Close Calls

[Diamondan]

I have had at least 4 close calls (is there a definition?) in the last few weeks flying between two cities in the Minneapoli area. I have the TIS-B traffic sytem that alerts me when traffic is near within 6 NM and verbally warns me within 2 NM. In each case it is apparent the other plane didn't have a clue I was there, probably since most planes do not have this sytem. Unfortunately it only works within about 40-50 miles of class B airspace. It make me wonder how many close calls exist that pilots are not even aware of. Without a diversion of the fligh path a coule of these may have been tragic. I tried flying at odd altitude but with the last close call we apparently both had the same idea. Systems for certiied aircraft that work everywhere in interogating the transponders of other aircraft cost about $13,000, but considering my life this is at stake, this is starting to look cheap. Anyone else experiencing this issue too many times or just unaware?:confused:

[Captain Stable]

Good TCAS systems based on TXPDR returns are wonderful in helping to deconflict traffic. Like all systems, they have their limitations and the main limitation is generally the pilot. The second, of course, is that it relies on the other guy using his system correctly as well, and having his transponder on in at least Mode C.

My first reaction on reading your post was that it illustrates the danger of relying on your on-board systems too much and not enough on airmanship. Your TIS-B system is good, but relies on several links - your GPS, the GPS satellite system, the ground station, etc. etc. etc.

Note also the limitations here (http://www.flyadsb.com/education/usingtisb.htm).

They include:-No transponder = no TIS-B target. Always look outside.
...
Pilots flying in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) are reminded that visual contact remains the only means of self separation.
...
All pilots/operators are reminded that the airborne equipment that displays other ADS-B equipped aircraft and transponder equipped aircraft via TIS-B is only for pilot situational awareness. This equipment is not approved as a collision avoidance tool.
The Mark I eyeball remains your best friend and collision avoidance tool.

[soay]

The Mark I eyeball remains your best friend and collision avoidance tool.
You just need to fly with any kind of radar service, or TCAS to realise the limitations of the Mark 1 eyeball. Even when you know where to look, it's hard to spot other aircraft, and if one is ascending or descending into your path from behind, with its wings obscuring you, the eyeball has no chance. In my opinion, it mainly works because of the big sky theory.

[Captain Stable]

Thank you.

I've been flying for 36 years. I have flown with all sorts of Radar services - even Russian and Caribbean ones. I've used several different kinds of TCAS as they've evolved over the years. I don't need patronising.

Anyone who, when flying VFR, relies on keeping head down in the cockpit staring at a little screen when they SHOULD be looking out, seeing and avoiding, or relies on a Traffic Service from a hardworked controller at EGLF and concludes "If the guy (or gal) doesn't say anything I'm safe", needs his head examining.

Lookout first, last, and always. Lookout before turning. Lookout before descending. Lookout in the climb or descent. Lookout before any manoeuvre. Lookout.

End of story.

[Oldpilot55]

This year I have had 3 near misses in about 60 hours of flying, some as a passenger in a shared plane. Every time we fly we get close to other aircraft but two of these close calls were due to the other guy's stupidity. One where the guy got his circuit wrong and descended on the live side and flew straight at us over the downwind numbers. We reckoned he never saw us! The second was a Europa overtook us and came within 100 metres. He said he never saw us and came very close to an RV before completely messing up the circuit and upsetting a few folk at an LAA flyin. The third one was when a twin came very close while under a LARS..when I protested I was told he had seen me and flown behingd me.
I'm not saying my flying is perfect (I know its NOT) but it is incredibly busy at times. Avoiding VRPs and VORs has to be a good idea.

[coarse pitch]

Despite looking out very hard, I managed to see just 2 out of around 10 contacts reported whilst having a traffic service today.

[PompeyPaul]

I keep a good lookout to try and avoid those planes. I also did when I was flying the cirrus with it's TCAS. It was incredible that it picked up LOTS of aircraft that I didn't see. In fact one was off to port for a few minutes and I didn't see it for quite a while even though I knew it was there.

Now, this being pprune: the training; my aviation skills; parentage and/or sexual orientation can all be called into question but the fact is take 1 average PPL and I garauntee that we're all missing LOTS more planes than we realise.

Of course, like everything automated, as soon as you start to rely on TCAS, GPS, automatic pilot the question is when it's not there can you still fly the plane ?

Hence why, imho, the look out is superior to the TCAS. Simply because it'll always be there whilst TCAS might not.

Cue lots of posting about the guy that had a stroke whilst flying and lost his sight.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I garauntee that we're all missing LOTS more planes than we realise
Nope.

I reckon I don't "miss LOTS more planes than I realise".

'Cos I know perfectly well, and always have done, that I miss most of them.

(I even never saw one the other day that was "one mile, reciprocal heading, same height" ... but I did turn right, just in case.)

[soay]

Perhaps Captain Stable could share with us the secrets of how his Mk. 1 eyeball spots them all.

[Rod1]

http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/388301-oxford-aviation-academy-fatal-midair-arizona.html

Rod1

[Captain Stable]

soay, I did not say that I see them all.

From attempting to be patronising on your first post, you are now attempting to put words in my mouth. You therefore do not deserve a reply. You get one anyway because I'm feeling generous even to people who behave like snot-nosed kids.

Some time, go and look up what service you get for "Traffic Service". Then check what you do if, unbeknown to you, you have R/T failure and don't receive the transmission giving details of a possible conflict, or the controller is too darned busy to notice. I assume you would carry on, fat dumb and happy, thumb up bum and brain in neutral, not bothering much to look out.

In case you forgot it from when you did your training (if, in fact, you are even licensed), the entire principle of VFR is "See and Avoid". YOU are responbile for avoiding other traffic. Get used to using nifty little bits of kit and when they fail, you're stuffed. Get used to assuming ATC will spoonfeed you and sooner or later you'll be stuffed.

Bye bye.

[mikehallam]

A bit too sad !

[JTN]

Soay - you probably need to be a bit careful here. The "eyeball versus ATC" debate never generates a winner. I suspect that, like the rest of us, you retain SA when under ATC control by using the Mk 1 eyeball. My limited experience tells me to use all of the aids at my disposal, but never give control of your aircraft to anyone else, especially someone who is not in the air at the time.

Sorry if this sounds patronising, but that is exactly how your response to Capt Stable sounded to me.

[soay]

Captain Sable, if you reread my original post carefully, you'll note that it simply stated my experience of the limitations of the Mk. 1 eyeball, based on personal empirical evidence. You misconstrued that to imply that I rely on ATC and TCAS. Perhaps if I'd started it with the pronoun one instead of you, the misunderstanding would not have arisen, but I didn't want to come across all Prince Charles. You however, have not addressed the point I was making, preferring to resort to abuse.

[Captain Stable]

I've re-read your post and don't see the translation you attempt to imply. It appears that JTN concurs.

My point remains.

When VFR you, and you alone, are responsible for your aircraft avoiding other aircraft. You cannot delegate that responsibility to ATC under any service, nor is it sensible to get into the habit when flying VFR of having your head inside. No, it's sometimes not easy at all to spot other aircraft. I've often been given information about other aircraft and never spotted them. All the more reason to get into the habit of actively looking and honing your search technique rather than give up and get lazy.

TCAS can be a very useful tool particularly when being vectored around the sky close to places like CDG. But that's IFR and multi-crew, and therefore another ballgame entirely.

[Crash one]

I have read Soay's post & I'm afraid, Captain Stable, that what I understand him to be saying is: Radar WILL pick up targets far more reliably than any eyeball (provided it is switched on). That is all!!!
The eyeball cannot see through haze, cloud, into the sun etc.
Radar CAN.
He does not in any way suggest that one should RELY on radar & sit fat & happy till the bang.
Most people are saying that they missed MOST of them.
No one has said the radar missed ANY of them.
You, Captain, seem to be of the impression that everyone is somehow blundering through the sky oblivious to everything & that only pure luck is keeping us alive. Please try to believe that this is not the case.
I hope you see this as an attempt to clarify the actual situation & not an attempt to insult you.

[Captain Stable]

Crash one, I note that your interpretation of soay's post differs from mine.

I'm not sure how you can claim that radar doesn't miss any - there are plenty of non-transponder aircraft out there. There are also lots of people who forget to switch the damn thing on, even.

I relate it to all sorts of things I've heard around various airfields, posts here (and other aviation bulletin boards) that tell me that, contrary to your post, there ARE a lot of pilots out there blundering around, head down looking at their wonderful GPS that will keep them out of controlled airspace even if they don't bother to subscribe to an update service, who think they don't need to look out of the window because they've got TCAS now, who don't even worry about busting VMC minima even when not IMC rated, ears blasted off by having the iPod plugged into their headset, etc. etc.

You may not - there's plenty who do.

Finally, I draw your attention to the TIS-B NOTAM (link in my first post above:-Pilots flying in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) are reminded that visual contact remains the only means of self separation.(my emphasis).

[Rod1]

There have been a number of studies on see and avoid. All have been very clear that it has big limitations. The UK AAIB have made the following statements following a fatal mid air in 07;

• ‘there are limitations in the human visual system that serve to make collision avoidance difficult by visual means alone.’

• ‘small targets may be hidden behind aircraft structure, such as the engine cowlings, canopy arches, wings, or struts, until very late.’

If you want to give yourself a better chance you might want to consider the PCAS systems. At £400 ish you get a lot of help for not much cash.

Rod1

[fireflybob]

‘there are limitations in the human visual system that serve to make collision avoidance difficult by visual means alone.’


Notice they say "difficult" but not "impossible"

‘small targets may be hidden behind aircraft structure, such as the engine cowlings, canopy arches, wings, or struts, until very late.’


This means you have to be "rubber necking", ie making head movements to mitigate these blank spots.

Basically I am with Captain Stable on this. Do I use radar services? Yes of course but this is additional not instead of maintaining an adequate lookout.

Lookout skills are rarely taught comprehensively other than within the military environment (and I speak as one who was civil trained but has, for a few years, instructed for the military).

When I teach E of C Part 1 and the Airmanship topics I emphasise that lookout is an acquired skill.

[Pace]

Crash One

You, Captain, seem to be of the impression that everyone is somehow blundering through the sky oblivious to everything & that only pure luck is keeping us alive. Please try to believe that this is not the case.
I hope you see this as an attempt to clarify the actual situation & not an attempt to insult you.

Luck is keeping you alive. I have avoided this thread as we had a massive long thread on my very near miss in a twin with a glider in IMC.
I dont intend to start that debate again.

TCAS especially OCAS can give you a false sense of security unless all aircraft are transponding it can lead you to believe there is nothing there when infact there is and the same goes for radar. Radar units do miss aircraft especially non transponding aircraft.

OCAS there is such a mix of everything that you do need to be very careful VMC or IMC. You are relying on the Big sky theory and that can get very small at times.

Pace

[Rod1]

fireflybob

Absolutely, See and Avoid is an essential tool in the box, but it is not very good and needs all the assistance it can get!

I learned to fly in the civilian Gliding world which taught lookout very aggressively. I had always considered myself quite good at it until I got the PCAS box, which shattered the illusion quite quickly. I still work at see and avoid, but now I know how bad I am in comparison with the tec, and that only spots about 50% of the traffic within 5nm and 2000ft of me.

Pace, did you get a copy of the Flyer article on collision avoidance?

Rod1

[Pace]

Pace, did you get a copy of the Flyer article on collision avoidance?

Rod1

Of course I did and it was an excellent well written piece. Thanks for all your efforts. Quite a celebrity :)

Pace

[Captain Stable]

Nobody would deny that the Mark I Eyeball has its limitations. Getting a little of the right kind of assistance is no bad thing.

HOWEVER, TCAS/PCAS/OCAS also have their limitations and cannot under any circumstances replace a bloody good lookout. They can't show anything not transponding, they can't show anything if the equipment fails, and as Pace so rightly says, they CAN very easily induce a false sense of security so that the lookout becomes lazier and less effective.

I train in an area that can on occasions become overrun with gliders, which very rarely carry transponders and often are non-radio as well. They don't reflect primary radar too well, so are all but invisible on radar, invisible on TCAS, and you need a damn good lookout to see such a slim fuselage and high aspect ratio wing.

So keep that lookout skill honed - or you will become (the cause of) another accident statistic sooner or later.

[Molesworth 1]

Although I have considered it I have not bought a PCAS unit - not all of us have unlimited flying budgets - I am with Captain Staple on this one. Flying VFR you should be able to see converging aircraft in time to take avoiding action. The exception is an aircraft converging directly ahead at 12 o'clock. I consider the chances of another aircraft being on a direct heading at exactly the same height very low indeed. Is there any recorded instance of this actually happening?

A few days ago I was on the downwind leg at Swansee when I saw an aircraft far ahead, seemingly outside the ATZ and heading off in a different direction. As I turned on to base leg it was suddenly in front of me and I turned to the right to move behind it.

Swansee is A/G radio but they obviously take their job seriously. I did hear them give airfield information to an aircraft AFTER I had begun my downwind leg and didn't hear any a/c call downwind or the A/G mention anything about other traffic in the circuit.

At this time A/G was strongly advising another a/c about to line up to hold as that pilot seemed not to be bothered looking for traffic on final.

Which makes me think the other airborne a/c was doing a straight-in approach or else a right hand circuit (A/G had notified a left hand circuit). It's pilot also seemed completely unaware of my presence behind and seemed to take forever to evacuate the runway!

So a lot of less than perfect airmanship - and I include myself in that!

By the way, is it acceptable to go and talk to staff in the tower after the event to get more information about what happened? I had no intention with fighting with anyone but it would be of interest.

[Captain Stable]

By the way, is it acceptable to go and talk to staff in the tower after the event to get more information about what happened?Definitely.

ATC units / AFISO units etc. all very much welcome pilots going to see what goes on, discussing any incidents whose dissection may lead to greater understanding of the other sides' problems and so on.

[englishal]

The fact is that one CANNOT rely on the Mk1 eyeball. If you want to use stats to prove this, how many collisions have occured in VMC conditions? Pretty much ALL of them AFAIK.

TIS is a real benefit, and I fly aeroplanes with it around LA which is exceedingly busy as no doubt Socal will atest to, and I have had a number of close calls in the past over the famous Long Beach "practice area" - which has claimed numerous lives in recent history from midairs.

If anything TIS increases ones ability to visually acquire a target - rather than "keeping your head in the cockpit looking at a screen" as some people who probably have never used the system seem to imply. Also because you can see the altitude of conflicting traffic you know if there really is a risk or not. I had a controller clear an aircraft for a left hand departure from a right hand parallel runway just after I had taken off the left hand runway at night. The other aircraft passed overhead at less than 100' and it was only because TIS started screaming that we stopped our climb and put the nose down. being night it was very difficult to tell which way the aeroplane was actually moving until very close when things started to happen very quickly.

However, one thing that I have discovered is that luckily a midair is exceedingly unlikely. Even when your traffic system shouts "Traffic" at you most of the time there will be some offset in altitude - A miss is as good as a mile so even with 20' clearance, a collision won't occur. Still sods law and all that, and so if I see another target I have not visually acquired then I'll make sure there is some offset in altitude.

In the UK i have a Zaon XRX interfaced to my G496 which displays the traffic on it. It works well and certainly increases situational awareness.

[Captain Stable]

englishal, your post has a number of misconceptions and misunderstandings.

First:-If you want to use stats to prove this, how many collisions have occured in VMC conditions? Pretty much ALL of them AFAIK.This is quite an extraordinary statement to make. It rather sets the tone for the rest of the post.

Secondly, you say some people who probably have never used the systemI am prepared to bet a considerable amount of money that I have used more TCAS systems than you. I have also written training modules for crews flying TCAS systems when they fiirst started becoming mandatory in larger aircraft. So let's not start slinging mud like that.

Third, nobody has said that we should "rely" on the Mark I eyeball solely. Situational awareness, ATC radar units and other systems (of which TCAS is just one) also have a major part to play.

Next, you stateAlso because you can see the altitude of conflicting traffic you know if there really is a risk or not.That's fine if you rely 100% on what TCAS and your own altimetry is telling you. If you want to bet your life on that rather than having a look out of the window, then that's fine. Just don't go betting other people's lives on it as well. All it takes is a mis-set altimeter and bang - that's all she wrote.

Next, your near miss:-I had a controller clear an aircraft for a left hand departure from a right hand parallel runway just after I had taken off the left hand runway at night.Situational awareness should have alerted you to a very real and significant danger of collision. I suggest that you should have taken action well before the other aircraft got that close.

You say your wiggly amp devices are good for increasing situational awareness. I'm all for that. But anyone relying on such systems to give him first notice of traffic instead of starting off looking out of the window is an accident waiting to happen, and is a very silly pilot indeed.

Finally, a miss is very far from being as good as a mile. A little light aircraft thinking that 20' is fine and having a close encounter with something fast and heavy-ish doing close to 250 kts and pumping lots of hot air out the back is liable to be very upset. A physical collision is not necessary.

[englishal]

This is quite an extraordinary statement to make. It rather sets the tone for the rest of the post.
Why is it? It is fact. Even under IFR "see and avoid" still applies. Remember the Reno Hawker 800XP and glider collision? Neither "saw" the other, had the glider had a transponder turned on of course then the collision would probably not have happened. They were both responsible for See and Avoid being in VMC.
If you want to bet your life on that rather than having a look out of the window, then that's fine.
If you read my post again I said:
and so if I see another target I have not visually acquired then I'll make sure there is some offset in altitude.
That's fine if you rely 100% on what TCAS and your own altimetry is telling you. If you want to bet your life on that rather than having a look out of the window, then that's fine. Just don't go betting other people's lives on it as well. All it takes is a mis-set altimeter and bang - that's all she wrote.
I don't use my own altimeter, I use the difference in height from the traffic system. If it tells me there is 400' difference then that is better than just ignoring an aeroplane you cannot see!
Situational awareness should have alerted you to a very real and significant danger of collision. I suggest that you should have taken action well before the other aircraft got that close.
I did. In the few seconds we had after heading the tower tell them they were cleared, I visually acquired the target with the eyes and on the screen, I tried to determine whether it was going to pass behind us (as ATC had radar they normally would clear this action if it was safe) and which direction it was actually heading. Also he must have heard us depart so it would have been safe to assume that he'd have know about us. By that time things were happening quickly so I fail to see how one could have taken any further action "well before".

I'm sure you are a TCAS SkyGod but please tell me out of all the collisions in recent history how many have happened in VMC conditions (and hence see and avoid apply, even under IFR) and how many in IMC (where see and avoid is not applicable). I can't think of one having happened in IMC which leads me to the conclusion that the "Mk 1 eyeball" has its failings as well as any other system. Combine them both and you have the best of both worlds, though your first post seemed to indicate that you were an "anti-technologist" who thinks that all things TCAS and GPS are evil....

[Captain Stable]

Blimey, where does one start?

You say, without evidence of blushing or presentation of reference or reputable authority, "If you want to use stats to prove this, how many collisions have occured in VMC conditions? Pretty much ALL of them AFAIK."

When I query this, you then say "Why is it? It is fact. Even under IFR "see and avoid" still applies."

Wrt the Hawker/Glider accident, you say "They were both responsible for See and Avoid being in VMC." And they failed to do so, didn't they? Perhaps the 800 pilot decided simply "In TCAS we trust". :rolleyes:

You wanted to bring up statistics - you quote them. Don't present something you've made up and then challenge me to prove the opposite.

I note in your further elaboration of your near miss that at no time did you make a call to alert either the Tower or the other aircraft to your presence. You decided it was "safe to assume" he knew. It's never safe to assume anything. In fact, it's bloody stupid to make assumptions where safety is concerned.

And when you knew an aircraft was being launched on a collision course with you, and you knew where he was relative to you, you decided to get your head inside rather than keeping all your attention on where he actually was? The mind boggles.

I make no claim to be any kind of a God. I do, however, know the rules about collision avoidance, how to use TCAS, and what one does in IFR compared to VFR.

For example, if you are under positive radar control while still in VMC, I am not going to blindly plough into another aircraft simply because ATC told me to fly this heading. Nor am I going to ignor a collision avoidance call from my TCAS. I shall pull up (if that's the action advised) and tell ATC "TCAS Climb". Similarly, in IMC the rule is NOT "see and avoid" as you seem to think. Looking out can still help, however.

[Captain Stable]

Thanks for that, SoCal.

I'm not sure how the USA statistics compare to UK statistics, but probably about equivalent. Given the fact that one is in VMC a lot more than IMC, I'm not very surprised that's how they pan out. Very far from "almost all".

Incidentally, the UK Airprox Board state:-About 10% of all Airprox are glider-related – that’s about 20 incidents a year. Almost all occur in Class G airspace which is of course for everyone to use. In such airspace, “see and avoid” is the primary means of collision avoidance.From Lessons Identified | UK Airprox Board (http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagetype=90&pageid=5640)

[englishal]

heh heh...whatever :}

And they failed to do so, didn't they? Perhaps the 800 pilot decided simply "In TCAS we trust".
I suppose at 350 kts things happen even quicker. It is hard enough to see a glider at 100kts, let alone at 350+ (this was at 16000' too) so perhaps they just didn't see each other??!?

You wanted to bring up statistics - you quote them. Don't present something you've made up and then challenge me to prove the opposite.

Go through all the AAIB reports and NTSB reports and read them for yourself. I have read a good many of them and don't recall one being in IMC. I can't be bothered to spoon feed them to you.

About 10% of all Airprox are glider-related – that’s about 20 incidents a year. Almost all occur in Class G airspace which is of course for everyone to use. In such airspace, “see and avoid” is the primary means of collision avoidance.

From Lessons Identified | UK Airprox Board
Perhaps you should ask yourself why more and more glider pilots are taking up FLARM, and why many in Europe already use FLARM. Perhaps nothing better than see and avoid has existed for GA aircraft until now?

[Rod1]

To inject some facts;

On average 3 – 4 people a year die in mid air collisions in UK GA (that includes self launching motor gliders but not other forms of glider) (AAIB umbers)

Mid air collisions are one of the big three killers in gliding, and the BGA has recently issued a statement supporting collision avoidance devices being used to assist lookout.

If you read the accident reports, like the 2007 incident in the midlands, you will see that unless you have x-ray vision to see through the aircraft structure, you cannot see all the threats. In the 2007 incident the Luscome turned to avoid a micro and was “collected” by a turboprop doing 160kn. The Luscome pilot could not have seen the turboprop. Of the three aircraft only the TP had a transponder, but if the Luscome had had PCAS he would have at least had a chance.

In the UK about 50% of GA has a transponder. 15% of gliders have FLARM, but this is rising rapidly as it only became legal to use it in October last year.

Devices that detect both Mode C, Mode S, ADS-B and FLARM are going to be available early next year.

If you do a search on see and avoid you will find several studies. All are very negative about its effectiveness. I think we all need to work on our lookout, but we also need to consider if some tec can help us.

Rod1

[gasax]

The newer devices certainly offer TIS like performance and FLARM, the latest one I have seen is LX avionics Ltd - Traffic Monitor (http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/traffic-monitor.htm) which with the capability of adding mode C looks a very capable unit.

I'd love to think that I can spot all the other traffic - but I know I cann't. In this neck of the woods high speed military traffic can be found pretty much anywhere in the usual VFR range of heights. Spotting a single aircraft is really bad news as they generally operate in pairs - so any odd number suggested you have either missed the leader or the wingman - which? you'll never know......

Gadgets like this would really help.

[Captain Stable]

Very rarely, gasax - they don't usually have TXPDR on.

However, if you have yours on, many of them should be able to spot you on threat detection.

[Lister Noble]

A couple of years ago I flew as passenger seated behind the pilot in a Chipmunk going to a display as one of the Red Sparrows Team
The pilot was a serving senior ranking RAF officer,ex fighter pilot.
I was amazed at the thoroughness of his lookout.
He never stopped scanning the sky, up and down and from one side to the other all the time we were airborne.
I always try to emulate him when I fly.
Lister:)

[englishal]

Very rarely, gasax - they don't usually have TXPDR on.
Many more military aircraft seem to have txpdrs turned on. My PCAS / 496 has picked up Lynx & other helicopters, tutors, various fast jets, jetstreams, out of the mil base we're based near....as well as the coastuard helo, the air ambulance, police helo, and CAT (obviously).

I believe that although maybe only 50% of GA have txpdrs, those who are either based at, based near to "big" airfields and CAS normally do, and that those who tend to do cross country trips probably will have and use a transponder.

I try and go high - go at 7000 + if you can,lookout and use any available technology to help.

[Captain Stable]

I try and go high - go at 7000 + if you canEasy to tell you're not based in the UK... :ouch:

[englishal]

I am too....You should try it sometime ;)

[Rod1]

Flying high is a good tactic, but it is only of limited use.

You have to get up there and the first 3000 feet are the risky bit.

You have to come down and that is usually in a busy bit of airspace

You cannot normally fly high in the UK, as Class A forces you down.

I suspect we will see an increase in collisions as controlled airspace expands.

Rod1

[Captain Stable]

You'll generally find that Mill traffic squawks on departure from their base, when in the vicinity of known other traffic. Thereafter, FJ traffic will turn it off when on exercise. Therefore they're unlikely to be squawking when blatting around the "wide open spaces" at MachLots and FL 0.5. Such, at least, is my understanding from participating in ShareSpace a few years ago.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Flying high is a good tactic, but it is only of limited use
I get up to 4,000' quite often, 6,000' occasionally, and 9,500' only once; I don't hedge-hop at 2,000' if I've got the option not to. I very rarely seem to pick days with no cloud at all to go flying.

[englishal]

You cannot normally fly high in the UK, as Class A forces you down.
Only aorund places like London and Manchester and the occasional airway. Most of the time you can get to 55 quite readily, even quite close to London and if there is Class D then you can often get a clearance through. I agree though that Class A does put a dampener on things because there is no way to get a clearance through if it "doesn't touch the gorund".

If there is a layer of broken cloud, try and get on top because once up there *most* other people will be below it, and certainly all gliders. I came back across Wales a few weeks ago and went at 7500. There was a layer of Bkn at 4000-5000 so at 7.5k we were in the smooth in the sunshine, there was no one else around (saw a few others below the cloud) and no airspace worries. Plenty of holes to get back down through and Cardiff could see us from 100 miles away and quite happily gave us a traffic service.

[gasax]

Capt Stables remarks about the transponders not being switched on interests me.

It was my understanding mainly from reading the stuff that the MoD issues -
for instance on the 'low flying system'

For example, DASC are able to reassure them that it is an MoD requirement3 that ‘Except for aircraft con ducting authorised operational missions, entry to the UK Low Flying System is prohibited unless aircraft are equipped with a serviceable IFF/SSR transpon der and a Mode 3/A squawk with mode C (where fi tted) is being transmitted’.

On collision warning systems;

Which military aircraft have a CWS fi tted? Most UK military transport/‘wide-bodied’ aircraft have TCAS fi tted as do the Tucanos at Linton-on-Ouse. (see page 44 in this issue). While there are currently no military Fast jets with a CWS, the Hawk 128 should have TCAS fi tted when it comes into service, and there is an ongoing evaluation of a possible CWS for the Tornado GR4. No military helicopters currently have a CWS

On mode S;
The Ministry of Defence has a programme to fit Mode S capable SSR transponders to its military aircraft to help protect freedom of movement and improve interoperability

But if they decide not to switch them on then it makes all of this nothing more than window dressing. Anyone with definitive knowledge of whether aircraft in the 'low flying system' must squawk?

[Slopey]

Did my first trip across the channel at the weekend (to St Omer and back), and being from lovely class G covered North E Scotland, the amount of traffic in the SE of England was quite a surprise.

Had 2 or 3 moments in the one flight with aircraft on constant bearings which we had to turn and avoid - they either hadn't see us (all lights on/waggling wings but no joy), or weren't going to move. And none of them were talking to who we were.

A high wing cessna which dropped out of the 1500 cloud base in front of us, a Robin on a reciprocal heading 200 ft below, a high wing cessna into South-end who wasn't moving for anyone, an those are just the ones we could see!

And the RT was terrible - Poor London Info controllers having to tell people to stop broadcasting all over each other - one french guy stomped on 5 tx in a row and had a very "pointed" response from London.

We're now seriously considering a XRX, as it wasn't funny after the 2nd or 3rd time - but given the number of "negative transponder" calls to London, who knows!

And it was especially annoying as it was always *us* that had to turn away for an orbit - they just kept plodding on.

Mandatory transponders and mode S suddenly started seeming like a very very good idea!

[Lister Noble]

I wonder if pilots following tracks to/from similar waypoints are causing these near misses?
In shipping therer are GPS assisted collisions where ships are heading for same nav point.
Lister

[gasax]

My experience of the SE corner is pretty similar to Slopey's. Most of it I suspect is people using routings which pass over the Manston to Folkstone area. Everytime I flown through there it is busy, similarly around the GA fields and the 'rat runs' between controlled airspace.

Certainly a gadget would help but obviously is not the whole answer. As for everyone having a transponder? Cannot see it every happening - if only for the well rehearsed Mode S arguments.

Even here in the quiet-ish north it is not unusual to find paragliders, hanggliders and weightshift microlights at typical GA altitudes and they outnumber all of the GA fleet.

[JW411]

Just as a passing comment; it is my understanding that we don't call "TCAS Climb" (or "TCAS Descent") any more. The call is simply "Resolution Advisory" whichever way you are manoeuvering.

[Diamondan]

My close call were all outside class B but withon about 15 miles from the outer 30NM ring. By close call I am talking about misses by less than 100-200 yds. This was on VFR flight surrounding Minneapolis. I find the TIS-B finds plane much earlier than I can visusally see them starting at about 6 NM.

[Diamondan]

I was outside the classB veil. TIS-B tends to report traffic on the screen about 50 NM out from Minneapolis radar. I was on a common traffic advisory or local airport frequency. On one occassion I managed to talk to the other pilot as he & I reported a position and altitude that were about the same. On one occassion the near miss was a head on, in which with each aircraft trvelling about 150 MPH leaves only about 10 seconds to see and avoid. I didn't see the plane coming on but the TIS-B system alerted me to the position, altitude, and direction. so it allowed me to focus quickly in the right direction. I saw the plane and took immediate evasive action. I'm pretty sure he didn'r see me. Even the guy I was talking to on a 90 collision course didn't see me until I said look straight ahead and up a I had pulled up due to the TIS-B alert. I agree that I need to be continuously looking but it sure is nice to be alerted to planes I may miss. Thanks for all the comments. I was off line getting my IFR rating. Yea!
:O

[Captain Stable]

If you had to take immediate evasive action when seeing the aircraft, TIS-B is not nearly as effective or useful as it should be. Furthermore, it appears likely that your lookout was not nearly as good as it should have been. I think my earlier comments are entirely vindicated.

[englishal]

Better than colliding and bodies falling from the sky though.

Human Factors and Performance are the limiting factors in aviation. "What is that over there, is it a plane or a window reflecting the sun 20 miles away? I can't quite make out which way it is going, oh shi............." 300 mph closing speed is 5 miles per minute. Maybe easy to see another aeroplane at 1 mile, but this is 12 seconds before impact at those speeds.

Easy to criticise someone else in hindsight sat in front a computer screen.

I've had several "traffic alerts" in my time, one was hidden behind the wing of our Cessna, the other was climing underneath us in a Cessna and we were descending into an airport in a low wing. How is one meant to see those without xray vision?

[Captain Stable]

How is one meant to see those without xray vision?By improving your lookout technique, by using situational awareness, by being aware of where aircraft may be hiding, by manoeuvring to take a look at all those "hidden" areas.

Above all, by not relying on any TCAS system to give you warning. It won't if the other aircraft is not squawking, because it's not switched on, or the aircraft is not transponder-equipped. The only way is to keep looking out, and being aware of human physiology as regards vision, and ensuring your lookout is good technique.

Any time you get lazy and start relying on equipment in the aircraft you have surrendered control of your life. Sorry, but I like to be in control of my own destiny, and have no intention of being another mid-air statistic because I didn't look out.

You do as you wish, but I wouldn't like to be related to anyone who happens to get in your way.

[englishal]

By improving your lookout technique, by using situational awareness, by being aware of where aircraft may be hiding, by manoeuvring to take a look at all those "hidden" areas.
yes yes yes, it is so easy in your black and white world.

So you are on an IFR flight plan in VMC, you have been given a descent and are under radar control. You are complying with ATC instructions, looking out, scanning with two sets of eyes onboard, there is nothing to see unless you start Lazy-8ing your way around the sky (which might p*ss off the controller). Suddenly "traffic alert, pop up traffic right below you, climbing, stop descent now, turn right 270 expedite"........

Now imagine the same scenario (which happened to me) with TIS onboard. You'd get a traffic alert showing the aircraft position on the screen at the same time as the controller saw it, adding an extra level of information. Even without the controller, disaster could be averted.

Now imagine it with no "technology" to help....

[Captain Stable]

Your scenario is a nonsense.

We're talking about VFR, in uncontrolled airspace.

You're talking about controlled arspace - why would there suddenly be popup traffic in controlled airspace? Please get a grip.

And no, it's not easy. It's called airmanship. You have to work at it. Millions of pilots do. Why can't you?

[Professor Plum]

In answer to Captain Stable/gasax, on military aircraft squawking at low level, speaking as a Mil pilot.

FJ aircraft usually have their squawk and mode C verified upon departure from the Aerodrome. Usually on the departures frequency. On entering low level (i,e, below 2000ft MSD for FJ), all aircraft squawk a specific "low level" squawk, unless participating in a particular excercise, where another squawk may be allocated. In short, all low level military FJ aircraft squawk.

Hope that clarifies things!

Cheers.

[englishal]

No it is not nonsense,it happened to me!!!

VFR and IFR have nothing to do with it.

Pop up traffic happened because the climbing aircraft came out of a radar shadow. Just happened to have been blocked from our visual iew due to aircaft structure.

I know you profess to be a very experienced pilot (as per your previous posts) and have lots of experience flying with TCAS, and other technology, but you do show a complete lack of knowledge on some fronts.......Makes one wonder if Walter Mitty has entered the room....

[Captain Stable]

englishal, VFR and IFR and the difference between them have evertyhing to do with it, particularly if you are under active radar control within controlled airspace. As you were under active radar control (as I read your post), and you got avoidance advice from the controller, what's your problem? Why are you so averse to admitting that there is a danger of becoming complacent with loads of "kit" on board?

Prof Plum, thanks for your input. I know what is supposed to happen. Believe me, it doesn't always happen that way.

SoCal, the rules are effectively the same here for Class E Airspace - but there isn't much of it!

[Pace]

It is quite possible to be flying IFR under a radar service OCAS infact I have done so in the high teens down the east side of the UK in business jets and turboprops from Newcastle to the London area.

The same goes on areas to the west. As such pop up traffic is a possibility but you are not going to get much popping up at FL180 :) certainly not the 150s and usual spam cans.

hence flying high OCAS has to reduce collision risk but at some point you have to come down and then you are mixing it with every type of flying machine available :(

Anything which will make you feel safe such as TCAS or even a shute system on a cirrus will make you feel complacent but OCAS BEWARE! with TCAS

Had the rude awakening of counting from the ground 11 hangliders floating around the cloudbases in wales at about 2500 feet while driving my car.

Three disappeared for short spells into the clouds which is really a scary thought

Pace

[englishal]

As you were under active radar control (as I read your post), and you got avoidance advice from the controller, what's your problem? Why are you so averse to admitting that there is a danger of becoming complacent with loads of "kit" on board?
Oh dear :}

I'm not complacent, believe me! A mid air is my biggest fear. I was simply pointing out the failures of "see and avoid" - Sometimes you "just can't see them". No doubt with a bit of extra kit onboard one has a better chance of "seeing them" , as with having a radar service, before they become part of your airframe. Why don't you seem to get it, and seem to think that all people fly around with their heads glued to the screens?! I use the screens / radar service to complement a god lookout, but you cannot possibly say that a good lookout is infallible either. It is if you SEE them but for some reason people may "just not see them". If it were then all the recent collisions I can remember would never have happened.

[Captain Stable]

Ok, so you're not complacent, nobody ever is complacent, and there's no danger whatsoever of anyone ever becoming complacent?

[Pace]

Captain Stable

It is a fact of life that the safer you make something the more layed back people become about hurting themselves.

The old joke about sticking explosives on each corner of a car and how much more aware drivers would be :)

We have all these gismos which can make you feel more secure so someone who thinks " I have got TCAS, I have got FLARM, I have got good radar coverage is more likely to be comfortable with his head glued to the charts, books or internal workings than someone who has nothing.

In someways the more abundant use of auropilots or wing levelers is encouraging pilots to be passengers with the aircraft carrying them around the sky while they chat or even do the crossword on long sectors (Yes quite a common pastime)
I often wonder how much the autopilot used on VFR machines contributes to collisions by detaching pilots from what they should be doing IE flying and seeing where they are going? Just imagine how car accidents would increase if the driver could let go of the controls and allow an autopilot to drive his car. Imagine the detachement and boredom that would arise?

There are danger areas where the vertical or horizontal airspace is limited and a multitude of flying machines are packed. What is the answer? All you can do is to encourage pilots to look out especially in those collision danger areas. Yes use aids, give your passengers a game of spot the aircraft :) and fly at levels others arent likely to choose like 1750 feet instead of 2000 feet or 2500 feet instead of 2400 feet aound London ;) Otherwise mandate every flying object to have a working transponder.

Pace

[JW411]

englishal:

You are never going to win with this guy. This is the man who can throw every toy known to man out of his pram when idiots like me call "Finals" instead of "Final".

Then suddenly we are told that he knows absolutely everything about TCAS and talks about calling "TCAS Climb" when those of us who really know about these things are well aware that the call nowadays is "Resolution Advisory".

Save your breath; it is hard to argue with the perfect.

[IO540]

It appears that Captain Stable's biggest contribution to human wisdom seems to be in the Jet Blast forum.

But, anyway, on the topic: nearly all UK midairs have been at or below 1000ft. It is readily obvious that by the time one climbs through 2000ft there is much less traffic. At 3000ft there is almost none.

There are simply much bigger issues to worry about in flying.

The vast majority of traffic (reported by TCAS or a radar service) is never spotted; the Mk1 eyeball does not work very well at all. It's a fallacy, upheld by the Kremlin Old Guard since WW1.

And since a target on a genuine collision trajectory is a stationary point in your field of view (straight line trajectories assumed) you won't see him until too late.

The exception is when in the vicinity of an airfield, e.g. when landing. Then, TCAS is not very useful due to the possibly high # of alerts, and one has to look out as much as possible. Sometimes there is a real risk; e.g. if flying into Wellesbourne or Stapleford on a sunny Sunday preceeded by weeks of poor weather. Not a lot one can do about these cases - other than not fly to "free for all" airfields known for poor pilot behaviour when they are obviously going to be busy as hell.

[gpn01]

nearly all UK midairs have been at or below 1000ft. It is readily obvious that by the time one climbs through 2000ft there is much less traffic. At 3000ft there is almost none.


Can you point me to the source statistics for this observation (genuinely interested and would be keen to take a look at them).


The exception is when in the vicinity of an airfield, e.g. when landing. Then, TCAS is not very useful due to the possibly high # of alerts, and one has to look out as much as possible.

Am beginning to wonder then if the midairs cited previously as being mainly below 1000' also happen to be in the vicinity of an airfield? Again a pointer to the data would be handy.

[Pace]

GPN01

You dont need statistics to tell you that :ugh: Anyway we all know statistics can paint any picture you want.

Any place where aircraft are contained in a tight space has to increase the chances of a midair. The more aircraft, the tighter the space the more collisions. Its as simple as that.

Pace

[IO540]

Can you point me to the source statistics for this observation (genuinely interested and would be keen to take a look at them).Merely my reading of accident reports. I do not recall seeing a formal midair breakdown.

I think all of the last 10 years' midairs (UK; about 1 per year) were below 1000ft, then we got one at 1800ft, and the last big one (the 4-person + 1-person fatal when doing an ILS calibration flight when hit from the side by somebody) is not yet classified but prob90 below 1000ft too due to the nature of the flight.

It is also readily apparent when flying.

Finally, there is a readily apparent correlation between how low people fly and whether they are radiating Mode C. When flying under a radar service, it is simply the case that no matter how hard you look and how hard one's passengers look, most reported targets are never spotted, but those that are reported "level unknown" (i.e. no Mode C transponder) usually turn out to be (when spotted) very low down; apparently around the 500ft-1500ft area. Such a correlation would not suprise me, given the attitudes to transponders (vis the "civil liberties" angle often put across by traditionalists in pilot forums :) ) among those pilots who are not touring much. What this means is that if you are under a radar service, you are much more likely to get a meaningful conflict report/warning (that you can act on) if you fly higher. What this also means is that if everybody was Mode C, the radar controller would not have to make most of the currently-useless reports :)

As to where they happened, this seems to be a mixed picture. Sure some were in the circuit. But others were during variously bizzare circumstances e.g. somebody doing orbiting for photo purposes while hit by an RAF Tornado. I think the "bizzare" ones are easily avoidable.

[englishal]

Save your breath;
Yes good idea ;) I realised a few posts ago that Mr Stable is just a wind up merchant who actually doesn't seem to know anything about flying ;)

[gpn01]

GPN01

You dont need statistics to tell you that :ugh: Anyway we all know statistics can paint any picture you want.

Any place where aircraft are contained in a tight space has to increase the chances of a midair. The more aircraft, the tighter the space the more collisions. Its as simple as that.

Pace

Hi Pace, I prefer to operate according to fact rather than opinions. That's why I'm keen to read the reports and stats, etc. as it's best to validate some bar room claims based around "obvious" things which, when investigated, aren't. Tighter space = more collisions isn't necessarily true either - I know of nine aircraft often found in very close proximity that don't seem to hit each other!

[Pace]

I know of nine aircraft often found in very close proximity that don't seem to hit each other!

GPN01

If you are talking about gliders? they do have a high inter glider collision rate.

I have always been sceptical with statistics :rolleyes: start with only you in the sky and all you are ever going to hit is a bird.

Step up from that and the more flying objects within a given space means the more chance of a collision.

Vary the speed of those flying objects and their own unique design ie high wing low wing small windows etc and the chances increase again.

Ok there is always the chance that in the middle of no where you could collide with another aircraft but it has to be the more aircraft in a given space the more chance of a collision.

Pace

[Crash one]

Quote:
Save your breath;
Yes good idea http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif I realised a few posts ago that Mr Stable is just a wind up merchant who actually doesn't seem to know anything about flying http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


Seems the Stable has bolted. What a relief!:D

[RatherBeFlying]

The last month, I've spotted two a/c following major highways Eastbound at 4500' shortly before I was about to cross Southbound. contrary to the statistical assumption of the majority of midairs below 1000', I've spotted 3 SEPs, 1 twin, 2 jet airliners and more gliders than I can count in my last 20 flights this year.

[Captain Stable]

I realised a few posts ago that Mr Stable is just a wind up merchant who actually doesn't seem to know anything about flyingThank you for your opinion.

Just so you know, my total time flying experience is well past four figures. I have commercial licences (CPLs and ATPLs) from four different authorities. I started flying about 35 years ago. I have instructed ab initio students, commercial and IR students, taught type conversions and renewals in both the simulator and the aircraft. I have about 7 different types on my UK ATPL, from SEP/MEP up to 150-tonne jets. I have flown island-hoppers in the Caribbean, night mail, bucket-and-spade holiday charters, scheduled domestic and international airlines, VIP/Corporate passengers, aerial traffic spotting, skydivers, hazardous cargo and police aircraft.

What are your qualifications and experience?

I have not denied anywhere in this thread that the Mk I eyeball has its limitations. You have not admitted that relying on TCAS or TIS-B or other similar systems entails a danger of complacency. It appears that all you can do is resort to insults in an effort to defend poor airmanship.

And then we get silly statements such asAnd since a target on a genuine collision trajectory is a stationary point in your field of view (straight line trajectories assumed) you won't see him until too late.This daft sentence assumes that one can only see a "target" when it is moving across one's field of view. I have news for you - you can see such targets before hitting them - lots of people do.

Pace, excellent post. Sums it up both the problem and a few solutions very well.

[gpn01]

GPN01
If you are talking about gliders? they do have a high inter glider collision rate.
Pace

Errr, no. I was thinking quite fast moving (jet) aircraft actually. Ok, they're painted in quite high viz markings (bright red in fact) and often trail smoke behind them, but nonetheless...

[Rod1]

If you go through the AAIB reports you will see that most mid airs are low down. The last UK one I remember being higher was the 2007 incident which was at 1400 agl 1800 ft amsl. However there have been mid airs in the US at 16000ft (glider / Biz Jet). On a Saturday in summer with good soaring conditions there will be a lot of gliders at 2000 – 10000ft not transponding. Modern 3 X micros are also likely to be at “normal” GA levels.

I do not subscribe to the theory that collision avoidance systems make you complacent. We know that about 50% of the potential threat will not show up on them yet they spot several times the traffic that you pick up with see and avoid. If anything this makes you a lot less complacent.

Rod1

[Saab Dastard]

Is this going anywhere?

It just seems to have become a private debate between englishal and captain stable, with nothing new being added, except the length of their... errr... experience.

We've had a lengthier (and more fruitful) discussion between powered & gliding pilots not long ago that covered a similar area and much more besides, and there have been several other threads about eyeball vs. electronics previously.

SD

[englishal]

No it is not going anywhere, and for that reason I am out.:}