deal of general aviation is done on the principle that the pilot keeps a good look-out."
He also confirmed the planes were on private leisure flights and neither was being directed by air traffic control.
Staffordshire Police said they were called to the field off Lea Lane in Admaston where the plane, a two-seater Luscombe Silvaire, came down, about 25 miles away from East Midlands Airport.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/shared/contentbinaries/publish/1928742.jpg

rogcal

17th Dec 2007, 10:42

Not being one who usually posts to threads of this nature, I'll make an exception on this occassion and just to ask, how many of you fly with landing lights on (as well as strobes if you've got them), in these "claggy" conditions?

I went up yesterday for a quick bimble around 1300 hrs mainly to give the old girl an airing and was soon in the poor viz that appears to have been affecting a large area of England.

On went the landing light without a seconds thought!

I suspect many will put landing lights it on in these conditions when in the circuit and or joining but what about en route as well?

OK, so the typical landing light will only last around 50hrs if you're lucky and those on a tight budget may want to prolong it's life by utilising it very rarely but is it worth it when it could save your skin one day.

Only when the AAIB have published the full report into yesterday's tragic incident, will we know all the facts and it may well be that one of the aircraft involved was not equipped with landing lights but surely if you've got them, it makes sense to use them!

wsmempson

17th Dec 2007, 11:06

Personally, I nearly always fly with the landing light on, as it seems to increase my chances of being seen exponentially.

The only exception is when landing at night, oddly enough, as it leads my eyes to a spot directly in front of the a/c, rather that looking down the runway and leads to poor landings!

Perhaps time to call it something other than a "landing light"?
:rolleyes:

Fuji Abound

17th Dec 2007, 11:32

I have no idea what happened and so dont want to comment other than to say it is of course sad news.

In general however I do feel it is worth reiterating that all the evidence suggests "see and avoid" doesnt work - or at best works poorly. It is one of those myths that nearly everyone believes in so we just accept it must be so.

Secondly if you can it re- enforces the need to get high en route. Yesterday at FL50 the viz was unlimited giving you the very best chance to see another aircraft. Moreover looking down it was reasonably easy to spot other aircraft whereas in the clag it would have been almost impossible.

Is it just me or do these sort of weather days seem to be a lot more common that twenty years ago?

wet wet wet

17th Dec 2007, 11:34

Just to add to the debate I was flying north to south over the Midlands yesterday lunchtime. Rather than do the "rat run" between BHX and EMA I asked for (and got) an EMA transit (EMA have never refused me a VFR transit). I must say, given the poor viz, that I was glad of the radar service, EMA pointed out several contacts (one a mile away) that we never saw. It's strange that some people have the attitude that Class D airspace is to be avoided at all costs! Having a radar service (even if it is only formally a FIS) must be a big improvement to safety. You only have to ask!

Pudnucker

17th Dec 2007, 11:35

llanfairpg

17th Dec 2007, 11:51

According to sources the Luscombe was climbing out of its base airfield--the other aircraft apparently reported that it was an altitude of 1800 feet (presumably on QNH) when it was hit.

According to many people who were flying in the area the visibillity was reduced by haze.

Looking at the chart for the area, which is a busy piece of airspace with N/S transits, it has an ATZ, 2 or 3 private sites a glider site and a couple of microlight sites.

The FIR extends to FL045

Interesting set of circumstances dont you think?

blue up

17th Dec 2007, 11:53

Watched Red Arrows land here some years ago. They gave a puff of smoke as they each turned onto base leg. Smart idea! You can suddenly pick them out much more clearly.
On my (private) plane there is no facility for electrics (therefore no strobes, radio, Txpr or Mode S) but there is a nice hole in the silencer where a drop of diesel could be injected. I wonder if we'd be better off spending more time legislating towards improvements that help "mk1 eyeball" rather than fancy electronic kit that may work most of the time?
My day job involves flying 767s, so I'm familiar with the fantastic TCAS that would probably have saved these lives had they been able to carry the $1000,000 / 10kg of kit that they'd need to bring it up to 767 level.

If anyone has experience of using smoke generating kit (pref UK) then I'd be grateful for a pm so I can pose a couple of tech questions.

Also, whilst I'm thinking, has there ever been an in-depth study of colours/markings for best visibility? I know Hawks are Black these days and that D-Day stripes are quite effective but is it true that yellow is not a good colour for spotting?

Chilli Monster

17th Dec 2007, 11:54

Pudnucker

I'm not going to get into a pi$$ing contest over this - how other units handle traffic is their concern. I stand by what I said. I possibly worked "wet wet wet" during his transit - no problems as he says. I was also in the approach room fielding the phones during this incident (having only just come out of the radar position). Take it from someone who was there at the time - it made very little, if any, difference.

llanfairpg

17th Dec 2007, 11:55

Steep Turns (I believe they are called "Advanced" Turns now!) are in the PPL Syllabus but Emergency Avoiding Action turns are not.

Bob, the emergency avoiding turn has been in my syllabus since 1982. In this case it seems the other aircraft came from below so an a turn may not have been of much use

llanfairpg

17th Dec 2007, 12:03

Another time asking for a zone transit across a well known lump of class D on the south coast - again none available due to controller workload. All VFR traffic routed around - again lots of VFR a/c in very small bits of airspace. Can you again justify this?Yes controlled airspace is there to protect IFR traffic, which is mostly the public transport of the travelling public. Amateur PPLs flying VFR in 2 & 4 seat aircraft are not a priority. Please do not take that comment as criticism but as an obseravation of how the system works and must work.

I believe that the last mid-air in IMC in the UK was in WW2. Mid-airs seem to happen invariably in VMC. I'm not sure what that tells you about IFR vs VFR - the big sky theory might just work better in IMC...

Tim

Have you heard that old one about not flying in Indian territory. Flight under 3000 feet is where you meet all the Cherokees!!!

Seems to be some magic about 2000 feet, all PPLs seem to opt to fly around this altitude even when higher levels are available.

Think you will find most air to airs have occured below 3000 feet

mickjoebill

17th Dec 2007, 12:06

Blue up,
Great idea but I fear that it will be seen as contributing to global warming in a very public way.

How about creating a trail using water?

Would be wonderfull to create an effect that was "pretty" and interesting to view for those on the ground..

Mickjoebill

llanfairpg

17th Dec 2007, 12:38

Unbelievable!

soay

17th Dec 2007, 13:19

My day job involves flying 767s, so I'm familiar with the fantastic TCAS that would probably have saved these lives had they been able to carry the $1000,000 / 10kg of kit that they'd need to bring it up to 767 level.
Diamond charge $13,000 for the Avidyne (nee Ryan) TAS 600 (http://www.avidyne.com/products/tas600.shtm), which weighs 7.7kg. Better value than an ADF at $10,700 and 4kg, but still too expensive for general use. However, any aeroplane fitted with TCAS should pick up my transponder, even if I don't see them, so I'm all for them.

S-Works

17th Dec 2007, 13:30

I have a little widget that plugs into my Garmin 496 that I am testing at the moment that works very well. Around a grand including the Garmin cable and it shows the target on the 496 moving map display.

The problem in this situation is who would have/should have carried this? The luscombe with limited space and electrical system or the Pac?

silverelise

17th Dec 2007, 13:35

all the evidence suggests "see and avoid" doesnt work - or at best works poorly.
I guess that is because "all the evidence" is AAIB reports showing where it hasn't worked. No one logs all the occurences where it has worked. So we just don't know how well it works because we only have the failure statistics not the success ones. Am I making any sense? :hmm:

yawningdog

17th Dec 2007, 13:39

the typical landing light will only last around 50hrs

Really? I hope that this isn't the case as I fly with the landing light on most of the time. If motorcycles do, then why not aircraft?

robin

17th Dec 2007, 13:46

Perfect sense....

And I agree with Pudnucker. There are lots of nasty narrow corridors which VFR traffic, including especially microlights and permit aircraft are being squeezed into ever closer proximity.

In the dim mists of my youth I read the story by Philip Wills about the battel to preserve the ability to glide from Dunstable as the needs of Luton's traffic became greater.

If I recall correctly, the great and the good from NATS (or whoever) and the CAA plugged on and on about protecting the safe passage of the travelling public.

It was only when Philip Wills said - then who will take responsibilty for the pilots in the uncontrolled airspace that a compromise was reached.

We are getting back to this situation. The commercial airlines want to expand their activities and have persuaded the Govt it is a good idea. Whole areas of airspace are being extended - Coventry has a larger area than Gatwick for many fewer movements. So permit a/c microlights and those unable to equip with the latest gizmos are kept out of new airspace. Mode S will add another twist to this.

As a result there will be many owners and operators being put at greater risk by airspace designers, who are throwing the responsibility back on the pilots.

I hope that this incident (and the one at Brookman's Park) some years ago will act as a wake-up call to NATS and the CAA to ensure that designs allow reasonably-sized corridors - not like the Stansted Gap, Brize/Lyneham/Fairford gap which are hazardous to health

Mercenary Pilot

17th Dec 2007, 14:09

...........................Rescuers said later that two light aircraft were flying in formation from an airfield in the north of England.

One of the pair, a Luscombe Model H, collided with a third aircraft, a Pacific 750, which had taken off from another airfield, possibly nearby Tatenhill.

The Pacific lost half of its undercarriage in the collision and sent out an immediate Mayday message as it made its way towards East Midlands Airport for an emergency landing.

S-Works

17th Dec 2007, 14:14

So where is the 3rd aircraft?

soay

17th Dec 2007, 14:14

I guess that is because "all the evidence" is AAIB reports showing where it hasn't worked. No one logs all the occurences where it has worked. So we just don't know how well it works because we only have the failure statistics not the success ones. Am I making any sense?
Consider two aircraft approaching each other at 120kts each, when the visibility is 6km. The time from the earliest possible sighting to the moment of impact is 50 seconds. We're all taught that the ones that are going to hit you are the hardest to spot, so the distance is likely to be a lot less before the "Mk. 1 eyeball" can identify the danger in the clag. Suppose it took 20 seconds to do a scan, followed by a 10 second VOR position check, and the approaching aircraft was visible at the end, rather than the beginning of the next scan. Did your instinctive reaction, finely honed by regular practice save you, or had the other pilot finished reprogramming his flight plan in time to have already taken avoiding action?

The big sky theory has got to explain why mid-airs are so rare, but stacking the odds with TCAS still appeals.

Fuji Abound

17th Dec 2007, 14:36

Soay

Correct - and you might also want to add in the reaction time between seeing the aircraft and doing somehting about it.

It is not hearsay - the FAA have conducted at least two studies to my knowledge.

I can confirm the PCAS units work very well (this maybe what Bose was referring to linking it to a 496) albeit as with any detection system they rely on the other aircraft having a transponder with mode S capability or better.

slip and turn

17th Dec 2007, 14:42

It's a while since I used to read light aircraft incident reports regularly, but this old head instantly thought of at least two other mid-airs in VMC within 100 miles in just the South East corner of the country ... a classic climbing and descending at Redhill (one a Cherokee I think), and two Robins over Kent (one on a training sortie out of Rochester / one routing cross channel from Ockham way). There have surely been others in other parts of the country over the past decade or two, and I am not sure we can still call it a "rare" or "unusual" occurrence, or express surprise when it happens.

We all know that 'looking out' and 'scanning' is mandatory but let's face it, at typical 200 to 250 kt closing speeds in 2007, and with typical 'eyes in' workloads of single pilot navigation and instrument training, and varying standards of Class II sight, what we are really gambling our lives on when eyes are in, is simple laws of probability based on unknown traffic densities unless at least RIS has been obtained.

Maybe it is indeed time to ensure that RIS is mandatory in some cramped corners i.e. upgrade the airspace, rather than to be allowed to continue to fool ourselves that like old times we can live without it ...

I think pilots deep down do know the risk we take is there and could be offset with investment, but our thoughts now are of course with the families of the two people who died.

Sam-MAN

17th Dec 2007, 14:45

Hello.

Does anyone know who the aircraft that crashed belonged to? Flying school?

I find it a little strange that KAY (landed aircraft) was on a pleasure flight around that area. From what I'm aware its rare for it to move out of the Cark area, unless going for maintenance. Thankfully the individuals in KAY are ok, could of been a lot worse as it is licensed to carry up to 18 people believe it or not.

Sam

Mercenary Pilot

17th Dec 2007, 14:49

So where is the 3rd aircraft?

At a guess I would say its probably in a hanger somewhere while the owner is being interviewed by the AAIB. I took an interest in this because I thought it may have been someone i knew. However this doesn't appear to be the case so my thoughts are with the friends and family of those who were involved.

Re TCAS: I saw a system built into the Garmin 1000 which is fantastic but it will only work when everybody is Mode S equipped. Its very similar to a TCAS but doesn't give "Resolutions" only "Cautions" and a display of local traffic.

almost professional

17th Dec 2007, 14:52

Robin
Coventry have no controlled airspace-just a proposal that is very unlikely to come to fruition, certainly in its present form
also micro lights/permit A/C are not banned from controlled airspace, well not class D anyway-while it may be difficult to gain access/transit of some at some time most is available-try asking! I have refused access no more than 2/3 times in the last 10 years-normally done because the radio is unreadable
Helicraig-thanks for the pat on the back-was fraught for a moment or two but believe it or not most controllers will do what they can for the 'little guy' !

robin

17th Dec 2007, 15:02

Almost Professional

Apologies for my error. It is true that Class D does not necessarily mean that light GA is barred, but AOPA are certainly interested enough to ask to hear of any refusals.

At my local 'international' airport, still awaiting confirmation that their Class D application will go ahead, they are "instructing" GA to go down specific routes
so as not to inconvenience the local ChavAir services.

When Mode S Phase 2/3 comes into effect a stroke of the pen would make areas of Class D a designated mandatory transponder zone. There are mutterings that the area below the 2500' limit around London may also be one such area.

If so, how do the light GA get around the area, except by being pushed into ever smaller areas of airspace and honeypots, thereby increasing the risk.

My point (badly expressed) is that it feels as though the technical solutions seem to be the only game in town, but that a radical look at airspace design would bring more benefit at lesser cost.

DX Wombat

17th Dec 2007, 15:10

We were operating around the shawbury zone which is approx 20nm from the area and must have experienced the same visibility as we had.
Not necessarily. Earlier this year I flew to Colerne. Whilst I was there I was asked where I had flown in from and upon telling the gentleman concerned that it was EGBO, I was asked if I had seen the latest Met forecast which had just arrived. I said "no" and was then informed that there were snow showers around Shawbury. I finished my coffee quickly and set off back to EGBO. The same cloud which had caused me problems on the way down was still lurking around the hills south of Gloucester so a quick, preplanned (just in case) diversion to the M5 then follow it along to EGBJ before turning overhead and heading home brought me into good visibility with little cloud. The weather at EGBO was still good, if a little cooler than when I set off but there was definitely NO snow nor had any been seen whilst I was away. EGOS is approximately the same distance from EGBO as it is from Blithfield.

Pudnucker

17th Dec 2007, 15:32

Interesting thoughts. I'm just saving up for the Zaon PCAS system and will upgrade my Garmin 296 for a 496 so I can see traffic on the screen. I know it will only show those squawking mode C but every bit of help is useful in my opinion.

Insterestingly at a recent CAA safety evening, I questioned the speaker (CAA chap - well known bloke in General Aviation this month) who was going on about a new Exeter Class D zone (and others). He said that if any VFR pilot gets a refusal to enter a zone we should MOR (report) it to the CAA. He said that CAS should not be an exclusion to VFR traffic (all well and good and all with a pair of rose tinted spectacles IMO).

fireflybob

17th Dec 2007, 15:35

Bob, the emergency avoiding turn has been in my syllabus since 1982. In this case it seems the other aircraft came from below so an a turn may not have been of much use

llanfairpg, when you say "my" syllabus is that your personal one? Maybe my AOPA syllabus needing an update but the one I have does not mention emergency avoiding action.

Contacttower

17th Dec 2007, 15:43

llanfairpg, when you say "my" syllabus is that your personal one? Maybe my AOPA syllabus needing an update but the one I have does not mention emergency avoiding action.

I was never taught avoiding turns in the PPL as such...I was told that steep turns were useful for avoiding aircraft...but with the emphasis on height control and co-ordination they were not taught as an avoiding manoeuvre. I was briefly taught avoiding turns as an RAF cadet...roll on about 80 degrees angle of bank instantly and keep a bit of back pressure to stop excessive height loss.

Pudnucker

17th Dec 2007, 15:44

According to the guys at transair the Zaon unit works with C and S. Not sure if it displays non height related A.

sqanze

17th Dec 2007, 15:47

on my way home i have just driven past admaston crash site 1545 hrs. in fading light.
crashed aircraft is still in open grass field about 2/300 metres from farm house and out buildings.
6 police cars at farm and several 'civiy' cars also parked. Police incident mobile in farm yard and some sort of hgv flatbed type vehicle parked at field gate nearest to crashed aircraft.
the wreckage seems all in one place and you can make out the outline of the craft. however from a distance looks burnt out???
Prayers and thoughts for the families.

almost professional

17th Dec 2007, 15:58

sorry Robin-get bit prickly at suggestion that ATCO's sole purpose in life is to keep GA out of controlled airspace!
having seen what is now involved in getting any airspace application approved, and the hoops that must be jumped through when you have it then any further major expansion unlikely
on a personal note can not see why mandatory carriage of XPDR is needed, but then so far down food chain not likely to listen to me! seems to be the favourite flavour of the month, why you need to make a known traffic environment out of class G is beyond me
Pudnucker-you may be interested to now that we are required to log all transits, deviations and refusals of our class D, data passed to CAA

2close

17th Dec 2007, 16:15

Be careful if you are going to practice emergency avoiding action turns - you could overstress the airframe on your aged PA28 / C172 as well as inducing an unwanted upchuck from your passengers.

IMHO, I suggest that you go to an aerobatic trainer to be shown how to do them properly and in an aircraft suitably certificated. Periodically repeat the exercise to keep your skills up.

In the hopefully unlikely event you have to do one for real, overstressing the airframe should and will be the last thing on your mind but I'd be reticent to risk damaging your pride and joy with practice emergency turns until you've become proficient.

Fuji Abound

17th Dec 2007, 16:18

According to the guys at transair the Zaon unit works with C and S. Not sure if it displays non height related A.

Yes. I use mine on every flight and can confirm that is so.

Once you have one you will be amazed on how many aircraft it "spots" that you dont.

Subject to its limitation regarding non transponding aircraft and given the low cost it is a very worth while safety investment in my mind.

In fact I dont fly without one or full TCAS now.

Moreover the alert function gives you enough time to prevent a collision.

Jetscream 32

17th Dec 2007, 17:01

Utterly amazes me.......... so many half wit replies and suggestions
Some of you poor sky gods would be useless without your navaids, tcas, etc - Maybe this is just a really rare, really unfortunate case of LOW WINTER SUN and BLIND SPOTS....!
Im lucky to still be here, after a flight 10 years ago that nearly ended up with me being impalled by the 2 seat Jaguar from Boscombe Down.
Flying my Super Cub from Yeovil back to Bournemouth, straight and level talking and squawking to Yeovilton - luckily every couple of mins since i have been aviating i roll my wings in a little waggle effect to see if anyone is coming at me from right angles inc high or low both sides - that day it saved my life - just....!!! Closing fast along the right leading edge absolute 90 degrees to my direction is a fast jet - me 80kts - him 360kts - $ollocks this is going to be close - i know, i will show him a plan view of the Super Cub and he will pull right and climb - no sweat me thinks...!!
Now being a gliding instructor and knowing how to teach people to tickle weak thermals i know how to haul an a/c around - but on this instance to no avail - ok time for another roll reversal this is getting uncomfortable...... to no avail... staring on recover to wings level just about to impact i pushed very hard and left......
The noise, fear and andrelin i will never lose - and it is as vivid as the day it happened... - i manage to recover the aircraft without overstressing it, and then see the Jag pulling hard right to come back around - he came past higher and waggled his wings and i did also - no words, nothing but we both knew it was a close call - I called yeovilton to say thanks for telling me about the jag - they said "What Jag" - great - but i knew there was only 1 raspberry ripple jag - so thought i would call when i got back to HH.
Called on the phone to Boscombe ops and asked if the jag was back - it was just on finals - the instructor called me within 30 mins - i answered the phone and an amercan accent came down the line - "that was a nice Super Cub you got there....... That was very close and i sincerely apologise he said.. we were both head down planning the recovery to Boscombe and only saw you the split second your starboard wing went under our port..
Sorry bought that.........
He apologised, i learnt about flying from that - and lookout is the thing that should save you from rare events like this thread.....
condolences to families involved - but heads up not down...........!!

clearly AAIB will do its stuff - but looks on the outside to be just a terribly rare case of wrong place, wrong time....... sad but part of life..

2close

17th Dec 2007, 17:32

I suppose I should take this opportunity to thank the pilot of the blue JP (I think it was a JP - it happened that fast) who nearly removed my left wing over Hanningfield Reservoir a couple of months back (I could post the date / time) in his screaming climb west to east straight into the clouds 500' above me. If he didn't see me, bad drills - pilots of faster a/c need to keep both eyes on the game all the time when manouevring; if he did see me (and I can't see how he could have failed to see the plan profile of the a/c silhouetted against the sky if he'd been looking where he was going) but thought it would be a good laugh to frighten the living daylights out of me and my student then he qualifies for the :mad: Pillock of the Year 2007.

Next time something like that happens I will file an Airprox - maybe I should have done so this time. It's happened to me that many times I'm past caring whether it gets someone into a world of crap!! :* Should we file Airproxes every time we have a near miss?

BTW, has anyone else noticed how many aircraft in the corridor between Luton / Stansted CTA and London CTR seem to have no concept of the right hand priority rule? Is this because they're glued to the GPS or BNN / LAM VOR indications or is it simply that they have no idea of the priority rule?

Cuillin

17th Dec 2007, 17:57

2nd aircraft

G-AKUI

Luscombe 8E

ref http://www.europeanluscombes.org.uk/community/forum/viewtopic.php?t=256

G-CPTN

17th Dec 2007, 18:29

Rescuers said later that two light aircraft were flying in formation from an airfield in the north of England.
One of the pair, a Luscombe Model H, collided with a third aircraft, a Pacific 750, which had taken off from another airfield, possibly nearby Tatenhill.
The above doesn't concur with:- a Luscombe Silvaire . . . police said, and had taken off from a farm in Abbots Bromley, Staffordshire,
and:- in the other plane, a Pacific Aerospace 350 XL.
"We were flying from Cark, near Flookburgh, to Cranfield in Bedfordshire.
So a low-wing aircraft thought to be travelling roughly north to south at a reported 1800 ft contacts a high-wing aircraft two miles (almost due) west of its base airfield* from which it is thought to have taken off. Any turn from the take-off runway heading to the wreckage position would involve banking to starboard.^ The low-wing aircraft sustains damage to the port undercarriage.
*no allowance made for drift of the stricken aircraft after the collision.
^reducing visibility above to the north.

Blind spots?

Aerial view:- http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.812412&lon=-1.948185&z=14&l=0&m=h&v=1

Edited to add:- "G-AKUI (cn 2464) Owned by David Sims of Stoke, Yeatsall Farm, Abbots Bromley, Staffs, UK - England" (following the above disclosure of the reg number)

Roffa

17th Dec 2007, 18:33

Yes. I use mine on every flight and can confirm that is so.

Once you have one you will be amazed on how many aircraft it "spots" that you dont.

Subject to its limitation regarding non transponding aircraft and given the low cost it is a very worth while safety investment in my mind.

In fact I dont fly without one or full TCAS now.

Moreover the alert function gives you enough time to prevent a collision.

Many of the A only ones you see probably have C fitted but have, for somewhat spurious reasons, willfully chosen to switch the C off. A questionable attitude to flight safety at best.

bjornhall

17th Dec 2007, 18:43

Re fanciful emergency turns and aerobatics training in spam cans: How many mid airs are caused by failing to avoid a plane you have spotted, and how many are caused by the aircraft failing to see each other/the sky being too small.

G-CPTN

17th Dec 2007, 18:48

Tatenhill Airfield is 5.5 miles due east of Yeatsall Farm Airstrip:- http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.818507&lon=-1.900731&z=17&l=0&m=h&v=1
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.815421&lon=-1.860809&z=13&l=0&m=h&v=1

dublinpilot

17th Dec 2007, 19:34

For those of you who use PocketFMS and also use a Zaon pcas device or FLARM, you'll be glad to know that the next version of PFMS will allow you to display the 'targets' from these devices on the PFMS moving map.

dp

767bill

17th Dec 2007, 19:37

In my opinion, for what its worth, the LARS and ATC of the larger airports e.g. class D do an excellent job. Unfortunately, due to their limited resources they cannot always give a zone transit or RIS and sometimes only a limited FIS.
Many times when I have received a RIS or just a FIS this has helped me see aircraft in the vicinity that would have been hard to see otherwise e.g helicopters (faster moving a/c are sometimes easier to spot than slower helicopters or microlights, which may remain closer to you for longer).
I think a few more controllers available to assist GA light aircraft would be a better use of resources than all a/c having mode S or TCAS. To the guys and girls at LARS and at various airports like Luton and Farnborough keep up the good service.

englishal

17th Dec 2007, 20:27

To be honest, I'd support madatory Mode S transponders for all aeroplanes (& gliders) as long as we get something in return - TIS / ADS-B or whatever it is called. They can keep LARS then.....

When I rent in the USA , I always rent an aeroplane with TIS. It is crazy how many targets the eye fails to spot, even with a good lookout. TIS draws your attention and you THEN spot the traffic - it is a good thing.

Of course the chance of a collision is very small, but IF it happens, the chance of being killed is almost 100%. The people in the second aeroplane were very lucky.

I am going to buy one of the gizmo's Bose is on about to plug into my 496 in the mean time....

fireflybob

17th Dec 2007, 22:25

Be careful if you are going to practice emergency avoiding action turns - you could overstress the airframe on your aged PA28 / C172 as well as inducing an unwanted upchuck from your passengers.

2close, well of course emergency turns should be taught by a flying instructor who knows the ins and outs of same - this means, amongst other things, that you must be below the max maneuvring speed and in the Utility Category (no rear pax permitted). So long as you take sensible precautions I would suggest that emergency avoiding turns can be safely practised in your average training a/c.

It goes without saying that if you had to do a REAL emergency avoiding action that momentary overstress is preferable to having a mid air collision.

Jetscream 32

17th Dec 2007, 22:51

G-CPTN - blind spots = flying directly into sun

2close - feel for you - altho at least mine was a consumate professional that held his hand up - it was interesting that the CAA were onto me like a bat out of hell trying to tell me to file air prox etc - but they fail to understand that sometimes we we need to carry moments like that for ourselves and only occasionaly let it out -

BackPacker

17th Dec 2007, 22:56

So long as you take sensible precautions I would suggest that emergency avoiding turns can be safely practised in your average training a/c.

Mmmm. I don't know. I think if an emergency avoidance is necessary, then you don't necessarily roll into a steep turn. Instead, it'll be more of a reflex depending on the exact angle with which the other aircraft is closing. Compare it with playing soccer or baseball. Somebody shoots a ball at you and you want to avoid. There is no standard reaction. Instead, you watch the ball, figure out its trajectory and then duck, jump or twist your body to avoid, all in a split second. I think it works the same way in an aircraft. So you either pull into a steep climb, push over into a negative-g pushover or roll the aircraft over in some direction which you think might keep you clear, in a reflex. And you might not stop at 80 degrees, or whatever the limits of "utility category" are.

In any of these scenarios you might end up in an unusual attitude (to put it mildly). You might be pointing straight up and losing airspeed fast, or be inverted. The recovery you need from that is squarely in the aerobatic realm. To practice that safely needs an aerobatics capable aircraft capable of something like -3 to +6 g and temporarily inverted flight. Plus an instructor who knows a bit about aeros, wing root bending effect and the proper way to recover from unusual attitudes.

ATCO Fred

17th Dec 2007, 23:17

Atco/Chillie,

Probably not the right thread to make the point ref more controlled airspace = more chance of VFR nearmisses/collisions.. But whow you can call that comment utter tosh is beyond me. In my humble opinion - more CAS = less class G = more VFR a/c trying to use a smaller parcel of airspace. For example, 2 weeks ago I was in the "Popham Gap". Asked for a RIS then a FIS - both unavailable due to controller workload but was warned that he had 25 a/c on his scope and to keep a bloody good eye out. Wonderful - now how do you justify my comment as being utter tosh...?

Another time asking for a zone transit across a well known lump of class D on the south coast - again none available due to controller workload. All VFR traffic routed around - again lots of VFR a/c in very small bits of airspace. Can you again justify this?

Pudnucker

During my Career I have been a safety adviser to Airspace Change Proposals, advisor to and member of the UK Airprox Board and served in the MOD in Aviation Safety.

Any proposal to increase the amount of CAS is stringently staffed with all operators/airspace users having input into the process. Obviously, the proposer always presents the 'Rolls Royce' solution first off and this is negotiated down to a more workable solution as part of the process. When it is clear that a potential bottleneck will occur it is often a pre-condition of the airspace change that a crossing service is made available for all airspace users.

Taking into consideration ALL of the changes to airspace that have taken place during the aviation explosion of the past 10 years we are still a long way off creating significantly greater 'choke points' than those that already occur. Personally, you wouldn't catch me flying between Booker and Princess Risborough without a team of Owls with me:eek:

Accordingly more Class D does not equal mid air collisions....it could be one of a number of factors but is only ever going to be contributory not causal.

Dipping my toe into the world of Safety Management, the potential for a mid-air collision is reduced by mitigating the risk by introducing layers of safety. Now these layers of safety could be receiving a radar service, having TCAS installed, legislation mandating the carriage of transponders or something as simple as not flying in marginal weather conditions. But, the very, very last layer of safety is see and avoid. If you fly with just that one layer of safety and that layer is marginalized by other factors then you are significantly increasing your chances of a mid air and all this has very little to do with the proliferation of CAS.

I didn’t mean to be antagonistic, but people have got to be realistic about airspace expansion. BUT, I share you frustration with regard to the lack of services available to GA, but 'who pays for LARS' is a debate not for this forum and controllers are not a surplus commodity these days.

Jetscream 32

17th Dec 2007, 23:28

if your in class g - concentrate on lookout - and by all means listen to the radio to gain an overview / mental picture of whats going on, but dont add to the problem by jammin ght frequency with utter twoddle to an unlicensed airfield, keep it simple, clear and to the point - but bottom line - heads up - lookout, keep the fun of flying dont destroy it with zillions of pointless proposals that only fit a minority - think of all the other users that use the airspace and are due equal safety in unrestricted airspace - 1 rule is all that is needed - see and avoid....!

kiwi chick

17th Dec 2007, 23:29

A perfect example of blind spots in low-wings is highlighted here, in a mid-air collision between two PA-28's:

PA28 - Blind Spot (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Accident_Reports/ZK-MBD_ZK-MBL_Fatal_09Feb2006.pdf)

Very very sad for all those concerned, but it certainly makes interesting reading and I have sure learnt from it.

Rod1

18th Dec 2007, 09:45

The strip at Abbots Bromley is at 350 ft, and the collision happened at 1800 ft.

Most aircraft of the type involved (I am not commenting on this specific example) use the armstrong start method and have no electrical systems. This, and the fact that the aircraft was probably only 90 sec or so from leaving the ground, make most of the comments about radar and radio of little relevance.

If the newer aircraft had been fitted with full TCAS it would have been unable to detect most of the traffic likely to be at 1800 ft in that area. There is no practical solution to allow a Xpder to be fitted to an aircraft with no electrical system at this time (the CAA acknowledge this). The busy gilding site at Cross Hays and the strips in the area containing mostly micros and permit types which are mostly not Xpder equipped.

25% of GA are micros, another 15% are permit types and about 20% are gliders. This does not take into account the paramotors, which outnumber the whole of GA. The vast majority of the above will not show up on TCAS. I have a plea to all the people with “electronic collision avoidance solutions”, on behalf of the majority of flying machines you may come into contact with, please do not give up on your lookout. I know it is popular to criticize see and avoid, but it is THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, and the less we try to make it work, the more it will kill us.

Rod1
(with radio and Xpder)

Fuji Abound

18th Dec 2007, 10:02

I know it is popular to criticize see and avoid, but it is THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, and the less we try to make it work, the more it will kill us.

Well, only partially true.

See and avoid has got more than half a chance with slow traffic.

Ideally, I think it is the combination of the two.

A CAS is a very useful bit of kit in my mind - with the audible warning there is no need for it to distract you in any way from keeping a good look out, so I would suggest you do both.

S-Works

18th Dec 2007, 10:02

Rod has right on the nose, don't become lazy and rely on the technology. I have every gadget known to man including collision avoidance but that does not stop me having my eyes glued outside the window. The automatics make noise if there is something for me to look at, the rest of the time it's eyeballs peeled.

I guess it's why I spend so much time in the airways even on short trips, it's more relaxing being told what to do!

scooter boy

18th Dec 2007, 10:08

"see and avoid, is THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN"

The best protection is TCAS plus Mk1 eyeball.:ok:

gliders, balloons and string and basket types will always be invisible to ATC and TCAS equiped aircraft. Planning to cruise at a higher level gets you away from most of them most of the time.

The more times it saves my bacon the more I love my TCAS.
US$15K very well spent IMHO.
(I also love my eyeballs and keep 'em well peeled!)

SB

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 12:13

See and avoid is great but why fly at 1800 feet in an area where there is a lot of aerial activity?

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 12:24

llanfairpg, when you say "my" syllabus is that your personal one? Maybe my AOPA syllabus needing an update but the one I have does not mention emergency avoiding action.

Our Syllabus is based on the RAF, AOPA and mine.

Our skills test involves taking the examiner to photograph a house and an emergency avoid turn.

Rod1

18th Dec 2007, 13:27

“See and avoid is great but why fly at 1800 feet in an area where there is a lot of aerial activity?”

One of the aircraft was probably flying at 1800ft, straight and level (less than 1500 ft above the ground), the other was probably climbing through the level and traveling at about 65kn.

Just a clarification about my “only game in town” comment. I have no problem with people fitting electronic wizardry, I was making the point that most of the traffic in the area of the accident would not have shown up. With this in mind, the only way to spot the vast majority of collision threats is see and avoid. In my flying, I would think 80 - 90% of the potential threats are not going to have an Xponder, but I fully accept that different mission profiles would have different mixes of threat.

One other point is radio frequencies. If it had been me (less than 60 sec from takeoff to 1800ft from the strip height of 350ft in my machine), I would have been on safety com and probably broadcasting my intentions to “Yeatsall traffic”. I would then have switched to either T,hill, EMA or Brum depending what I was planning. Some of the other strip residents use the gliding frequency for Cross Hays as it represents the closest threat. It is therefore extremely unlikely that even if both aircraft were radio equipped, that one would have learned about the other from a direct radio call.

Rod1

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 13:48

good points ROD

AIB by the way have mentioned possible problems with low sun. The para a/c was heard on R/T to say the incident happened at 1800 feet.

You can put forward all sorts of 'hindsight' arguments but the basic airmanship of lookout has to be the major consideration of a VMC collision.

I know it is wrong to speculate but I do not believe it is speculation to say we all need to improve our attention to lookout and perhaps to the way we plan VFR flights

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 14:13

Perhaps it should, seems to be quite a few a/c based there.

englishal

18th Dec 2007, 15:13

One BIG problem the UK has is the way VFR traffic is squashed down with virtually no prospect of getting on top of CAS (not saying this is the case in this accident, but I have observed it many a time and it could explain why someone wouldwant to fly so low). For example, fly south along the south coast south Bournemouth and Southampton and you are limited to <2000' in places....so is everyone else, going any direction. You can't get on top, above Solent is Class A. And the nearer you get to London, the worse it gets.

The difference in other places is that CAS has a defined upper limit, even the big, important CAS, so you can go right over the top without a) busting CAS or b) a clearance. It'd be so great to take off, climb to 10,000 and fly right across England without having to worry hitting someone else who is squeezed into the same 2000' (realsitically 500' - very few fly less than 1500') vertical slice of space. You could also implement proper VFR cruising levels, which is not possible at the moment.

It'd certainly make life safer for everyone(and safety is what it is all about).

Pudnucker

18th Dec 2007, 16:06

Englishal, totally agree. I think if the CAA had it's way the whole of the UK would be class A/D.

maxdrypower

18th Dec 2007, 16:47

All that aside , terrible thing indeed
R.I.P Guys

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 18:37

But in this case FIR to FL045, so hardly 'squashed down'

Jetscream 32

18th Dec 2007, 21:19

llanfairpg..

The low sun at the weekend was probably 90% of the cause of this accident and no amount of planning, map locations, wizadry, comms and anything else that people go on about are gonna make the slightest difference....

Nasty sun position, unfortunate heading, unfortunate height, unfortunate place - equals a rare accident that we seem to have encountered.

It is difficult to see a different outcome of the AAIB - but we shall all wait and see.....

I personally disagree with the CAS comments - the less we keep going on about them and the more we concentrate on our flying skills the better. There are less GA aircraft bumbling around our skies now than 10 years ago - and like hundreds of other GA / Professional flyers who frequent this forum will testify - the more that people bleat on about regulating us back to behind the hangar doors the quicker it will happen.

I thoroughly enjoy flying a Super Cub or Stearman non radio, non GPS, and at 500 agl or lower (str5) visiting farm strips or landing on a deserted beach, or taking one of our company helicopters to a hotel......

Please can we stop trying to speed up regulation that we dont need..! or am i in the minority?

:oh:

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 21:25

Nasty sun position, unfortunate heading, unfortunate height, unfortunate place - equals a rare accident that we seem to have encountered.

While this is correct I merely pose the question, why fly at 1800 ft in an area which has a large amount of non radio traffic when the FIR is clear to FL045?
It is up to others to fill in their own blanks

ATCO Fred

18th Dec 2007, 21:33

Englishal, totally agree. I think if the CAA had it's way the whole of the UK would be class A/D.
Gosh - you do have an axe to grind don't you!

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 21:39

Gosh - you do have an axe to grind don't you!

Well said Fred

robin

18th Dec 2007, 21:51

>>>>While this is correct I merely pose the question, why fly at 1800 ft in an area which has a large amount of non radio traffic when the FIR is clear to FL045?
It is up to others to fill in their own blanks<<<<

Perhaps this was so that the pilot could remain in clear sight of ground features?? By all accounts the vis wasn't good

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 21:56

You may well be correct.

The last time I flew in zero forward vis inversion haze I found that while in the inversion only flying very low around 500ft proved any use but was just not practical.

Jetscream 32

18th Dec 2007, 22:43

llanfairpg,
Do you intend to come back to earth any time soon??? - Can i ask the last time you flew a Luscombe? the poor little things get a nose bleed if they go over 2000ft, other than climbing over granite with snow on, in France or Switzerland - and using the wind to help - your unlikely to find one above 2000 so the open FIR up to 45 is about as much use as "titty's on a fish" to a Luscombe, and the last time you were flying GA in class G in "Zero Vis" - For an, and i assume here, a full ATPL/IR sky god you say some funny things...?
500ft very low ----- er dont think so!!! you need to get out more
:E light banter not personal - please dont take so....

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 22:55

Nice one, i am back now!!!

I normally sit at 350-370 so please belive me that 500ft is very low to me!

But i was referring to the para a/c not the Luscombe so you see if you stayed in more and read the posts you would know that.

By the way I could imagine that'Tittys on a fish' could be extemely useful to the right fish but lets not carp about it

Tiger_mate

19th Dec 2007, 06:25

Dolphins and Whales have tits, and the underwater infant refuelling works just fine.

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 11:18

There is a lot to be said for TITS, i have spent a career working with them.

HeliCraig

19th Dec 2007, 12:30

Very amusing Gentlemen... fills some time while I am working with some of the aforementioned.

One of the others I work with was just wandering if there were any photo's of ZK-KAY on landing at EMA? He was a bit of a spotter in a former life and said he would have been surprised if some of the chaps at EMA had not taken some.

We can't find any on Airliners.net; anybody know of any?

Ta.

Craig.

Contacttower

19th Dec 2007, 13:45

You probably have already seen it but post no.70 of the is thread (p.4) has a very small picture of the plane on the runway at EMA.

Sam-MAN

19th Dec 2007, 15:07

It's ZK-KAY :)

I also got an email off one of the other PAC pilots today and everybody there seems to be ok, which is good news!

kiwi chick

19th Dec 2007, 19:47

ZK-KAY?

That is a New Zealand registration, built in 2005. I wonder why it hasn't been reregistered as a G- registration?

Sam-MAN

19th Dec 2007, 20:08

Well the aircraft are made in NZ so presumably thats where they get their regs from. I know that 'Kay' is named after the women who owns the North West Parachute Club although i heard that they were looking to rename it G-CARK sometime soon.

Sam

Cark

19th Dec 2007, 20:16

Ooooh, fame at last!

RIP to the other guys. :(

Quality14F

19th Dec 2007, 20:23

Evening all

Below is a link to a picture of the ZK-KAY at EMA after the aircraft made it's emergency landing. This picture was taken by myself shortly before the aircfraft was removed from the runway to besides the Fire station at EMA

Andy

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6130768&nseq=1

kiwi chick

19th Dec 2007, 20:57

Oh, man, it looks like he bent the wings as well?

;) ;) ;) :\ :}

Sam-MAN

19th Dec 2007, 21:05

The aircraft looks easily repairable from the picture. Just the under surface of the wing, flaps and gear which will need sorting (from the looks of it!). Most importantly, the prop/engine is ok. Still a big loss for the club tho!

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 21:10

Yes aircraft can be rebuilt but it might be time to just add again that two people died in the other aircraft.

Sam-MAN

19th Dec 2007, 21:43

Couldn't have come at a worse time for the families aswel :(

Sgt.Peppeh

30th Dec 2007, 19:13

Thank you ever so much KIWI Chick. I learnt from this complete extract that you published for those interested to see. I fly PA 28-181,and reading this article will always remind me to keep a good look out,sun or no sunshine,this is what happens when planes collide.

Thank you again Kiwi Chick,I take it you are female which makes you even cooler !

The Sarge.:ok:

Sgt.Peppeh

30th Dec 2007, 19:26

I really would have hated the moment they would have ejected ..leaving you stuck to your seat. I pray this incident do not repeat.

Well done.

The Sarge.:ok:

drambuster

30th Dec 2007, 22:26

Thank you again Kiwi Chick,I take it you are female which makes you even cooler !

:yuk::yuk::yuk:

DX Wombat

30th Dec 2007, 23:01

I really would have hated the moment they would have ejected ..leaving you stuck to your seat. I pray this incident do not repeat.
:confused: :confused: :confused: Have I missed something? Who is supposed to have ejected and how?

Lima Juliet

31st Dec 2007, 16:20

Here's more to add to the speculative fire...

G-AKUI was painted in gloss dark blue, which according to the DERA/DSTL trial for aircraft conspicuity was supposed to be one of the colours that work best for visual pick ups at co-height. However, I know for a fact that gloss black Hawk TMk1s are a bugger to spot from above over UK countryside in the Winter (unless its snowing! :p ). The RAF now paint their Dominies white on top and black underneath to help this fact - if we talk about electronic means of improving survivability how about backing it up "belt and braces" with aids to the fallable Mk1 Eyeball.

Here is G-AKUI, very sad indeed :(

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/GImages/G-AKUI001.jpg