Collision avoidance - Fast jets vs light aircraft [Archive]

Jackonicko

4th Mar 2009, 19:12

But you're not so f*cking stupid that you'd be taking photos while also acting as the handling pilot, I trust, TSR22?

Because that would be a gross dereliction of the standards of airmanship that even the most witless PPL would have.

And not doing so (in the case of the worthless, imbecilic cretin flying the Cessna 152 at Carno) proved suicidal, and, more seriously, killed a far better man than he was or would ever have been, as alluded to in Advocate's post above.

RIP John Mardon, and thank goodness that Bill P was spared!

In my mind, as a current PPL myself, I'd suggest to you that you have no business anywhere below 500 ft in a civil light aircraft, and should really remain above 1,000 ft. The world is not there for your convenience, and your desire to take a few pictures is not sufficient justification for what you propose to do.

If you must do so, then file, and make sure that the duties of photographer and handling pilot are rigorously divided. This is not something that anyone should be contemplating solo.

ADVOCATE_56

4th Mar 2009, 20:07

"" Advocate 56 Are you sure this chap doesnt mean he will be taking photos of military aircraft AT low level??? ""

No I am not "sure" - but making a fairly reasonable assumption based on the words used by TSR22. It would appear I am not alone in that.

As I now recall it, the second mid-air was Tornado GR v Cessna over Nottinghamshire and, as at Carno, solo PPL holder acting both as handling pilot and photographer. A 100% fatality rate amongst Cessna pilots involved in the two incidents.

Jackonicko makes my point more directly than I.

Wee Jock McPlop

4th Mar 2009, 20:31

TSR22,

Jackonico and Advocate_56 have explained/rammed the message home and rightly so. The point about you flying solo, low level and photographing at the same time did not enter into my thinking during my first post, because no-one would be so stupid as to do that. Would they TSR22.........?

WJMcP

P.S Heard the story about someone who tried the above, got target fixated and promptly flew themself into the ground. So it would be stupid for so many reasons.

K.Whyjelly

4th Mar 2009, 20:32

Makes for very sobering reading.............

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/2-1992%20XX843%20and%20G-BMHI%20.pdf

Stay out of the low flying system;

In the United Kingdom, military fixed wing aircraft are considered to be low flying when they are flying
below 2000ft. Helicopters and propeller driven light aircraft are regarded as low flying when operating below
500ft. Fixed wing aircraft (except propeller driven light aircraft) are required to keep a strict minimum separation
distance (msd) of 250ft between the aircraft and the ground or any other object (trees, electricity pylons etc). For
less experienced aircrew this is increased to 500ft (msd). The Ministry of Defence authorizes a small amount of
low flying by fixed wing aircraft between 250ft (msd) and 100ft(msd), referred to as Operational Low Flying (see
paragraph 36 for further details) but this is restricted to three designated Tactical Training Areas (TTAs) and which
are described in further detail at paragraph 13. As a result of the review of helicopter low flying training (referred
to in the Summary) the normal minimum operating height for helicopters is now 100ft (above ground level)
however, they are permitted to operate at lower heights (and down to ground level) under certain circumstances.
7. The policy and regulation of all military low flying in the UK
is controlled by the Directorate of Air Staff (DAS) in the Ministry of
Defence, London, and administered by the Low Flying Operations
Squadron based at RAF Wittering. Users of the low flying system must
make a booking with Low Flying Booking Cell (LFBC), (part of the
Low Flying Operations Squadron) in advance of using the system (hence
the reference to “booked low flying” in the body of this publication).

TSR22

4th Mar 2009, 20:33

Thanks for the replies... understandably some obvious strong feelings out there..

Just to clarify (perhaps I should have already done that) - my version of low level obviously differs from yours!!:eek: I will be more than obeying the "no aircraft shall fly any closer to....etc" rule - I would never descend lower than 500ft and more likely shall stay at 1000ft agl (lower photos don't work anyway - not in my limited experience) - I have seen jets at that level. In any case, I normally buzz around above 2500 (and usually at an odd level to avoid anyone else!) Secondly - I will have two other people on board taking the shots (they are of a house - a suprise gift for a friend..)
Naturally I will be letting ATC know what we are doing - and also transponding as usual. In any case, it won't take long! My job will be to talk to ATC and keep a look out for you guys!!!!

Suprised that you (Tornado/Typhoon jockeys) don't have a TCAS - especially when you have to detect aircraft BVR!! :E

Let me reassure you that I will be exercising the best airmanship - I don't want to be responsible for hurting or inconveniencing anyone!

Thanks again!

Jackonicko

4th Mar 2009, 20:43

Sounds like a good airman making proper preparation, in that case. Though I'd question the need for the extra weight of a second phot......... unless you get one phot helping with the lookout while the other phot is shooting.

High shutter speeds, avoiding any contact between camera/lens/phot's arm and cockpit interior will help. A polarising filter might help with any haze, too.

(And I'd suggest that circuit height - as long as you're nowhere near anyone's circuit - might work better than 2,000 ft and above). 750-800 ft might keep you above mil, and below other PPLs.

Good luck, sorry to have seemed 'forceful' before.

Pontius Navigator

4th Mar 2009, 20:54

Suprised that you (Tornado/Typhoon jockeys) don't have a TCAS - especially when you have to detect aircraft BVR!! :E

Oddly enough the enemy don't have TCAS either. They often have IFF but generally don't have it switched on. Where detection is required we generally use primary radar.

Not all fast-jets are seeking to detect aircraft BVR - Harrier and GR4s tend not to detect other than to avoid detection.

However what you have not said is when or where your low flying is to take place. That would be useful information to put out. BTW, Saturday would be better.

TSR22

4th Mar 2009, 20:59

No probs Jackonico - I can understand where you are coming from - especially if you've lost a friend that way.

I agree that there is no substitute for safety and that is why I posted (and I was curious!!)

P.S. I had two F15d's get close about a year ago (my version of close was probably about 1-2 miles) - ATC didn't warn me until they had gone past (I was over 5000ft and they were "manouvering"). I saw them before ATC talked, but it is difficult to get out of the way when things are travelling at that speed. I also watched from afar just months ago as a Typhoon (I presume), did a zoom climb out near Melton Mowbry. I'm just making the point that I'm aware that fast things also fly above 250ft and that they are as difficult to spot as us snails!!!:E

P.P.S. Just to answer the last post: this Friday 1430 (for about 5 mins) about 5nm north of the Trent Falls area (Humber Estuary) - Newport Village. Not Below 1000ft. I will transit to/from at 2600ft. I plan to begin a steady circling descent 500ft/min to take pictures before levelling at 1000ft and anticipate talking to Doncaster Radar on 126.225 I don't intend to get in anyone's way - sorry it couldn't be the weekend (work commitments..)

WorkingHard

4th Mar 2009, 21:03

What would a civvie be doing down at 250' MSD anyway? Have you not considered that it happens twice in every flight (t/o and landing) and not always at major airports which are well signposted. There are of course many grass strips around which are on the maps but are not always avoided.

Flugplatz

4th Mar 2009, 21:22

Jeez! what planetoid are you orbiting Jackonicko? perfectly legal and safe if done the right way; low-level doesn't belong to the RAF I am afraid, even if you would wish it so.

Flug

Wee Jock McPlop

4th Mar 2009, 21:43

TSR22,

The following is taken from the CAA website Guide To Visual Flight Rules in the UK. It may or may not help, but at least the Low Flying System users will know that you are there.

WJMcP

Low-Level Civil Aircraft Notification Procedures (CANP)

Introduction

Many military and civil aircraft operate in Class G Airspace below 2000ft AGL, where ground radio and radar coverage is not always
available to assist pilots in avoiding collisions. Collision avoidance must necessarily, therefore, be based on the 'see and avoid' principle,
assisted as far as possible by information on known activity. Whereas a variety of civil aviation activities take place within this airspace,
military activity consists mainly of low flying training.

It is not practicable to obtain and disseminate traffic information on all civil flights below 2000ft AGL, nor is it possible to disseminate details
of military low level flights within the UK Low Flying System (UKLFS) to civil operators. Nevertheless, the greatest conflict of interests occurs
at or below 1000ft AGL where the majority of military low level operations take place and where civil aircraft may be engaged upon
activities, as defined at paragraph below and overleaf, which might inhibit pilot look-out or reduce aircraft manoeuvrability. In addition,
certain recreational and other civil flying activity, away from licensed aerodromes, needs to be considered.

A system exists to collect information on civil aerial activities for distribution to military operators to assist in flight planning. This system is
known as the Low Level Civil Aircraft Notification Procedure (CANP).
Before commencing any low flying sortie, military pilots receive a comprehensive brief on all factors likely to affect their flight, including
relevant CANP details. Hence, maximum participation in CANP by those planning to conduct the qualifying activities is essential if full
benefit is to be obtained from the procedure.

Pilots/operators, or their representatives, intending to embark upon aerial activities described below should notify details of the flights to the
Low Flying Booking Cell (LFBC) at the London Air Traffic Control Centre (Military) – LATCC(Mil). For the purposes of CANP, direct-dial,
Freephone and Freefax facilities are available during these hours:

Monday to Thursday 0700 – 2300 (local);
Friday 0700 – 1700 (local).

Email or Fax notification is preferred for CANP requests as this allows the LFBC to email, ‘faxback’ or telephone confirmation of fax receipt
and issue a reference number to the aircraft operating authority. Contact numbers are as follows:

Fax: 0800-3892225
Tel: 0800-515544
Email : [email protected]

Fox_4

4th Mar 2009, 23:43

Wow how unsurprised am I that one innocent question from a guy that is genuinely intersted, gets so many armchair "experts" berating him for wanting to take some pictures.

I ask ANY FJ pilot if he can seriousely say they dont have a picture taken by themselves, probably of themselves! while they were in command of their aircraft.

How about some answers that dont involve "you will spontaneously combust and hit the 12 ship of GRs if you go below 1000`". Just look out and use a rdr service if its available. He has as much right to fly in the UK FIR as any military jet even if he only has 80 hours. This has got to be the most unfriendly and useless place to ask a question out of any of the forums. I would have hoped he would get a far more professional answer than those jumped to conclusions above.

Deeday

5th Mar 2009, 01:05

Makes for very sobering reading.............
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/2-1992%20XX843%20and%20G-BMHI%20.pdf

That link is broken. I guess you meant this one (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1992__xx843_and_g_bmhi.cfm).

Cheers.

Deeday

BluntM8

5th Mar 2009, 07:02

"you will spontaneously combust and hit the 12 ship of GRs if you go below 1000`"

I can confidently assure you that hitting a 12-ship of GR4 is most unlikey....

Unless you taxy into the rects shed. :ugh:

philrigger

5th Mar 2009, 07:36

;)

What would a civvie be doing down at 250' MSD anyway?

What about Crop Sprayers?

airborne_artist

5th Mar 2009, 09:15

What about Crop Sprayers?

Amost unheard of these days in the UK. A combination of much tighter legislation, new crop chemicals, wide sprayer booms on tractors and insurance have pretty much done away with them.

The OP should be fine - it's Friday afternoon he's planning to fly, remember :ok:

Halfbaked_Boy

5th Mar 2009, 10:09

But you're not so f*cking stupid that you'd be taking photos while also acting as the handling pilot, I trust, TSR22?

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever if done properly and using a little common sense. I know a chap who makes a living out of doing just this.

And to the OP, they don't :E

Remember flying to L2K once, and just past Cap-Griz-Nez heading South two jet jockey's cut us up at 3,000. If I were in their shoes, I'd have definitely seen the fun in buzzing a small helpless aeroplane at 500 kts, but they didn't have to live with the resultant turb! Bruised heads all round in my little ship :p

Cheers, Jack

Floppy Link

5th Mar 2009, 10:10

...Almost unheard of these days in the UK...

Almost is correct - Quite a bit of spraying done from small helicopters

http://www.mikehorrell.com/assets/images/Spraying_MH.jpg

'Chuffer' Dandridge

5th Mar 2009, 12:56

Some interesting views here, and a level of arrogance rarely seen on any forum other than this one.

The airspace over the UK doesn't actually belong to the FJ drivers, despite what the vast majority of 'experts' on Pprune think. It's available to anyone who is a legitimate user, including the aerial photographers, crop sprayers, underslung load helos, bracken sprayers, hill soarers, paramotors and even the lowly civvie bloke who just wants to fly low level within the constraints of the UK Rules of the Air.

Whilst it may not be sensible to be in the UKLLS on a weekday, it's not 100% reserved for the military, apart from the large chunk of Scotland known as R610A-D. I must admit however, that anyone who needs to ask the resident experts on the Pprune Military forum is probably asking for trouble:ugh:

CANP is the way to go, and I'll forgive the 3 Herks who wandered through the circuit of an active and marked airstrip at less than 500ft MSD while I was turning finals one day:=

Wwyvern

5th Mar 2009, 14:37

Other legitimate users of low level airspace are the helicopter operators on gas pipeline surveillance flights. Their job is to fly the pipelines routes regularly to see that no farmer/builder is using a JCB or suchlike which might damage the pipelines.

If they see such a situation, they must land and inform the farmer/builder of the dangers of breaching a pipeline.

These helicopters carry a pilot and observer, and some years ago, when I was involved in such activities, we had regular meetings between the gas companies and the RAF to try to ensure that they stayed apart. Our plan was to put lightweight transponders in the helicopters and the FJs would be able to "see" them on their radar. Sounds like it didn't happen.

Jackonicko

5th Mar 2009, 14:41

It may be "available to anyone who is a legitimate user, including the aerial photographers, crop sprayers, underslung load helos, bracken sprayers, hill soarers, paramotors and even the lowly civvie bloke who just wants to fly low level within the constraints of the UK Rules of the Air."

But that does not make it good airmanship to exercise that right.

DeeCee

5th Mar 2009, 15:01

Personally, I think that the level and tone of advice on this thread was quite ok. It was a reasonable question and some helpful advice was the result. Plus, it didn't attract (at least not yet) some of the more 'difficult' posters who clog up some threads - you know who you are!

I am still laughing about the monniker 'Wee Jock McPlop' - brilliant!

Pontius Navigator

5th Mar 2009, 16:09

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever if done properly and using a little common sense. I know a chap who makes a living out of doing just this.

And there lies the rub. I once reported the chap who had the mid-air with the Jag.

He was flying single pilot doing speculative house photography. Perhaps because we were in the garden looking at him he thought we woul dbe a good prospect for a buy.

He made 3 passes at heights in the region of 150 feet. I was able to get my camera and with guidance from the CAA we scaled the distance/height problem. Even with a photo of him, sun-tanned, sun glasses, white shirt, they were unable to prove in a court of law that he was the PIC. He received a stern warning but it didn't work.

Monty77

5th Mar 2009, 17:08

So Jackonicko,

It's poor airmanship to fly below 2000' midweek is it? Soz, but you separate civvies and FJ at low-level mid week or banish FJ to dedicated training areas. Mig Alley running up to the Humber Northbound has no training value for aircrew at OCU level.

Lookout cuts both ways. Don't tell me that all FJ mates are steely-eyed demi-gods who never make mistakes. Bombing the wrong island, 6-ship flypasts through the wrong active circuit, you name it, they've done it. (Ask Shobdon).

To blame a slower aircraft for an accident when you have rocked up from his six at 420, late sighting followed by a departure from controlled flight due to control inputs that exceed the envelope and it's his fault? Similar thing happened to me in a Tincan in mooncountry a few years ago. Luckily nobody was hurt. Aggressive Tonka mate on the phone was made aware that the Rules of the Air are quite clear.

Obviously, you are an arse if you float about in a flow arrow taking pictures of grannies house at 500', but you cannot go with the automatic premise that mil FJ at low level in the UK have impeccable lookout.

They haven't, and I've seen it enough times to know it's not so.

I'd still wait till the weekend though.

ADVOCATE_56

5th Mar 2009, 18:49

"" Mig Alley running up to the Humber Northbound .........""

Is that not just about where TSR22 proposes to be tomorrow? I did a quick Google Earth check for Newport village.

You are right about the FJ mates not being perfect - I well recall being rather startled climbing out of Wickenby rw03 on an early solo and seeing a pair of A10s meandering past not very far off. However, out in the open FIR I would have thought that the FJs have a business to be fast and low-level whereas amateur airborne photography seems rather less defensible.

TSR22

5th Mar 2009, 19:04

Hi Again..

I thought about some of the advice and replies that I have read here and something just occurred to me...:8

An average flight (any time during the week) for a club aeroplane would be to head out, into open FIR at anything between 1000-3000ft (including (and especially) around the Trent Falls area). General handling, PFL's and other things all go on in the normal turn of events. No-one ever complains or comments and Doncaster usually work the traffic in the area.

The fact that I asked an innocent question about TCAS (that was the real reason for the thread) and I essentially intend to do the above (but with a passenger who has a camera) surely does not mean that I am demonstrating either bad airmanship or breaking the law - I think that some of the comments were a little unfair.:rolleyes: I'm still suprised at the lack of collision avoidance software/hardware in otherwise well equipped jets though!!!:D

I'm beginning to wish I never mentioned the camera bit.....!!!!:ugh:

DC10RealMan

5th Mar 2009, 19:05

I also seem to remember in the 1980s an USAF A10 based at either Woodbridge or Bentwaters killed a student pilot in the circuit when it flew through the Norwich circuit by mistake and ran the Cessna down.

rmac

5th Mar 2009, 19:23

One of the most sobering bits of information in the report is how much difference 0.75 seconds makes in that environment

Monty77

5th Mar 2009, 19:24

Mate.

Whatever happens, there is no such thing as a stupid question in aviation.

This applies to PPL groundschool right up to the classic: 'Reckon we can make it?' Apache hits trees and crashes.

Regardless of what we fly, or how good we think we are, we will always park machines in the wrong place. Sometimes at high speed.

You can come on here and some smart arse will flame you. Ignore them. Heed those who give you constructive advice, and mine is: ask.

Wee Jock McPlop

5th Mar 2009, 19:45

TSR22,

I fully agree with Monty - if in doubt ask. I'm sorry it appears to be a bit of a 'bearpit', but I would rather take some of flack and get the answer I'm hoping/looking for.:ooh: Additionally, you might pick-up some other nuggets along the way.:ok:

Good luck,

WJMcP

Dee Cee,

I hope it was a back-handed compliment, or I'll send Maw McPlop roond ta sort ya oot pal:ouch:

TSR22

5th Mar 2009, 21:14

Hey there (again)

Can I just say - I like the Jock McPlop thing too!!!!! :E

Yes - I've listened to the advice (ignored the rants) and there have been some very informative things said on this thread - thanks for those:D

As for the other stuff - well, I guess if you cant take a joke, shouldn't have joined.....!:E

I will take my pics tomorrow (weather and ATC permitting) and once again, let me reiterate - I will conform to all laws and exercise good airmanship - I do care about flight safety.

I do have another quick question (slightly schoolboy and off thread): if you use primary radar in a fast jet, and struggle to see the slow stuff; can you shoot down slow movers (such as helicopters) easily, or would you have to make a second pass (into dodgy ground here!!)?:8

Cheers guys (both good and bad!)

Tester78

5th Mar 2009, 21:24

DC10RealMan,

I think this is the accident to which you refer:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/5-1985%20G-BFEL.pdf

I think it is, although the facts of the event don't fit with your description...

The link is a sobering and relevant read to anyone with a genuine interest in the subject of this thread. Even open FIR collisions (as this one actually was) are usually the result of human limitations, cockpit design, or sheer bad luck. If the constant relative bearing of a collision course puts the other aircraft behind your windscreen pillar, you probably ain't going to see it until too late...

Let's all just be sensible and careful out there!

rata2e

5th Mar 2009, 21:48

Obvious question, when the mil have R610A-D plus all the danger areas to practice in, why is there a justifiable need to fly low level and fast in the open FIR? Why not adopt the system that works so well in many countries where mil traffic transits med/high level to safe areas working ATC, then train in an environment where they can concentrate on their mission? That way both civvies and mil can enjoy their pursuit legally and safely.

Ps How come the mil can object to others flying in the open FIR legally, yet also object to controlled airspace as a matter of course?

Fg Off Max Stout

5th Mar 2009, 21:58

Because not transiting at low level is a wasted training opportunity, the exclusively military areas may not be large enough for meaningful low-level navigation or may not be in particularly convenient locations and because there are very few good and legal reasons why a non-professional civvy pilot should be in the surface to 500ft band where a midair is more likely.

Knight Paladin

5th Mar 2009, 22:37

DC10RealMan - The accident I believe you refer to happened 1n 1984, 10 miles South of Norwich, in uncontrolled airspace. Both pilots had the opportunity to see the other, but sadly did not - the well documented limitations of the Mk 1 eyeball. The A-10 driver did not "fly through the Norwich circuit by mistake and run the Cessna down".

BluntM8

5th Mar 2009, 22:39

I'll forgive the 3 Herks who wandered through the circuit of an active and marked airstrip at less than 500ft MSD while I was turning finals one day

Active and marked it may have been, but was it afforded any airspace? There are a myriad of active and marked airstrips on the low flying chart which are only afforded see-and-avoid status. One might argue that the Herks in question saw and avoided? Of course, if they entered an ATZ without speaking to anyone then that is a different matter, but on the whole, the see and avoid principle works, and is adequate for normal deconfliction.

TSR22, to throw in my 2 pence worth, TCAS is a good system but there is a danger on developing an over reliance on it to the detriment of lookout (the same can be said of an RHWR to an extent). Since we don't exepect any aerial aversary to be squawking, its unlikely that a TCAS would have an operational value. Leaving aside the fact that most fast jets were deisgned and built before TCAS came into widespread use, there is one school of thought which says that it would be better for aircrew to develop robust lookout scans than to become reliant on a gizmo. Consider that the majority of FJ traffic operates in the less densely populated parts of the UK and the actual risk of colliding with a light aircraft is reduced to a level of risk which the MOD is happy to accept. It is also worth considering that one of the reasons Tucano was chosen as the trial platform for TCAS in the RAF is that it tends to operate mainly in the busier Vale of York airspace.

To sumarise, the RAF operates at a level of risk which it feels is appropriate and acceptable. There is an acknowledged risk of meeting other users in the low flying system and a set of procedures in place to mitigate that risk - chief amongst which is identifying likely choke points (CANP, Notams, PINS, information on the Low Flying Chart and from the central low flying booking cell) and briefing the need for extra vigilence in these areas. The potential benefit of a TCAS system is recognised and work is in progress to determine the likely effectiveness of such a system. However, the resource is not availaible to retro-fit the system to all aircraft at the moment.

I would echo some of the sentiments above, namely that we all have an equal right to use the air, better understanding of the constraints of others is valuable, and most of all I would advocate the value of the CANP system. Further, I am sure that a opportunity for your flying club to visit an RAF base to better see how we aim to stay safe could be arranged with a little thought.

Best regards.
Blunty.

Phew. Time for bed!

Trojan1981

5th Mar 2009, 22:58

In Oz, low flying fast jets are largely restricted to military fast jet corridors IOT avoid this problem. They are activated by notam and are restricted areas.

Near accidents still happen with private civil a/c ocasionally wandering into this airspace, either due to not reading NOTAMS or Nav errors. I believe it is a good system, however.

It goes the other way too. I was on the flight deck of an RAAF Herc, tac flying in the Blue Mountains (west of Sydney) when we popped over a ridge at 250' to find a Jet Ranger at our level only a few seconds ahead! (Class G-uncontrolled).
During a night airdrop operation in an RAAF Caribou in SE Queensland we were nearly cleaned up by two afterburning f-111s climbing out accross our nose. (military control zone).
I have also been in a Civil SAR aircraft at low level during a search in restricted vis, when we came head to head with an RAAF Orion at very close range. The Orion was at fault and removed from the area. (Search area controlled by an Airservices King Air).

I take it fast jet, low level ops are not restricted in the UK?

Studefather

6th Mar 2009, 10:43

Quoting Blunty
"opportunity for your flying club to visit an RAF base to better see how we aim to stay safe could be arranged with a little thought"

And on that tack, thanks very much to Waddington SATCO and Team for an excellent brief on ATSOCAS and visit to ATC afforded to Wickenby members yesterday evening.

Seeing the picture from the other side has refreshed my appreciation of the pressures and limitations faced by Mil ATC as they provide service in Lincolnshire's target rich MIL/GA environment.

And long may they continue to do so and be able to support, as happened recently, a mid week low level (500'-700') navex jaunt around 17 Lincs disused RAF sites in the Chippy, including handovers to Cranwell (under the stub), Cottesmore and Coningsby and a couple of inquisitive fly pasts from a Harrier.

I fly for the pure joy of it and whenever I can, and know that there are many aspects of this much prized freedom which have various associated risk to myself and others. I'm sure that strikes a chord with all flyers.

1. It's good to talk even OCAS.......
2. What price freedom.......

ICBM

6th Mar 2009, 19:48

Studefather,

Sounds like you got involved in a very rewarding visit and my personal opinion is that these "bi-lats" between GA and the Military flying communities are incredibly educating on both sides.

Low Flying in the UK has probably got a finite shelf-life but I'd wager we still maintain the most flexible and useful system in the whole of Europe and we should be pretty chuffed about that, IMHO! In terms of availability outside of dedicated range airspace it's much better than anything the USA provides within CONUS. The MoD are constantly reminding those who, quite fairly, complain of LL aircraft that it is a vital training element and it's important to understand that those who fly on these missions are not just looking out and 'admiring the view' or, in the case of fighter pukes themselves :ok:. There's a deluge of tasks to complete in short-order and the aircrew mate that possesses 100% effective visual coverage to avoid other aircraft doesn't exist. Yep the Mil guys are trained to relentlessly maintain lookout where possible, but as a basic a-ship function aren't we all? TSR22's rather benign, and very genuine, question is a lot more than some aviators ask - good for you:D I cannot understand why there's always a need for a torrent of abuse afterwards by some individuals.

LL flying should always have a purpose and a sound understanding of the regulations by someone with even the most basic airmanship skills is all that's needed....why does that warrant the Spanish Inquisition from a bunch of unknowns?!:ugh:

ShyTorque

6th Mar 2009, 19:58

Why not adopt the system that works so well in many countries where mil traffic transits med/high level to safe areas working ATC, then train in an environment where they can concentrate on their mission?

rata2e,

That was the case some years ago. However, due to the relatively small size of the UK means that if that was done, a few unlucky people would be subject to a large amount of low flying. Time in the air would have to increase to obtain the same amount of time at low level. "Non tactical" transits would often be a waste of taxpayers' money.

However, on another related subject mentioned elesewhere, I think the case against military aircraft having TCAS fitted is being over-stated. Most business aircraft can have it retro-fitted, as can helicopters, or anything with an electrical system. I've been privileged to fly TCAS equipped helicopters for nearly ten years now (after twenty years without it) and I certainly feel vulnerable without it. Despite what's continually being said about how nothing beats a good lookout, pilots of non-TCAS transponding equipped aircraft seldom see us first; at least if their non-compliance with the rules of the air is anything to go by. Before the doubters of the extent of my lookout chip in - I most definitely do NOT rely solely on TCAS in lieu of lookout for collision avoidance. Many, many times we are obliged to take avoiding action when the rules say it is the other aircraft's pilot who should be doing so, but he obviously hasn't seen us coming from his right.

Pontius Navigator

6th Mar 2009, 20:33

TCAS or not is based on need and risk. For example the 8.33 kHz spacing radios, IIRC (t may have been something else) were restricted to aircraft using upper airspace, this included the F3 Tornado but excluded the GR1 Tornado.

Why? Simply a case of spending money only where absolutely necessary and applying States exemption to occasional upper airspace users.

TCAS might be 'inexpensive' but by the time it has been trialled to death at Boscombe and then retrofitted to several hundred aircraft - strange or odd, but true - the cost becomes extremely significant.

Jackonicko

6th Mar 2009, 21:31

Half-baked,

"Nothing wrong with it whatsoever if done properly and using a little common sense. I know a chap who makes a living out of doing just this."

If you seriously think that photography using a hand held camera in a solo cockpit is ok, then your username is most apposite, and I must congratulate you on its selection. But if that's what you do think, perhaps you could explain to me how flying one handed (at best) in an orbit, with no lookout, at low level, is anything other than sheer f*cking insanity?

Until then, I'm with the CAA, who judge that "using a hand held camera whilst flying a light aircraft... cannot be considered either prudent or in accordance with good airmanship."

They suggest that a "second pilot, dedicated camera operator and more suitable equipment would seem to be a much safer option."

If this is still too blooming difficult for you....

"A pilot who is manually flying a light aircraft with one hand whilst operating a camera through a side cabin window with his other hand cannot be considered to be able to maintain a proper lookout for other traffic.... his ability to take prompt avoiding action must be in serious doubt."

It astonishes and horrifies me that anyone interested enough in aviation to read and post on PPRuNe should be this clueless about the basics of airmanship.

If that's what your acquaintance does, then he is a tw@t. And if you're seriously defending him, then so are you.

Monty,

I suggested that 1,000 ft (or circuit height) ought to be a sensible minima for civvies, not 2,000 ft. This allows a margin, and avoids the 200-600 ft band at which most mil low flying takes place.

Though actually, 2,000 ft in a single engined light aircraft would seem to be a good height to allow (frequently rusty and less-than-current) PPLs enough time to plan and execute a proper forced landing if they get a technical problem. The AAIB observe that: "Pilots' abilities to cope safely with an engine failure, bird-strike, or even difficult wind conditions or down draughts while flying at such low levels (500 ft) must also be open to question."

Flying lower than you need to, as a PPL, in a single engined light aircraft is poor airmanship. End of story.

If your precis ("To blame a slower aircraft for an accident when you have rocked up from his six at 420, late sighting followed by a departure from controlled flight due to control inputs that exceed the envelope and it's his fault?") is intended to summarise the Carno incident, then you are either a fool, or beneath my contempt, and your summary is inaccurate and misleading.

The Jaguar's departure was, according to the AAIB, caused by the fact that "the entire Jaguar wing detached from its fuselage mounting points", and the aircraft was doing 450 kts not 420 kts. (The rolling moment was imparted by the aircraft hitting the Cessna's engine).

Moreover, we know that the twit in the Cessna pilot was flying below 500 ft AGL (he was estimated to be at 350 ft - which would have required special dispensation from the CAA, which he didn't have), was almost certainly contravening rule 5, and was using a hand held camera through the left hand window, and had 'previous' illegal low flying 'form'.

(It seems likely that the camera was being held up to the window even as the Jaguar hit the Cessna, as it was found at the point of collision, whence it fell, and not in the Cessna wreckage).

These were the main factors in the accident, and that's why it was the Cessna pilot's fault.

And it was pi$$ poor airmanship, as the AAIB point out: "In the event of an engine failure at low level his chances of carrying out a successful forced landing must be considered to be remote." They also pointed out what some PPRuNers seem to have trouble grasping: "This activity was detrimental to his ability to keep a good lookout for other aircraft... it must be presumed that he was aware that he was flying over areas that were frequently used by low level military fast jets.

His airmanship may be further gauged by his failure to visit the tower, file a flight plan, or even to obtain a met forecast..... let alone to use the CANP.

"It is not possible to establish whether this was due to his ignorance of the procedure or an unwillingness to draw attention to draw official attention to his low flying activity."

And he killed himself, and John Mardon, all to try to sell some pictures of houses and holiday homes (a pointless and unnecessary activity) and hadn't the wit to separate the roles of photographer and pilot. His company was an outfit that didn't have an AOC, and that tried to avoid the aerial work definition by not directly paying its pilots.

Even this circus did issue some guidance, and directly required that they did not fly below 600 ft.

By contrast, according to the AAIB: "The Jaguar crew were alert and carrying out their training flight in a responsible and professional manner."

And you choose to defend the Cessna pilot?

Words fail me.

TSR22,

You seem like a sensible chap. I'm sure that Carno and the later Tornado/Cessna collision will give you pause for thought.

coldair

7th Mar 2009, 02:55

TSR22, so how did the flight go then ?

I applaud you for seeking advice here, shows you are taking safety and airmanship seriously.

I hope that others will not be too discouraged by the negative comments and feel able to ask questions without getting flamed :)

tmmorris

7th Mar 2009, 10:51

TSR22

Did you manage to notify via CANP?

I tried it once - I don't usually do this sort of thing and haven't needed to since - and couldn't find a way to do it if the flight was not aerial work. But either I may have been wrongly advised or the system may have changed, so it would be useful to know.

Tim

Monty77

7th Mar 2009, 11:13

Jackonocko.

You're obviously carrying around a lot of anger. I wasn't referring to the Carno accident, so please don't try and portray me as someone who would defend the actions of the Cessna pilot in that instant. Inferring (incorrectly) what you did, combined with your general aggressive posts says more about you than me.

I was actually referring to an incident in the mid to late nineties when a Tucano found itself in the middle of a Harrier formation, one of whom departed controlled flight without any collision, trying to avoid the Tucano (who hadn't seen him/them). Can't remember the exact date or location, and can't be bothered to look for your benefit. And do you know what? I might not have the facts straight, but the point that FJ have the same onus of lookout as everyone else remains.I also stand to be corrected, but it sounds like you don't.

Nobody is saying it's clever to float about in a light aircraft at low level, solo, with a hand held camera. So do not come on here inferring that I do.

If you want to ban all light aircraft from transit in certain low level bands then crack on and lobby the CAA.

Good luck.

TSR22

7th Mar 2009, 17:35

Hi All,

Just a quick update to let you know that I am still alive!:ok:

The photo shoot went well (although one of my photographer friends vomited, and vomited, and vomited, and vomited....) Had to get a straight in approach when we arrived back. Opened all of the windows etc - it was unpleasant!!! I think that she had been looking through the viewfinder for the entire shoot as we circled, circled, circled......! Not suprising then that it resulted in that!:yuk:

The suprise photo isn't a suprise anymore... My friend was standing there waving in his garden - he has a scanner and heard me call in...!

Just to calm down any further flaming: I didn't descend below 1000ft and never intended to (that was quite low enough for my liking and the pics don't get any better lower down - there would be no point in taking them from an aeroplane!!) and ATC were kept fully informed before and after (during the climbout) - I was transponding and they had full primary radar coverage so it was safe:}.

I do hope that the civvie pilot bashing thing is only a minority - most of us do take safety very seriously, not wanting to hurt or inconvenience anyone. As for fast jets using the airspace - I fully support the excellent job that they do. I'm well aware of previous incidents and that is why I asked the question - it is nice to know what you are dealing with!!:8 I only wish that I was lucky enough to be able to drive those nice shiny jets!!:D

Again - thanks for the comments both good and bad!!!!:ok:

P.S. 1000ft always feels very low - so 250ft - you gotta be kidding!!!!!! :sad:

Monty77

7th Mar 2009, 17:49

TSR

Glad it went OK, and you've done all the right things. You always learn something. Four sick bags instead of two? You never stop learning.

Wee Jock McPlop

7th Mar 2009, 18:06

TSR22,

Well done and good on you that you took the time to ask. If we stop talking to each other, we stop learning. Stay safe.

Jock

Jackonicko

7th Mar 2009, 20:15

Monty,

Thank you for the clarification.

I did say 'If' and I did ? whether you were defending the Carno twit.

I'm grateful to you for your unequivocal condemnation of him.

I don't demur from your overall conclusions on the Tucano/Harrier incident (the slower speed should perhaps have flagged up that we were not talking Jag) though I believe that some of the detail of your description is awry.

I do carry some anger about Carno, which represented a tragic and needless killing of a good man, and do detect a common thread in the collisions we've seen between military FJs and civil light aircraft engaged in air-to-ground photography.

I commend the OP for staying above 1,000 ft AGL and do not include him in my condemnation of the fools who don't do it properly.

ICBM

7th Mar 2009, 21:12

Monty, your summation of the 'cause' of the Tucano/Harrier (Northumberland) incident is pretty much how it happened and goes to show that even with thorough pre-flight planning, good training and a number of sets of eyes looking out, close calls still happen. It tends to be incidents where something unfortunate happens that steal the front pages. Given the amount of LL traffic that occurs over the UK Mon-Fri the number of AIRPROXs and serious incidents are actually low and in my own flying career I can say that I've 'seen and avoided' many more times than I've been 'brown-trousered' by a close call and of those, none have been civilian GA.

The Carno guy had a poor track record and on a number of occasions displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules whilst flying PIC. As such the incident was wholly avoidable weeks, month, even years before the collision happened but I bet few people actually DID anything significant about his antics. As has already been said, we all have a duty to look after each other in this game and TSR22's open and honest request for advice should be commended :D and nobody should tarnish him with the same brush:=.

alf5071h

8th Mar 2009, 01:25

TCAS has value for everyone flying at low level.
My experience was flying a legal and notified low level flight in my civil aircraft, TCAS alerted the presence of two aircraft which were not immediately identified due to the visibility and their camouflage (2 x Tornado). TCAS enabled awareness, a direction in which to focus attention, and after contact confirmation that safe separation was being maintained.
I doubt that they saw us, more usually the presence of a 4 engine airliner at 250 ft gets a wing wave or a quick formation / fly-by with a ‘what are you doing down here? look’.

I would have thought that the military would embrace benefits of TCAS to alert the presence of traffic. In peacetime, another aircraft is just as much a threat as a missile / gun carrying fighter in wartime, either one hurts if you are hit by them.
Similarly, a wider spectrum of civil aircraft should consider the cost/benefit of TCAS; flying is expensive, but so is dieing.

craig51

8th Mar 2009, 01:35

Hey all.

Heres a question.

I believe Mil Traffic book into low fly areas before departing. Is there anyway as a PPL to find out what is booked in a particular area?

I know the MOD run a hotline for helicopters for the general public, as they can scare horses and cause them to bolt, but is there a way to find out re fast jets?

Regards.

Bertie Thruster

8th Mar 2009, 09:02

Sorry to butt in on this interesting thread but I feel this might be a good place to remind people that "Mig alley north bound" (and also south bound past Waddo and through the 'gap') is the frequent stomping ground of a busy little yellow air ambulance!

Averaging 3 trips a day, most of them involving a field landing and t/o in the fast jet corridors and then an 8-10 min transit (at 500ft) we vertically cross and recross the FJ band an awful lot. Can't do anything warning wise about the short notice ad hoc landing and t/o locations but the general 500ft transit is a decision made after three air proxes (1999-2000) These all occured above 500ft.

At 500ft, in this area of intense mil and civ activity, we generally have just one type of traffic (250 ft low level mil) to look out for. 500 ft keeps us under the busy mil instrument patterns, and mostly clear of the gliders (eg Syerston) GA traffic, Sandtoft, Sturgate, Wickenby, Fenland and the traffic from a multitude of farm strips.

Our eyeballs are on stalks, we make full use of TCAS with range, bearing and azimuth voice alert and the mil ATC are really helpful. We haven't relaxed one little bit and we always expect the unexpected!

For example: the other day, descending through 400ft, shooting an approach to a HEMS site in the middle of the congested area of Newark, a fast jet 1000ft avoid area, a Cessna type civ (non squawking, so no TCAS alert) passed directly under us at an estimated height of 300ft! :sad:

.

BluntM8

8th Mar 2009, 17:42

TCAS has value for everyone flying at low level

Ejection seats have a far longer track record of saving aircrew lives than TCAS. Does your "civil aircraft" have ejection seats fitted? No?! How can you be so unsafe!

I think you misunderstand what TCAS is. It's just another system which brings another set of information into the cockpit. It's down to the user to make best use of the information provided. TCAS was designed and optimised for the use of large airliners flying within CAS, not for military aircraft flying at low level. Suppose we came face to face in a valley somewhere? Would your TCAS have seen my squawk through the granite?

The flip-side of the benefits of any extra system which brings information into the cockpit is that a part of the crew mental capacity must be given over to processing that information. There is a particular danger with respect to any information which is presented visually - like a TCAS display. Time spend heads-in is time which can't be spent looking out. Lookout is what saves you from almost every threat at low level. Birds don't squawk (well...you know what I mean!), neither do hang gliders, paragliders, unmanned captive balloons, suspended power cables, infra-red guided missiles or enemy aircraft.

As I said in my previous post, TCAS has potential value which merits investigation. But it's not the right system for everybody!As always; lookout. He who sees, avoids!