Mid Air at Leicester Aerodrome

[uk104]

Very sad news just coming back from Denham and find out two aircraft have had a mid air collision at Leicester Airport . Heard the rescue helicopter come in and the Police 22 hovering overhead with the airport closed. One aircraft had crashed onto the road with the police closing it and also no traffic into or out of the airport? The aircraft was yellow in colour the had crashed on the road . Sincerely hope the pilots and or passengers have survived . It really has made me sick to the stomach thinking how easily a fun day out can turn to tragedy , will be thinking of the affected families tonight .

[Genghis the Engineer]

BBC News - Two planes collide near Leicester Airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-16236184)

Distressing.

G

[Pilot DAR]

That's sad news... I hope it was a minor event, and everyone is unharmed....

However, I don't see that the BBC is really helping much:

The force would not say if the crash was in the air or on the ground

Yet the planes are reported as having collided. It's safe to say that the ultimate outcome was on the ground, but unless there were two totally unrelated, yet co-incident crash landings, I've got to think that the crash happened in the air?!

[S-Works]

Unfortunatly I was a direct witness to this event. Can we avoid speculation until things have gelled a little.

[GeeWhizz]

Hope you're ok Bose? Don't sit here watching what people will write. Take yourself for a large scotch.

[Pilot DAR]

Unfortunatly I was a direct witness to this event

Gosh! Well, in addition to my hopes for those directly involved, I hope your nerves are settling Bose, that would be a terrible thing to witness!

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

Bose. If you know the truth. Don't let the knobs on here who WILL start to slag off the pilots make you mad. It seems to be the pprune way to talk as much bull as they can.
Thoughts with the family's and all those involved.

[UV]

Now...PLEASE... lets all take a deep intake of breath, sit on fingers, and NOT allow this to turn into another awful PPrune debacle.

Remember, the Press and close friends will be watching ...

[S-Works]

Thanks DAR, its not the first and won't be the last. As ever it's always the good guys involved.

[Jetblu]

Tragic news! Does not bare thinking about. Again.

I hope that you are ok Bose.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Now on ASN: ASN Aircraft accident 18-DEC-2011 Two light aircraft (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=140470)

[RTN11]

Sad news indeed, I hope the two with minor injuries recover quickly.

It still amazes me that with all the reports of mid air collisions it seems one aircraft is a loss, while the other is ok often even able to land safely back at an airfield. Having never witnessed one first hand, it's hard to imagine how either aircraft could continue flying (not specifically talking about this event, just mid airs in general).

[Skylark58]

The outcome very much depends on which parts of the aircraft come into contact with each other. If the tailplane is damaged the result is usually a complete loss of control, whereas wing damage often results in a degree of controlability, sufficient to make a landing, as evinced by the recent Duxford Mustang/Skyraider collision.

My thoughts go out to all involved in today's tragic incident.

[Squealing Pig]

It still amazes me that with all the reports of mid air collisions it seems one aircraft is a loss, while the other is ok often even able to land safely back at an airfield. Having never witnessed one first hand, it's hard to imagine how either aircraft could continue flying (not specifically talking about this event, just mid airs in general).

Maybe one aircraft had a recovery chute?

[Pull what]

Obviously depends how the aircraft touch/collide. I worked with a pilot who failed to file a flight plan for a return flight from the continent while operating an Aztec on public transport at night. He was intercepted by two Lightnings over the North Sea-one collided with him, both aircraft were damaged but both flew back to base without further incident.

[Local Variation]

I was also their today at the time of the accident.

Like most things, when it happens on your door step, it hightens the situation ten fold.

We were taxiing out for departure at the time and just stopped in shock at it all.

Deepest sympathys to the guy who sadly has lost his life. And a very speedy recovery to the two others.

The airfield rescue service were absolute top draw.

[fwjc]

Bose - you're right, feckwits speculating on the basis of half-information from the press seem to fester on forums.

Local Variation - the fire crew were great, as were the emergency services personnel.

It's going to take a while for it all to sink in for all of us at the Club.

[FlyboyUK]

Having worked at LAC and learnt to fly there some years ago, I'm very saddened by this tragic news. My thoughts go out to all involved and their families.

[Sleeve Wing]

A fatal accident like this is always very sad and, as bose-x says, let's not deal in speculation.The investigation will be thorough and will go some way to finding the cause.

I have been involved with the LAC for a very long time and can imagine the effect on the regulars at this happy club, one of the oldest and best in the country.They must be devastated and shocked that it should happen there.
The AAIB will find answers and their recommendations should be carefully noted by all of us.
With a busy circuit like Leicester such an occurrence is always a possibility. Lets make certain in the future that it's a very small one. :(

[peregrineh]

talking about bose being there - a friend of mine was on his 3rd leg of a QXC into shoreham when that accident happened there this summer (i think aircraft on takeoff collided with a xwind plane). He heard the whole thing on radio - called in told the airport was shut and had to head back to waltham. Hardly ideal at the best of times yet alone on a QXC....

Condolances to all those involved at Leicester...

[Paully617]

Never a good thing to hear.

BBC news are reporting this.......

A red monoplane had just taken off from Leicester Airport and a yellow biplane was due to land, having taken off in the Nottingham area, when the crash happened.

Thoughts are with all parties involved at this difficult time.

[rans6andrew]

thanks paully617.

If that info had been posted earlier it would have saved many of us much worry, my friend at Leicester has a blue monoplane.

Rans6....

[Pull what]

A fatal accident like this is always very sad and, as bose-x says, let's not deal in speculation.The investigation will be thorough and will go some way to finding the cause. With respect the problem is with investigations they take quite a long while and by that time interest wanes and the lesson, if any, to be learned is eroded(in my opinion). You have only to see on here the number of posts that are made when an accident happens and the subsequent few that are made when the enquiry results are published. While I agree it is wrong to speculate, it is not wrong to remind everyone of the need to always prioritise lookout in an around an airfield circuit as well as increasing situational awareness by listening out and forming a picture of the airfield traffic.

[Fox Four]

Rans, ASN have already released the G code of the accident aircraft to maybe put your worries on hold.

I'm not posting the full address, you know where to look. Too many press viewing this post I'm sure.....

[Ds3]

ASN also provide further detail on the other aircraft involved, which goes some way to confirming my suspicions as to it's identity.

[LookingNorth]

Rans, ASN have already released the G code of the accident aircraft to maybe put your worries on hold.

No, they've guessed at it. And unless the aircraft they've guessed it is has made major strides towards the completion of its restoration, they've got it wrong.

[peterh337]

With respect the problem is with investigations they take quite a long while and by that time interest wanes and the lesson, if any, to be learned is eroded(in my opinion). You have only to see on here the number of posts that are made when an accident happens and the subsequent few that are made when the enquiry results are published.

I agree 100%.

The "problem" with midairs is that the lesson to be learnt is always the same: keep a lookout. Yet everybody knows that a lookout doesn't work very well - largely because a target which is on a genuine collision course is stationary in both pilots' field of view. So there is no real solution. The best one can do is slant the statistics in your favour i.e. a combination of:

- do not hang around in the circuit

- do not fly below say 2500ft

- In Class G fly at "odd" altitudes like 2300, 2700, 3300, 3700 etc feet

- fly on weekdays rather than weekends

- fly above the clouds if possible (almost never seen anybody else up there)

- if going to hugely busy aviation events held at free-for-all airfields, fly there the day before the hordes :)

I booked all my IR lessons for weekdays for this reason. But sure enough we still had an airprox, when a twin flew straight through the final approach track, at just the right altitude...

[S-Works]

I don't disagree that accidents should be discussed and lessons learned from them. i am a great advocate of this.

However we should show respect for those involved and spare a thought for the families. The postings had been made on here before the victim was even removed from the wreckage.

There is nothing that will stop people speculating, it's human nature. By all means discuss but show some respect for the deceased and the family and bear in mind what the survivors are going through.

[chipmeisterc]

Slight thread drift..how effective are PCAS systems within a close proximity flying enviroment such as the circuit? Anyone who owns one care to comment? (Thinking of getting one)

[Rod1]

There is some info on this accident at;

Aviation Safety Network > (http://aviation-safety.net/index.php)

If any of it is not accurate feel free to let them know.


I am happy to get involved discussing mid-air’s but as I knew the person involved will be leaving this until after he is named.

Rod1

[davidatter708]

ASN is wrong again. The aircraft registration there belongs to one that is currently being rebuilt and is in pieces

David

[2high2fastagain]

Chip - have sent you a PM on my experiences with and thoughts on PCAS. Not posting details here to avoid prompting thread drift. 2h2fa

[SFCC]

davidatter is correct.

The type is correct but the identity of the aeroplane isn't.

[piperarcher]

Slight thread drift..how effective are PCAS systems within a close proximity flying enviroment such as the circuit? Anyone who owns one care to comment? (Thinking of getting one)



My thoughts go out to the people and relatives of those involved in the collision.

I own a standalone Zaon MRX (the c £300 one). While it definitely reports some aircraft, in my experience there are a number of planes that arent detected - ones within the thresholds I have set with regard to alerting - and I mostly assume that is due to those aircraft not having transponders switched on. There are certainly quite a few aircraft I have visually seen, which are not picked up by the PCAS. To that end, I do by best to maintain a good lookout, and try to use traffic services where possible. I wouldnt rely just on the PCAS.

[Rod1]

Having had a number of off forum questions on collision avoidance…

The following is generic, does not relate to this specific accident and is relevant to VFR only.

Firstly, we are far from bystanders when it comes to collision avoidance. Basic things like keeping the canopy clean, moving your head during your scan and spending more time looking all help. When it comes to see and avoid, it is not perfect, but it can work. Assisted see and avoid is reckoned to be 7 to 8 times more effective (AAIB). A device in the cockpit which says “alert, look out the window you fool” counts as an assist. I have the basic PCAS box and in the cruse it is very good at doing this.

Collision avoidance boxes in use in typical SEP aircraft usually tell you there is another aircraft near you. The problem is that in a high work load environment like joining at a busy airfield we expect other traffic to be nearby and we carry on as normal and ignore the box, which is after all telling us what we already know, there are other aircraft about. The only tec which does this differently is FLARM (short for flight alarm). Flarm was originally designed for gliders and it contains clever software which predicts your aircrafts track and that of other nearby aircraft and only gives a full alert if you are actually going to hit, or get very very close. Flarm has dramatically decreased collisions in Europe and is being used more and more in the UK. Devices like Powerflarm, which I am going to be running tests on for the LAA and Flyer in the not too distant future, should do this for a power pilot.

The downside, you both have to have one for it to work. In the Case of Powerflarm it will detect mode A/C, Mode S, ADSB as well as send and receive Flarm. Powerflarm is portable and does not require any certification or approval for use in C of A aircraft.

The LAA recently did an analysis of all the collisions going back some years and for “GA” the risk is not surprisingly proportionate to traffic density so a busy airfield or fly in is max risk.

Rod1

[peterh337]

If Powerflarm did a product which gives azimuth info on Mode C targets, and it was capable of being mounted reasonably neatly (while still maintaining the pretence of being "non-permanent") they would have a real winner, because the next solution up is about £15000.

I spoke to their head of design at Friedrichshafen this year but he didn't seem at all interested in doing anything like that.

I offered him some R&D tips on detecting the direction of microwave radiation using well known radar guided missile technology that's been around for decades, to the extent of it even being openly displayed in exhibitions (which I think is what Zaon use, in some form) but he still wasn't interested :)

I would actually spend the 15k if it wasn't for the ~ 2 months of downtime and having the plane almost completely dismantled.

[S-Works]

great devices, but unfortunatly they require that everyone has a transponder with Mode C. We are a very long way from this and I fear that having one installed at this stage is more likely to install a false sense of security.

[Rod1]

“great devices, but unfortunatly they require that everyone has a transponder with Mode C. We are a very long way from this and I fear that having one installed at this stage is more likely to install a great devices, but unfortunatly they require that everyone has a transponder with Mode C. We are a very long way from this and I fear that having one installed at this stage is more likely to install a false sense of security..”

Firstly, when the risk is at its height, the transponder solutions (for GA) are unlikely to help, you need Flarm. Flarm does not require a transponder.

Secondly, about 50% of the things you are likely to hit have a transponder. The opportunity to make your see and avoid 8 times more effective 50% of the time could be considered money well spent provided you understand the limitations. Far from giving me a false sense of security my Pcas has shown me just how bad my lookout was.

Rod1

[S-Works]

Doesent flarm require everyone else so to be so equipped?

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking them, just pointing out that unless you make carriage of them mandatory you are not going to achieve much more than we have now. I have a Zaeon unit attached to a 496 and as with your experience of Flarm it has made me more aware of how much I did not see but I wonder if that's relevant?

[fwjc]

ASN remains in-accurate. Please can the poster of the link to the site remove it. It's clearly in bad taste to go publishing stuff that is plainly wrong, risking causing further harm and distress to those involved.

[foxmoth]

I see they have a different reg on the site now, do not know if it is correct or not.

[mrloudly]

Pilot dies after a 'midair collision' in Leicestershire | This is Leicestershire (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Pilot-dies-midair-collision-Leicestershire/story-14180622-detail/story.html)

Kinda gives it away looking at the comments... (nothing to do with me)

Very sad RIP

[Jan Olieslagers]

can we get that link down its wrong and that spreads rumors

After deciphering, this comment leaves me puzzled. I understand ASN is more or less like a wiki so everyone can add or correct information? If there are untruths there - which is far from impossible - isn't it better to improve upon them than (trying to) hide them?

[Fox Four]

ASN now gives a different G-ref.

[mrloudly]

Quite frankly I think the "ASN" site is a disgrace! There's no way one should be allowed to guess at the ID of a downed aircraft for obvious reasons, surely it's moderated?

G-INFO is another outrage in today's climate of "Data Protection" :mad:

[fwjc]

I for one will not be updating that disgusting site where it's clear that people are making misinformed guesses so sick people can look up details of pilots on G-INFO while the family are still trying to assimilate what has happened. Some twisted individuals clearly think that the rights of the family to be told first are not relevant. Details will come out in due course when the official agencies have carried out their investigations. While I'm 99% sure I have understood what happened, I'm not willing to discuss until all of the investigations are complete.

As for respect for the people and families concerned, it seems some inhuman insensitive idiots out there have no concern for them. I hope the families of the rubberneckers never have to go through this, but I can't imagine these selfish pigs can have anyone who cares about them enough, otherwise they would show some sensitivity.

[angelorange]

I am against media sensationalism and understand those that wish to keep the subject as lo-key as possible. However, I agree with "Pull What" and "Peterh337" that where pilot/operator awareness is raised and genuine flight safety issues can be learned then it is a shame that there is no flight safety thread on pprune where all varieties of aviation safety can be discussed in a professional manner. Learning from accidents, whether tragic or near misses, to prevent further loss of life is not dis-respectful to those who have lost loved ones. My prayers are with the latter.

While we await the AAIB reports, here is an excellent article about what the RAF call "See and Avoid" that sharpened my thoughts at least:

"Seeing has to be learned:

DG-Flugzeugbau.de : Seeing has to be Learned (http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/sehen-e.html) "

[Zulu Alpha]

fwjc, mrloudly

A nice rant but surely the answer is to put the correct registrations somewhere. Why is there such a fear of putting information on Pprune, whereas links to another site are OK

I think I know one of the aircraft involved but there are several yellow Pitts and it is difficult to go ringing around at a time like this.

[fwjc]

If you're bothered about safety implications, what does it matter what letters were painted on the sides of the aeroplanes?


If you're bothered about safety implications, wouldn't it be better to wait until an accurate analysis has been undertaken by experts with all the information available to them rather than piecing together half truths and rumours?


If you're a perverted voyeur then feel free to dismiss the dignity and respect to those that are directly affected. If you're that worried about safety and think that there's some earth shattering learning to be had from this incident (that you feel you know better than the authorities), I recommend you ground yourself until the report's out, since your selfish ego is the biggest air safety issue.

If not, heed other's advice on here about previous work on mid-air and be patient for goodness' sake until the reports come out.

[fwjc]

Ps mrloudly I agree with you re GINFO, although it has come in handy for me in the past. My involvement in registered aircraft is purposely hidden on there and I know a number of other people who do the same.

[Sleeve Wing]

Just an observation :-

I had an engine failure in an aircraft about 6 years ago and all of a sudden was surrounded by police cars. The damage was minor and no-one was injured. Apart from a couple who knew what they were doing, the other officers from at least another four cars then just stood around looking at each other.

>>>> Dozens of police officers were at the scene to redirect traffic, interview witnesses and assist fire crews. <<<<

How often do you see a police car/policeman on the Gartree Road?
And then dozens..!!

Don't they allocate manpower or use their radios ?

Why is it that, when you want a copper, you can never find one ?

Oh, and am I the only one that is concerned by this ? :ugh:

[chrisN]

Bose, this, and all that follows is a response to your question about Flarm, and is not related to the recent sad event that sparked this thread.

Yes, Flarm requires other flying things to have Flarm if it is to alert you to collision. But – that’s all it needs - £600 upwards, for each entity.

And each entity can be virtually all GA, power, gliders, hang gliders I believe, flexwing microlites, balloons (not that one is likely to miss seeing one of those), parapents etc..

Whereas transponders (£1500 minimum, plus installation, certification etc.) do not detect each other at all. And as you know, many/most flying entities cannot have them.

A transponder only helps if you also have ATC radar service (or something that emulates it), and/or PCAS or more – the latter being an additional cost from £300 up to (Peter says) £15,000.

Transponder + PCAS etc is NEVER going to be universal.

In the long term, ADS-B will provide a platform. I believe that is at least 10 years away, and who knows if that will be mandatory, and/or if the low, slow and unpowered non-electric population of flying things will be able to use it. Meanwhile – how many fatal collisions will there be in the UK? How many could Flarm be reasonably able to address, and (I believe) mostly prevent for Flarm/Flarm entities?

I did some back-of-envelope calculations for gliding, and it looked like equipping the whole UK fleet (about 2300 gliders) would cost about £1.4 million. If 10 years fatal collision statistics would otherwise continue without Flarm, in the next 10 we could expect to lose another 8 people in gliding collision with other gliders and (occasionally) powered GA. Maybe this would only be 1-3 with wider Flarm adoption. Nobody knows, but that is what I think. Is it worth £1.4 million to save 5-7 lives?

For Individual gliders to fit PCAS, 100% fitment in 2300 gliders would cost about £1,000,000. If history is anything to go by, that would address 2 collisions causing 3 fatalities over a 40 year period. Is it worth it?

I went for both Flarm and PCAS. I would still rather have the alerts when it works, and the extra chance of avoidance. I would also prefer that enough people adopt it to reduce the fatality rate. I was not prepared to wait for the “ultimate” solution, if it ever arrives.

About £1000 buys a Flarm and a simple PCAS, and gives in my opinion a huge leap in improved safety without needing EASA and other obstacles to be overcome. Not perfect, not 100 percent, but a big improvement.

If anybody thinks it is too expensive, could you justify that to a coroner’s court? Or to the family of somebody who has died in a collision? (This, and all the above, is a general question which I have posed before, and to repeat, is not related to the recent sad event that sparked this thread.)

Chris N.

[S-Works]

The problem here Chrisi is that a grand is a lot of money to most people, getting them to spend it on flarm is going to be a tall order. It also depends in the value the industry as a whole places on a life. In reality the numbers of lives you are claiming it will save, probably does not add up economically. The numbers are just not big enough especially as the hours flown recreationally are in decline.

I support the concept but I am realistic enough to understand its probably never going to happen.

Edit for iPad spelling.....

[mad_jock]

Each authority has an emergency plan for an aircraft crash and they just do that every time.

Unfortunately the crash can be a two seater or another Locherbie, you get the same responce until an adult with enough rank that can say "don't be so bloody stupid" comes along.

Also as well all crashes are criminal investigations until proven otherwise.

[Jan Olieslagers]

(continuing the thread diversion...)

Did I hear the Flarm product depends on proprietary technology, so that one is bound hand and foot to one supplier? And that said supplier has already imposed unannounced and payable and mandatory upgrades?

I appreciate the intrinsic merit of the product, and it does seem to offer good value for money. I think I'd prefer to pay a bit more for technology that works to known and published standards, with multiple suppliers on the market.

But I must admit I only heard such rumours, that may be both wildly incorrect and out of date.

[chrisN]

Well, over a quarter of UK gliders now have Flarm, and still increasing, and almost none have transpondrs.

IF (I think a big if, but who knows) Flarm were made mandatory for UK gliding competitions – following a trend in some other countries, e.g. Australia, it would rapidly grow some more. I don’t see Flarm being mandatory for gliders in the foreseeable future, but it is likely to become closer to 100 percent in many of the larger clubs, and some smaller ones, in the southern/eastern quarter or more of England. Peer pressure is part of that.

I think PowerFlarm is likely to be taken up by a small proportion of power pilots. Whether that will seed a wider pattern of use, I have no idea. I hope so, as does Rod1, no doubt. It has taken off in the USA among glider pilots there; even before it was launched, they pre-sold about 600 units, following some high-profile fatal collisions in recent years.

I see parallels with some other safety things. Some aerobatic pilots have helmets, some not. Ditto parachutes. Virtually all glider pilots use parachutes, but to use one you have to (a) survive the collision, (b) be conscious and capable, and (c) be high enough to jump out and have it deploy in time. The options in many powered aircraft appear to be worse. Last time I was in one, I had a real struggle to get out on the ground (I have mobility problems). In the air, I think no chance in time.

Chris N.

[chrisN]

Jan, there are several suppliers, but I expect they all pay a licence fee to the originators. There is no other way if they are all to work the same way, AIUI.

There are mandatory, but NO-COST, upgrades. That is necessary, according to Flarm, to ensure ongoing interoperability (horrid word, but the CAA used it first!). I have had two, so far, at 3-year intervals, both free. They are pre-announced. If you buy a unit, ask when the next is (I think 2014).

Chris N.

PS – by the way, PowerFlarm (a different supplier, AIUI) appear to do free upgrades too. Early users of the pre-sold ones in the USA are getting free software and hardware (antenna or something) upgrades.

[cats_five]

So far all Flarm upgrades are free. They are also mandatory though the next schedule upgrade isn't until 2015 according to the Flarm website - there was one in Feb this year.

The Flarm technology is proprietary but there are a small number of makers producing Flarm equipment of various kinds.

[silverknapper]

Even on latest software release of TCAS 2, azimuth data cannot be trusted. Indeed I have seen contacts move from one side of a TCAS screen to the other and back again at an impossible speed. Also it encourages people to try and avoid laterally against a display that can't be trusted. I have seen apparently professional pilots do this so dread to think the carnage it may cause in the wrong hands.
I'm sure the actual technology to make this happen safely is out there though so who knows what the future will bring.

This however would require transponder equipped a/c actually turning on this piece of equipment. The attitude that one is somehow 'beating the system' by leaving it off ' cos I can' is sadly all too prevalent in GA. it's not clever or safe so why these plonkers continue to do it is beyond me. There is a whole bigger picture out there they are missing. :ugh:

[Sleeve Wing]

Thx, mad_jock,

You are of course correct................the standard EMC plan is actioned no matter what the extent of the incident.

>>>>> Unfortunately the crash can be a two seater or another Locherbie, you get the same responce until an adult with enough rank that can say "don't be so bloody stupid" comes along. <<<<<

Just a bit of a personal rant about the quality of the modern-day officer-of-the-law and the dubious qualifications that are deemed to be sufficient to allow him to get involved with something about which he doesn't have a clue. In my opinion he then becomes more of a nuisance than a rubbernecking member of the public.

[peterh337]

Even on latest software release of TCAS 2, azimuth data cannot be trusted. Indeed I have seen contacts move from one side of a TCAS screen to the other and back again at an impossible speed

Which TCAS product was that?

The Avidyne 600 does not do that.

[Pitts2112]

As of this posting, ASN is still wrong. Some ****** seems to be guessing with no actual knowledge. I have tried to correct the entry, but it doesn't seem to accept my changes.

The incident aircraft was NOT G-BREY. It, and it's primary pilot, are both safe and sound.

[fwjc]

Pitts2112 - SD - I thought about correcting it yesterday, but I felt that it would be better to protect the details of the real victim until the family have released the info. I'm sure that EY's owners will have considered correcting it too. Frankly, all it shows on ASN is that there are some sick people out there who think they are clever when it's obvious they have no knowledge of the incident.

[mad_jock]

To be honest Beethoven I don't think most pilots have a clue either about what needs to go on. I think most presume you get out go to hospital and then home.

Its only when you have been a watcher at one of the exercises that you get even a partial clue about whats going on. Or about your status as the pilot. your not presumed innocent until evidence appears to show a crime. Your actually guilty but uncharged until all avenues of evidence have shown that you are actually not guilty of anything.

Once you have been to one the advice from BALPA about keeping your mouth shut to everybody until legal advise is present becomes very good advise even for private pilots.

[ballyctid]

Sent this to the Editor of ASN...

I think the fact that 2 aircraft registrations that were incorrect were added to this site is an utter disgrace! People who are trying to ascertain the whereabouts of friends and family see the information, look at G-INFO and come up with the wrong answer. There should be a delay in allowing postings of registration and other pertinent details until friends and family have been informed and ensure the info is correct! E mail me at XXX-------XXX if the editor cares to answer!!!

The reply...

I have to agree with you on that. It disturbed me too. Most changes have to be approved first and usually I do not approve a post with speculative information or information without reference to a source.
There are however a few trusted users that have shown in the past to be knowledgable and diligent. These users are able to update information without approval. It seems that one user violated his trust by posting unsubstantiated information.
I will e-mail him about this behaviour and will closely watch his future updates. Thanks for sharing your concern.

[fwjc]

Nice one ballyctid, thank you.

Pitts2112 I've PM'd you.

Sleeve Wing. The emergency services response was excellent. There were no more coppers than were necessary to protect safety and scene integrity and to carry out their investigations. Their behaviour and attitude was very respectful and professional and they recognised that members of the aviation community present might know more about things than they did.

I know this is unusual on the basis of previous experience at other incidents both at Leicester and other airfields, but this time they were superb.

[englishal]

Regarding PCAS in the circuit.....I joined a circuit one busy Sunday a couple of years back in the winter with a low hazy sun, and it was like the M25 at rush hour. There was also a student in the circuit incorrectly reporting his position and flying low. It was only because the G496 started shouting traffic and showing a yellow dot just in front of us that made us swing the nose around and low and behold a C152 appeared just below our nose. It was a typical scenario of low wing aeroplane higher than a high wing aeroplane and as we were slightly faster we'd have got pretty close I reckon.

So in my view, yes PCAS is worth every penny. I am sure FLARM would be better but until everyone has it, or there is a dual system then it is of limited use.

[The Old Fat One]

Once you have been to one the advice from BALPA about keeping your mouth shut to everybody until legal advise is present becomes very good advise even for private pilots.

Wise words oh Mad one.

Having lived with a member of the local CID for a number of years (not in the biblical sense, I hasten to add) I would advise anybody to adopt the silence policy of a trappist monk, whenever the plods are within earshot, irrespective of circumstance.

[mrloudly]

As my lawyer son says "Anything you say may be used in evidence, So say nothing"... If you did something let them prove it, that's what they're paid for ;-)

[pitofrost]

"Just a bit of a personal rant about the quality of the modern-day officer-of-the-law and the dubious qualifications that are deemed to be sufficient to allow him to get involved with something about which he doesn't have a clue. In my opinion he then becomes more of a nuisance than a rubbernecking member of the public."

Yes, so we will train every response cop to be an expert in aviation accidents to the same level as the AAIB, and rail crashes too obviously, and response to COMAH sites, and non COMAH industrial accidents, CBRN (E) would need to be covered, and fires to the same standard as fire and rescue, because cops are normally there first, better add marine accidents to that list, oh what about hospital evacuation, oil refinery accidents, and fuel pumping stations too....shouldn't make basic training more than say five years.

That's why you have incident plans; you resource to a certain level first (because those six cars were probably all the available resources from that side of Leicestershire), as soon as the first unit gets there they give a SAD CHALET assessment to enable the response to be scaled up or down.

[mad_jock]

Just as suggestion pitofrost.

In this case obviously from the reply on here they did a sterling job.

Maybe it could be part of training for the white hats? They will have more clue about bent metal, fuel every where and folk needing cut out and protecting the scene than anyone else.

[olicana]

I love the way some people take any opportunity to bash the police. Just remember there are some cops out there who have ATPLs, how do you know one of the cops there was not an aviation expert! As opposed to some of the weekend warriors on here!

[BWBI]

You know all's will do doubt know how to investigate fatal road traffic accidents murders, manslaughter and all the other incidents which the Police are tasked to investigate! when you fail miserably perhaps you will understand why most Police Officers have little experience of Aviation.

The Police have two tasks at Aviation incidents firstly to try to save life and protect the public and secondly to conduct and investigation jointly with the AAIB to establish what has actually happened and whether there is any criminal liability involved.

It is not necessary for the Police Investigating Officer who will be a Senior Detective of the local force to have an in depth knowledge of Aviation as he can rely on the expertise of the best resources available in the UK or if necessary world wide. He will be assisted by a team of others usually comprised of Detective Officers and Forensic Science officers.

The initial response Officers will be involved in saving lives and hopefully protecting the Public and Diverting traffic and managing the Press if that is an issue. It will also be part of their role to secure the scene and prevent evidence being compromised.

The Police treat Air Traffic incidents very seriously as there is always likely to be loss of life or serious injuries. The scene may have to be secured for many hours and traffic diversions put in place. For these reasons hopefully the initial response will always be high in terms of Officer numbers.

The initial response is likely the same as would be the case in very serious Road Traffic Accidents where similar issues are likely to be involved.

I suggest some of you crawl out from behind the warmth and safety of your computer key boards and join up! It will be an eye opening experience I can assure you of that and being multi skilled as you obviously are you won't need much training?

Now where's that plaster for the raw nerve!

[mcgoo]

Also spare a thought in your 'scoops' for the LAC fire crew who were first on the scene and in the tower and knowing it was a friend who perished!

Discussion Is good after the event but things are still raw and people reporting wrong registrations and pretending to be from agencies to get details is frankly sick!

[BEagle]

As has been said (and even with full-up Mil-spec ETCAS), TCAS azimuth information cannot be relied upon!!

In any case, the rate of heading change of most light GA would render any sensible TCAS azimuth processing completely useless. It simply wouldn't be able to compute any advisories.

TCAS must only be used within its specific criteria - NEVER try to use it for anything else. Even the USAF were stupid enough to try that, until they learned why they shouldn't.

The only way to have any reasonable assurance of collision avoidance in the average GA spamcan is to fly under radar control under strictly regulated IFR conditions. If you're happy with such an expensive and boring way of flying, well that's fine. Otherwise, until every flying object has to datalink its position/heading/height/speed to a ground processor so that it can be uplinked as a poor man's JTIDS, you will still need to keep your eyes out of the cockpit and away from the Garmin eye candy whenever you're flying in VMC - even if under IFR!

Your choice.....00

[Rod1]

Pilot now named;

BBC News - Pilot dies in two-plane crash near Leicester Airport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-16236184)

Rod1

[misterblue]

Not in that link, though.

Does anyone have information confirming who was involved?

Thanks,

MB

[Jetblu]

It has already been posted on the Flyer forum

[Katamarino]

All I've seen on the Flyer forum is an announcement that it was a well known forum member (so, just enough to get people worried), and then a refusal to allow any more discussion or information to be shared. There's certainly nothing on there that could be classed reliable information or valuable discussion.

[Jetblu]

The Flyer thread was pulled a while back.

[Katamarino]

Indeed; I didn't see any more info in it when it was locked than there is here, though.

[SkyHawk-N]

The identity of the Taylorcraft has now been amended (again) on the ASN web site (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=140470). According to this web site details were confirmed on the Flyer forum.

[G-BHEN]

G-BVXS
Pilot was the aircraft's part owner Martin Hickin.

Why this couldn't have been posted 30 posts back to save all the speculation and people worrying seeing wrong registrations appearing God only knows.

[cambioso]

Hear Hear!!
Well-done G-BHEN, thank-you.
We all have friends who fly these types of aircraft and we are all desperate to know if it is one of our mates that has "bought it".
OF COURSE the families have a right to be told first, AND have time to grieve etc, but this self righteous pussyfooting around the facts days after the incident benefits no-one.
Doubtless (now) there will be many nice comments posted by poor Martin's mates, and these will be of great comfort to those he left behind.
Jez.

[SFCC]

Now that it's out in the open, do we know the identity of the other aeroplane?

Names not needed, just a reg would put my mind at ease.

[Jetblu]

Process of elimination, it "might" be this one ?

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=pitts%20special%20leicester&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treatme.net%2Fexperiences%2Fpitts-special-ultimate-aerobatics-leicester&ei=88DxTvnwFoWu8QPs5OHNAQ&usg=AFQjCNGgh3PoaOPzoDcUc8SfFrIiVsJmxg

[Dawdler]

There does seem to be a difficulty in seeing another aircraft either in front/below or above/behind you in certain conditions. On a fairly busy flying day at Leicester ( but it could have been anywhere) a few months ago, two ships called "Finals" on 28 not quite simultaneously. Luckily one heard the other and announced he would hold his altitude (stating what it was) and left the other to react accordingly. There was no airprox, no collision and in the event no incident. I was left wondering if the transmissions had actually blocked out each other out, whether we would have been discussing then what sadly we have been doing this week.

[silverknapper]

The Avidyne 600 does not do that

Unfortunately there is no way to guarantee it doesn't, or won't. TCAS cannot be used for Azimuth full stop. For such an expensive piece of kit it's a shame, but the only guaranteed plane of avoidance is vertical.

I'm not saying it's not incredibly useful. Several times, especially in the South of England when I've been low level in something a lot faster than average it has alerted me to traffic a lot earlier than I would have seen it, if I ever would have.

[rans6andrew]

if you want to see how to stop all of the mis-information and speculation when an accident has occurred see

BMAA Forum (http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&m=105509)



Rans6.....

[ShyTorque]

Unfortunately there is no way to guarantee it doesn't, or won't. TCAS cannot be used for Azimuth full stop. For such an expensive piece of kit it's a shame, but the only guaranteed plane of avoidance is vertical.

As far as GA is concerened, we're talking TCAS1, an electronic aid to visually aquiring another aircraft. Having used it for well over a decade, in a variety of aircraft, I would certainly not normally make avoidance based on azimuth alone but sometimes there is no other option, apart from doing nothing and gritting your teeth :uhoh:.

The vertical plane of avoidance isn't "guaranteed" either because it relies on the mode C transponder return from the other aircraft being accurate. From experience, some aren't! Many other light aircraft don't put out a mode C return, in any case.

[Fuji Abound]

I agree, but based on a lot of hours behind Avidyne TCAS it is surprsingly accurate in both - in fact I cant think of an occasion where the aircraft was seen and not exactly where predicted to be (of course there were more than a few never seen as well ;)).

[ShyTorque]

Fuji, Yes I would largely agree. But now you've knocked the lid off the box. Self appointed armchair experts who frequent these parts (and have probably never even seen a TCAS1 in operation) will undoubtedly jump in and argue black and blue that under no circumstances must you pay any attention to TCAS because apparently it distracts your lookout.

[Mark Jones G-POZA]

All very sad, I so hope that the families get good support and care after this terrible incident.

As someone asked.
The other aircraft involved was Pitts S-2C G-IICI by the way as seen at AAIB on Wednesday on back of a lorry outside the hanger.

Regards
Mark

[peterh337]

I have flown in TCAS (Ryan/Avidyne 600 usually) equipped planes and the system was pretty damn good.

The biggest limitation by far is the low Mode C usage in GA, but if you fly above 1999ft you are above most of the "civil liberties" traffic :) :)

I have a TCAS capable MFD (KMD550) but taking the plane practically to bits to install the antennae is the biggest drawback.

And then I say to myself.... why spend the £10-15k when flying above 1999ft gets me above most traffic :)

It is true that in big jet ops they are required to avoid vertically only, but that is an ICAO standard which is why they do it. The resolution system is rather crude and works only in the vertical. One day, about 100 years from now, they will update the software to make the mutual avoidance algorithm work in the horizontal plane, but it will be considerably more complicated whereas purely-vertical resolution is trivial (between just two aircraft.... it looks quite interesting if somebody does a vertical bust in a holding stack and they all get RAs ;) ).

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

How are the guys who were in the Pitts?

[S-Works]

They walked away with a few bruises.

[ShyTorque]

I have a TCAS capable MFD (KMD550) but taking the plane practically to bits to install the antennae is the biggest drawback.

Thankfully the aircraft I fly came with this equipment, wired up to TCAS as standard fit.

One unresolved problem with TCAS1 in Class G is when encountering another similarly equipped aircraft and you both take the same avoiding action by going to the same altitude.... it can get quite exciting. :ooh: The only hope is that both aircraft are receiving a service from the same radar unit so some communication and co-ordination can be made in good time. Unfortunately, in these gloomy days of airfield closures, both mil and civvy, LARS coverage is forever reducing.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thanks bose.

[chrisN]

Silvaire, was it too close to avoid head on collision by turning right as RoA would suggest (AIUI)?

(No agenda, just interested.)

Chris N.

[chrisN]

S., thanks. C.

[peterh337]

One unresolved problem with TCAS1 in Class G is when encountering another similarly equipped aircraft and you both take the same avoiding action by going to the same altitudeThat's true; however from what I have seen, most of the time you see the traffic from a long way out (say 5-10nm) and just do a slight heading change.

It is 99% likely the other chap does not have TCAS and will never know about you. And if you have changed your heading a bit to avoid him, if/when he does spot you he will not need to take any action.

TCAS is not a perfect solution but it is a helluva big help in a lookout, and even then most targets displayed are never spotted :)

I would never think of using TCAS as a "mad panic" avoidance device in the last few (or few tens of) seconds, which is perhaps the way that big-jet RAs work. In the GA/OCAS context, it is best used from a long way back - in the same way that flying VMC on top enables you to avoid convective buildups from a long way away. The traffic display on the MFD is just another piece of your general awareness of what is around you.

[ShyTorque]

(Some thread drift here but it's always relevant to discuss timely and effective avoidance of other aircraft).

Silvaire, that sort of manoeuvre was/is taught as the "emergency break" by the military, during basic instrument training (some 35 years ago for me). Not really applicable to the aircraft I fly these days though (corporate/vip rotary wing). I aim to make a far less violent manoeuvre in good time, to avoid terrifying my pax, especially when IMC!

Peter337, Thanks for the advice. However, after well over a decade of flying using TCAS1 on a daily basis, I had already gleaned some idea about how best to use it. :)

Perhaps you aren't aware, but these days a majority of civilian IFR equipped helicopters do have some form of TCAS1 as standard fit. Therefore I wouldn't agree with your 99% of other aircraft not having it fitted.

In particular, beneath the lower part of the London TMA, where many of our customers want to go, is a very busy area for "GA" rotary wing flights. Thankfully radar service coverage is fairly good in that area, especially now that Farnborough have extended their area, but there are a limited number of routes in and out of London, which causes choke points, with aircraft necessarily operating at very similar altitudes. Obviously, with MSA at 2300 or 2400 feet and Class A above us at only 2500 feet we do need to be very careful in that part of UK. It would be good if it became mandatory for Mode C equipped aircraft to use it, rather than Mode A only, in that area. Seems that many pilots deliberately use Mode A only, possibly to alleviate their fear of an "altitude bust" by advertising that they have climbed too high and entered the Class A. I try to transit controlled airspace when and where possible, especially at weekends, to help gain lateral separation from these "Mode A bimblers".

Paradoxically, when flying just outside of the lowest part of controlled airspace, i.e. when pilots might want to climb out from below, or descend to go underneath, depending on which way they are going, is when two TCAS1 equipped aircraft might get close! At this stage of flight, both aircraft might not be on the same frequency.

TCAS1 is a great piece of equipment but it does have known limitations which need to be understood and acted upon in good time.

[peterh337]

ST - I don't know what you fly but it clearly isn't "GA". It is some sort of AOC helicopter charter operation, so it will be a big machine, possibly multi pilot, and certainly well equipped. I would expect you to have TCAS, and use it according to your OPS manual :) It also won't be the common light GA installation.

[ShyTorque]

peter337, no that's incorrect on all counts.

It's a privately owned, non AOC, single pilot IFR machine. I am not required to have an ops manual. I don't have one because there is only me to write it and then only me to read it. Definitely GA!

The word "customers" in the previous post was misleading, sorry about that.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Very sad. My condolences to the family of the pilot who died.

At least by following the joining instructions published for an airfield everyone has a better idea of where aircraft might be.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Taylorcraft%20BC12D%20Twosome%20G-BVXS%20Pitts%20S-2C%20Pitts%20Special%20G-IICI%2011-12.pdf