Midair Collision Near Waddesdon [Archive]

John R81

17th Nov 2017, 14:58

You've lost me there, sorry.

Is it legal to fly over a crash site?

To begin with, yes. But a temporary restriction will be imposed as soon as the incident is known, and then it is prohibited until the Temporary Danger Area is withdrawn.

The NOTAM reads:

Q) EGTT/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/030/5149N00054W003
B) FROM: 17/11/17 13:15C) TO: 17/11/17 17:00
E) TEMPORARY DANGER AREA. SAROPS OFF. NO RESTRICTIONS ON FREQUENCIESOWING TO AN EMERGENCY AT UPPER WINCHENDON ATEMPORARY DANGER AREA TO BE KNOWN AS EG D199V HAS BEEN ESTABLISHEDBY A CIRCLE RADIUS 3NM CENTRED ON 5149N 00054W. TO ENSURE THEIROWN SAFETY AND TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH CONTROL AND SARACTIVITIES, PILOTS ARE URGENTLY REQUESTED NOT TO FLY IN OR NEAR THEAREA WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF AERONAUTICAL RESCUE AND COORDINATIONCENTRE (EMERGENCY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY) TELEPHONE 01343 836001 /01343836002. PILOTS ARE FURTHER WARNED THAT ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ATANY TIME TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS OF FLYING REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE239 OF THE AIR NAVIGATION ORDER 2016. ATC UNITS CLOSE TO THEINCIDENT AREA ARE REQUESTED TO ADVISE AIRCRAFT ON THEIR FREQUENCIESOF THE CONTENTS OF THIS NOTAM.LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 3000FT AMSL

AlexJT

17th Nov 2017, 14:58

I think Rattle meant in the sense that it has been unbelievably clear today. I thought this morning it would be a great day for flying. Shame it’s not ended too great for some, by the sounds of it.

ShyTorque

17th Nov 2017, 15:00

I agree, please do not post "possible" aircraft registrations! What purpose is that thoughtless action supposed to achieve?

I've just received a phone call from a very worried close relative as it is.

squidie

17th Nov 2017, 15:03

Sad news, tracking the news helicopter circling overhead right now. I agree with JJJ best not speculate into what no one knows right now.

Super VC-10

17th Nov 2017, 15:10

Sky news photo shows wreckage of a white helicopter with an enclosed tail rotor.

https://news.sky.com/story/plane-and-helicopter-in-mid-air-collision-in-buckinghamshire-11130285

RMK

17th Nov 2017, 15:11

An aerial news photo just showed the helicopter wreckage; shows a white Fenestron of Eurocopter design.

EDIT:

I just had a second look at the photo (I purposely didn't say EC120 so as to not alarm anyone unnecessarily). It's not a Eurocopter; it's a very similarly-shaped "smaller" helicopter. Sadly, doesn't look good.

jayteeto

17th Nov 2017, 15:12

Don’t over react children. I got what he meant. He was saying poor weather was unlikely to be involved

Airmotive

17th Nov 2017, 15:18

The Mail is confirming G-JAMM

Helicopter and plane collide mid-air in Buckinghamshire | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5093089/Helicopter-plane-crash-mid-air-collision.html)

Engineless

17th Nov 2017, 15:18

Ident of fixed wing aircraft involved clearly visible on BBC News photo (not allowed to post links yet but check out the BBC News website).

Looks like the earlier poster was right. Similarly, the helicopter previously mentioned was crossing the same spot on FR24 and suddenly stopped. Very sad.

rattle

17th Nov 2017, 15:19

Indeed. The first question that seems to get asked on here, or the first opinion points at weather. The visibility today was perfect so it seemed worth mentioning before anybody not local asked or looked it up.

jayteeto

17th Nov 2017, 15:19

BBC photo now shows a photo of the crash site, the aeroplane reg is plain to see

jellycopter

17th Nov 2017, 15:26

The BBC aerial footage is concentrating on the tail section of a Cessna (172?) which appears severed from the fuselage.

Cows getting bigger

17th Nov 2017, 15:29

The BBC aerial footage is concentrating on the tail section of a Cessna (172) which appears severed from the fuselage.

WACG is a 152. Helicopter is a Cabri.

dead_pan

17th Nov 2017, 15:40

Heli crash site looks very contained from the pics

RiSq

17th Nov 2017, 15:42

A 152, G-WACG was overhead at about the same time, unless it just stayed below coverage altitude for the remainder of its flight
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-wacg#f8efef7
Fingers crossed for survivors

G-WACG Confirmed from photos of paint and now the Reg from overhead.

Dragol

17th Nov 2017, 15:51

From the pictures it looks like a Cabri from Helicopter Services Ltd at Wycombe air park

AnFI

17th Nov 2017, 16:06

It's notamed as a DANGER Area
not a Prohibition nor a Restriction
(the danger being midair collision presumably)

there is a warning PILOTS ARE FURTHER WARNED THAT ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ATANY TIME TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS OF FLYING REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE239
and a request (understandably) not to overfly

very sad for all concerned

Cows getting bigger

17th Nov 2017, 16:20

We lost one of the industries gentlemen today.

God speed

paco

17th Nov 2017, 16:27

We sure did. At least I managed to share a cuppa with him yesterday.

Genghis the Engineer

17th Nov 2017, 16:27

A 152, G-WACG was overhead at about the same time, unless it just stayed below coverage altitude for the remainder of its flight
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-wacg#f8efef7
Fingers crossed for survivors

I'm afraid that registration is also visible on a photograph on the BBC website. It's a school aeroplane, so tells us nothing about who was on board.

Bell_ringer

17th Nov 2017, 16:30

Fixed wing aircraft have such a limited field of view, you don't want to end up near and beneath one. They will never see you so best to keep far away and to let them know you are around.
Hope they get to see another day, sounds like such a avoidable situation.
Training flights gone wrong?

nigelh

17th Nov 2017, 16:48

I think we are at the point where we need TCAS ( or similar ) mandatory . The skies will only get more crowded with the airspace grab and we will have more and more pinch points . A very very sad day for us all .

roving

17th Nov 2017, 16:52

WnK8_tHIinE

Maff

17th Nov 2017, 17:01

RIP to one of the rotorworlds truest nicest gentlemen, and one of the most experienced in the UK. I will miss you.

Camp Freddie

17th Nov 2017, 17:10

Really bad reporting from so called aviation “experts” on the sky news.

Sir Niall Dementia

17th Nov 2017, 17:10

Maff;

I totally agree. Shared many a laugh, quite a lot of tea and the odd cockpit with him. A joy to know, a privilege to call him friend.

SND

[email protected]

17th Nov 2017, 17:35

I'm afraid that such lovely days as today - especially as winter is approaching - are probably the most dangerous to fly on.

So many GA warriors and training flights leap airborne to take advantage of the weather that congestion is inevitable and the 'Big Sky' theory of avoidance just doesn't work.

As someone has already mentioned, visibility from high-wing FW is poor, especially above or into turns - I have been nearly taken out several times as one has climbed through my level without seeing me.

Transponders and TCAS should be made compulsory for all GA.

My condolences to the bereaved and their families and friends - another sad day in aviation.

Bell_ringer

17th Nov 2017, 17:48

Traffic avoidance gear isn't actually that expensive provided you have avionics capable of displaying the information and that all other aircraft are at least mode C equipped and visible to SSR.
ADS-B does improve the latter somewhat.

Duchess_Driver

17th Nov 2017, 17:57

I have been nearly taken out several times as one has climbed through my level without seeing me.

Climbing in any aeroplane is dangerous regardless of whether the wings are in the right place or the wrong place. I don't know many low wing aircraft that can see behind them when climbing either!

TCAS/FLARM isn't the solution here. Have some 3,000 odd hours in that area. Know it very well - always busy even when the weather is not as good as it was today and the only solution is a good, solid (well taught) and continual lookout.

Bell_ringer

17th Nov 2017, 18:07

the only solution is a good, solid (well taught) and continual lookout.

The only flaw with this is that you can't look behind you, it requires both parties to be keeping a lookout and there are blindspots on both sides.
Situational awareness is more than just using the eyeballs.
I'm not familiar with the UK way of doing things but get the impression that there are bottlenecks for GA aircraft dealing with controlled airspace and perhaps there is too much reliance on ATC to maintain separation?
Personally, I have been of the opinion that traffic avoidance tech is a good tool to help eliminate someone else's mistake from reaching you - possibly naively so.

nigelh

17th Nov 2017, 18:08

Duchess Driver ... Just explain how TCAS would not have alerted either one to the vicinity of the other . Every time I have used TCAS I have been shocked at how close I have come to other aircraft without knowing they were there .
I agree with Crab and really think ALL GA should have Transponders and TCAS especially if flying in the south where the bottlenecks will only get worse . One would hope the cost drops significantly if that was the case . I am afraid I don't believe any amount of looking around can stop this sort of thing happening especially with so many blind spots on aircraft and sometimes looking through the windshield into the sun is almost futile .
The tech is there and we should use it in my view .

Hughes500

17th Nov 2017, 18:19

Tear in my eye as others have said a true gentlemen, he gave me my first job 25 years ago RIP

Contact Approach

17th Nov 2017, 18:19

Like some has said - the tech is there, we should be using it.

ShyTorque

17th Nov 2017, 18:21

I'm not familiar with the UK way of doing things but get the impression that there are bottlenecks for GA aircraft dealing with controlled airspace and perhaps there is too much reliance on ATC to maintain separation?

Bell Ringer,
This tragic accident occurred in Class G airspace and ATC would certainly not have been providing separation. It's possible that neither aircraft was receiving any type of ATC service at all.

Bell_ringer

17th Nov 2017, 18:29

This tragic accident occurred in Class G airspace and ATC would certainly not have been providing separation. It's possible that neither aircraft was receiving any type of ATC service at all.

thanks for clarifying.
Doesn't make much sense how two aircraft leaving the same base and with a converging routing wouldn't be aware of the other.

nigelh

17th Nov 2017, 18:38

Bell Ringer . In the UK in the UK you will only have ATC coverage from a major airport and then , unless requested , you will sign off as soon as outside their area . I dont think we really want to be in a position where we have to be talking to ATC in class G airspace . We are lucky here to have relatively free airspace and can fly over most of our country without speaking to anyone but that comes at a price and maybe that price is that we monitor ourselves with the tech available . I will now certainly be adding TCAS to my aircraft because like Crab , i have had too many aircraft converge on me and get scarily close.
but it only works if ALL aircraft must have a transponder .

anchorhold

17th Nov 2017, 18:41

Following this tragic accident, I really think we need a rethink regard collision avoidance in the UK.

In relation to fixed wing aircraft, in respect of high wing aircraftm they are very blind in the turn, which is why we teach to lift the wing prior to the turn, although from my experience of conducting renewals quite a few pilots do not. The low wing aircraft on the whole in terms of visibility much better. Bi planes are worse that high wing aircraft.

I can speak for rotary wing pilot's pilot's but I am surethey have limitations, although the Bell 47 must have had the best visibilty of all helicopters ever manufactured.

There are technological fixes to this problem such a TCAS or the ability to see flightradar24 in real time whilst airbourne.

But there are some more low tech fixes that would help improves matters, such as keeping landing lights on all time, ensuring an AFISO is on duty at A/G airfields, establish VRPs for the purpose of departure of departure, and rejoins, listening out on R/T and building the 'big picture' 'SITAW'. Then there are the Human Factors issues of looking out for other aircraft, such as constant angles, makings or colour of aircraft, the the fact that white is not the best colour, but I understand, but I understand the limitations of colours on GRP or carbon fibe aircraft. I should add why would you want to paint the underside of a light aircraft light blue.

Sailplanes (gliders) are another problem, generally white, constant changing height and heading and at times really difficult to see in the turn, but some are on on flightradar24. I am really not sure what the solution is in relation to gliders and it is not helped that they have less ability (energy) for evasive action.

tu154

17th Nov 2017, 18:46

Very sad news. Have more than a few good stories from flying with that fella.

To those that think tcas is a panacea, I now fly in an aircraft with supposed excellent tcas, and previously pcas. They are adequate at best and the risk is spending lots of time looking in, and then in the wrong place to where the tcas wrongly thinks the other contact is, and can be a huge distraction.

Bell_ringer

17th Nov 2017, 18:47

Thanks Nigel, it's similar here.
It's always challenging when there is common airspace but varying requirements to be able to use it.
Having a transponder is one thing, having it enabled and on alt is another.
I think we have all had far too many calls that were too close for comfort :sad:

PerPurumTonantes

17th Nov 2017, 18:58

I trained at Wycombe. Airspace chock full of F/W, rotors and gliders as well. "Sufficient lookout" is impossible. I was going to do my IMC there but I felt it was too risky.

How many more avoidable deaths before we admit that TCAS or ATC deconfliction should be mandatory?

fireflybob

17th Nov 2017, 19:00

One thing that has occurred to me recently is that modern avionics seem to (potentially) require more head in the cockpit (unless managed and taught appropriately).

In the olden days when we only had 180 channels on VHF (100 kHz spacing) one could change from say 119.5 to 126.1 in a couple of seconds. Now especially with the smaller electronic displays it takes longer and more fiddling to change from say 126.225 to 134.175. I teach to change the whole MHz first and then have a lookout before setting the decimals. Same applies when changing ILS/VOR frequencies where with sets like the GNS430 I now have to find and press a changeover button before changing frequency. One of the latest mode S transponders require one to alter and then enter each digit separately and sometimes the transponders are sited on the other side of the cockpit. At one level this might sound trivial but it isn't in the sense that it encourages pilots to be more head in the cockpit. Add in the mix of other devices which many pilots use now and we have even more ingredients for not looking out adequately.

In fact you're much more likely to have a close encounter or a mid air in the circuit area than the open FIR notwithstanding choke points. Historically there have even been collisions worldwide within controlled airspace and I believe in the USA some time ago the statistics showed highest risk of midair was in airspace with mixed VFR/IFR traffic close to an airport which is equipped with radar.

Whilst I'm not a luddite I don't think this risk will be entirely solved by requiring all aircraft to have transponders with TCAS and/or be in receipt of an ATC service.

PerPurumTonantes

17th Nov 2017, 19:04

Now especially with the smaller electronic displays it takes longer and more fiddling to change from say 126.225 to 134.175.

Agreed. Pilot workload especially in small GA is ludicrous. Why are are we still fiddling with knobs and frequencies? Why not a touchscreen with the nearest 6 ATCs marked on it in plain English?

FlyingFrog28

17th Nov 2017, 19:05

From time to time I fly northwards from Blackbushe towards Buckingham, VFR. Farnborough West LARS hand me over to Farnborough North LARS roughly when I'm abeam High Wycombe, but I've often found that I cannot raise Farnborough North until I'm around where this accident happened. Perhaps it is a coverage blackspot (at 2000-2500 feet). And on a sunny day, Farnborough LARS are usually too busy to offer me more than a Basic service.

RMK

17th Nov 2017, 19:17

Doesn't make much sense how two aircraft leaving the same base and with a converging routing wouldn't be aware of the other.

At Wycombe, the fixed-wing and helicopter operators are in differing buildings. You not only don't see/talk to each other before departing, but may fly from the airfield as a helicopter pilot for years and never even meet a fixed-wing pilot.

Quite possible neither pilot had any fixed route/destination and were just out for a local flight.

Richard J.

17th Nov 2017, 19:21

Doesn't make much sense how two aircraft leaving the same base and with a converging routing wouldn't be aware of the other.

You seem to be assuming that both aircraft were flying pre-planned routes. As one was apparently a school aircraft, it could well have been doing training manoeuvres in uncontrolled airspace. I learned to fly at Wycombe Air Park and have had that sort of session in that area. Safety depends on continual observation at all times, which can be quite difficult if you're concentrating on flying an unfamiliar manoeuvre or observing your student doing so, and if there is no TCAS or other aids to help you.

PerPurumTonantes

17th Nov 2017, 19:25

Doesn't make much sense how two aircraft leaving the same base and with a converging routing wouldn't be aware of the other.

The fixed wing a/c is owned by Booker so probably used for training/sightseeing/trial flights. Hence would have been all over the place on manoeuvres, not a fixed route.

Also google "ntsb-see-and-avoid-isnt-enough" (sorry, can't post links :oh:)

Bell_ringer

17th Nov 2017, 19:31

You seem to be assuming that both aircraft were flying pre-planned routes. As one was apparently a school aircraft, it could well have been doing training manoeuvres in uncontrolled airspace. I learned to fly at Wycombe Air Park and have had that sort of session in that area. Safety depends on continual observation at all times, which can be quite difficult if you're concentrating on flying an unfamiliar manoeuvre or observing your student doing so, and if there is no TCAS or other aids to help you.

Fair enough, but at some point they would have reported their position and intentions.

rattle

17th Nov 2017, 19:38

When flying for training out of Denham, the general direction is North West. This means (solo) students avoid going in Heathrow's airspace (or trying to find the small gap between Wycombe and Heathrow for a route to the south, and avoid going towards Luton. You can head NW and not infringe airspace for quite some time. My first solo navigation was around the Waddeson Manor gardens. It's a busy bit of sky.

rattle

17th Nov 2017, 19:42

Fair enough, but at some point they would have reported their position and intentions.

A local flight would be reported to ATC on departure. There is no requirement to disuss routings if you are remaining on frequency. I fly off in that direction when I just want a quick trip out and would not describe the route to ATC before departing the circuit.

Dr Jekyll

17th Nov 2017, 19:48

stevfire2

17th Nov 2017, 19:57

one of the nicest guys ive had the pleasure to meet and have a laugh with, including this morning, sadly.

dibdab

17th Nov 2017, 20:03

I was flying this morning and what was a "great aviation day" turned into a "a very sad one indeed" then I listened to Radio 4 News at 7pm and it became a "Very angry sad day" why are they allowed to have a "voice of authority" an "expert" talk utter drivel about lodging a flight plan. There are now people all over the world taking gospel from some self serving duffer who likes to "get on the radio" given credibility by the BBC. Surely we must be able to stop the "free press" making things up and fuelling speculation. If you get a chance complain to 03700 100 222 or before you know it some "Expert" will be drawing up "enforced flight plan filing for VFR" RIP

Up & Away

17th Nov 2017, 20:44

A very sad day for WAP today
Our thoughts and prayers are with you tonight

9Aplus

17th Nov 2017, 21:07

Knowing the registrations of both all is visible on FR24 :(
Sad day for rotor and planks, but rotor while flying on 1000 ft in steady course
had no chance to see above&behind and plank last data was:
2,700 ft Vertical Speed -1,536 fpm

RIP and sincere condolences to all related

On a record:
My Jr, student pilot on the G2 had two close encounters with planks,
having less than 100 h t/t.
It is time for at last FLARM or OGN hardware in case that TCAS is to expensive for GA / ATO-s

Genghis the Engineer

17th Nov 2017, 21:21

Fair enough, but at some point they would have reported their position and intentions.

No. That is uncontrolled airspace surrounded by half a dozen training airfields and a couple of gliding clubs, as well as being en-route between any number of destinations. What radar service there is would be swamped by regular position reports, which would also be a nuisance to most of the training traffic.

See and avoid, or sense and avoid are the only viable strategies in areas like that.

G

Capt. Phuong

17th Nov 2017, 21:29

Hi.
Very very bad news for us.
Still not sure how the fix wing lost the altimeter from 2700ft to 1400 ft!

noblues

17th Nov 2017, 21:36

I've been flying in that local area for 30yrs, most of that instructing and some out of Wycombe.

It is very busy airspace but sadly anyone who has been flying long enough has had the odd near miss, this is just a tragic accident.
Getting in my car and driving around the M25 is far more risky.

Forcing GA with compulsory TCAS sort of gadgets will not solve the problem - It will just pander to the 'gadget brigade' who never look out enough, and won't show up the non squawking traffic.

My condolences go out to those involved in this sad accident. RIP.

Duchess_Driver

17th Nov 2017, 21:42

As has been said, "TCAS" - especially in most GA aircraft is prone to drive a head down and inside - and the display doesn't always give a "class D" bearing on the target especially in a turn. Worse, in a climbing turn the relative vector can be reducing and in error laterally and vertically.

I fly an aeroplane so fitted and that in nil wing can give a ground speed of 3nm/min. The closure on something heading directly towards doing the same is minimal at best - I've seen pilots spend so long trying to identify where the threat is 'on the screen' before looking up and out. It's a mindset of 'automatics' will keep me safe and that is to the detriment of good old fashioned airmanship, situational awareness and TEM principles.

I'm a big fan of TCAS - in a well equipped aircraft with a well trained operator in seat 0A but there are so many other threats that aren't necessarily going to show on the screen - (hang gliders, parascenders etc). Not to mention in a supposedly safe environment (the circuit, perhaps) where the pilot doesn't understand the inhibit function or the capability of the systems that recognise the environment and desensitise themselves leading to too many 'contacts' in a target rich environment that the conflicts become so frequent that the pilot begins to ignore the warnings.

I stand by my statement that, whilst good, it isn't the solution

Wycombe

17th Nov 2017, 21:47

I've not been involved at Wycombe for a good few years now, despite my moniker.

Having seen this news, and as one who frequently traversed that airspace in club and privately-owned aircraft in years past, I'd just like to pass my condolences to all involved in today's tragedy.

wealthysoup

17th Nov 2017, 22:21

Whilst for the heavier metal (with full GPS location via ADS-B out) flightradar data is very accurate (excluding loss of signal and the estimation which is then involved), smaller GA aircraft data is an approximation at best.

I would urge caution before making statements such as w,xyz fpm descent rate on the 152 prior to impact.

In a simple form: How flightradar generally works for GA aircraft is it requires several ground stations to receive the transponder signal from an aircraft. It then calculates based on the known locations of the ground stations and the differences in the time received between the transponder signal at each of these locations. Over time it can estimate the altitude, speed and direction of the aircraft. For a really basic example of this; turn off your GPS, wifi and bluetooth on your phone and open google maps and look at the margin of error circle around your position.
A lot of the accuracy of this system depends how accurately a user records the positon of their flightradar receiver (typically done manually) and how many different receivers receive each transponder transmission.

I believe (but I don't know for sure about this) - that a lot of "smoothing" or "averaging" is applied to the data received by flightradar to give a sensible relatively consistent reading.
I would expect that in a scenario such as this (sudden loss of signal or wildly varying data for want of a better way of putting it), that the recently reported data by flightradar would be suspect at best. I've looked at the raw data reported by flightradar (CSV format - maybe worth a look for the curious) and I believe there is a reasonable amount of inaccuracy there. I do not know how much.

Note: I do not know the cause of this accident - Nor will I be making any assumptions - I would however urge caution about treating heavily filtered data as 100% accurate.

dikastes

17th Nov 2017, 22:22

PerPurumTonantes

17th Nov 2017, 22:25

Forcing GA with compulsory TCAS sort of gadgets will not solve the problem - It will just pander to the 'gadget brigade' who never look out enough, and won't show up the non squawking traffic.

A gadget is a self opening bin or a touch sensitive light. TCAS is the ABS on your car or the system that stops trains passing red signals (TPWS if you're interested :8).

When our phones have the power of supercomputers there is no technical reason why EVERY aircraft, including UAVs, can't broadcast its position.

That only leaves geese, but even A320s have problems with them.

horizon flyer

17th Nov 2017, 22:28

PerPurumTonantes

17th Nov 2017, 22:39

It is class G airspace. The alternative is controlled airspace. Would you like to pay for a deconfliction service?

Yes.

I used to fly in the USA and if I remember correctly you could easily get a 'flight following' service giving deconfliction (can any US pilots confirm?) Was amazed to find that in the much more cramped UK airspace, LARS is seen as a luxury.

It's like the English feel awfully embarrassed to have to bother those busy chaps at Farnborough.

9Aplus

17th Nov 2017, 22:46

In a simple form: How flightradar generally works for GA aircraft is it requires several ground stations to receive the transponder signal from an aircraft. It then calculates based on the known locations of the ground stations and the differences in the time received between the transponder signal at each of these locations. Over time it can estimate the altitude, speed and direction of the aircraft. For a really basic example of this; turn off your GPS, wifi and bluetooth on your phone and open google maps and look at the margin of error circle around your position.
A lot of the accuracy of this system depends how accurately a user records the positon of their flightradar receiver (typically done manually) and how many different receivers receive each transponder transmission.

Yes it is called MULTILATERATION and works in time-domain just like
the GPS. True is that data is not accurate like WAAS assisted aviation
GPS (better than 7,5 m x,y,z error) but it is within 50 m of real x,y,z
in relation to WGS84 so that z may be in question to real ground but
not in relative loss of high. FR "radar site" is getting time and positon
from GPS running full time like this:

DEVICE INFO: MAC ADDRESS: S/W VERSION: FR24-3.8,101,66 F/W VERSION: 21 ROOT DEVICE: /dev/mmcblk0p2 RADAR CODE: F-AAAA1 UPTIME: 0 days 13:50:11 GPS INFO: POSITION: XX, YY, 10.7m [AMSL] TEMPERATURE: 38.09'C GPS EXTENDED STATUS: Latitude: XX Longitude: YY Altitude: 10m Decoding status: doing fixes Antenna present: YES Antenna port shorted: NO Satellites used: 8 Signal levels: 02=51.0 06=50.0 0C=51.0 0E=48.0 18=43.0 19=55.0 1D=49.0 1F=35.0 20=50.0 STORAGE: ROOT PARTITION USAGE: 103M/622M (18%) USER PARTITION USAGE: 1.6M/120M (2%) STATUS: RECEIVER SOFTWARE: ON RAW FEED [30334]: UP, NUM CONNECTED: 0 BS FEED [30003]: UP, NUM CONNECTED: 0 FR24 CONNECTION STATUS: ADS-B: connected, 4 AC tracked ModeS: connected, 6 AC tracked

dikastes

17th Nov 2017, 22:50

twinstar_ca

17th Nov 2017, 23:08

sad indeed... my condolences to Paco and others who knew the driver(s)... :( :(

mickjoebill

17th Nov 2017, 23:21

Should the CAA legislate that all aircraft in class G airspace carry such equipment?

We need Tesla to do for GA what he just did yesterday for both the trucking industry and the niche supercar industry.

Smarter, faster, safer and cheaper than what has come before.

There is hope that the fundamental problem of moving in three dimensions without being able to see 360 degrees will be solved for GA.

Mjb

Flingingwings

17th Nov 2017, 23:47

A sad day for the industry. Heartfelt condolences to the families that have lost loved ones.

The rotary fraternity have lost one of the nicest and most professional pilots I’ve ever encountered.

Many good chats and happy memories.

Have a long history with HS at WAP and can only imagine what those guys are going through.

wealthysoup

18th Nov 2017, 00:15

Yes it is called MULTILATERATION and works in time-domain just like
the GPS. True is that data is not accurate like WAAS assisted aviation
GPS (better than 7,5 m x,y,z error) but it is within 50 m of real x,y,z
in relation to WGS84 so that z may be in question to real ground but
not in relative loss of high. FR "radar site" is getting time and positon
from GPS running full time like this:

Indeed, it is called multilateration - unfortunately a term that a lot of people aren't familiar with.

Where does the accuracy of 50m for x,y,z come from? I've never heard of a specific accuracy for FR24 but would be interested to know if its implentation of MLAT really is that accurate.

I'm afraid that the "radar site" getting time and position from a GPS attached to the receiver is outdated by several years. Whilst a GPS can be used, flightradar allows users to enter X,Y and Z of their receiver (or more specifically their antenna) without ever having to connect to a GPS. If the GPS was (still) a requirement then the data would likely be a fair bit more reliable.

Edit: Just googled - Here is the official accuracy statement for MLAT from the flightradar blog: "MLAT position calculations have a general accuracy of 10-100 meters and 1000 meters in the worst cases."

noblues

18th Nov 2017, 00:47

A gadget is a self opening bin or a touch sensitive light. TCAS is the ABS on your car or the system that stops trains passing red signals (TPWS if you're interested :8).

When our phones have the power of supercomputers there is no technical reason why EVERY aircraft, including UAVs, can't broadcast its position.

That only leaves geese, but even A320s have problems with them.

I'm fully aware of what TCAS is PerPurumTonantes, its superb in a commercial environment within IFR. Its saved my bacon a few times flying down through say certain parts of Africa and a few other less well controlled parts of the planet in my day job - But my view is it has no place in GA.

I've found the Mk1 Eyeball system very reliable for GA VFR that requires zero investment and is by default carried on board every flying machine.

Discorde

18th Nov 2017, 01:22

Some posters have referred to the extra distraction of reprogramming GPS in flight and selecting new VHF freqs. The latter is compounded by having to click through more digits on 8.33 radios.

In his article 'Visual Navigator (http://steemrok.com/steemroknwlistv4)', written by Neil Williams 40 years ago, there is the following, which I think still applies today:

Nobody has immunity from collision risk. The golden rule for visual flying is nine seconds with one's head out of the cockpit for every one second in.

I often wonder whether there is too much unnecessary VHF traffic in Class G airspace - another distraction. Not to mention that some pilots relax their lookout when they're talking to somebody on the ground on the basis that 'ATC are looking after me'. It might be an interesting experiment to have a 'radio silence' day in which all pilots in Class G operate with comms switched off - that would sharpen lookout!

russian roulette

18th Nov 2017, 07:15

The simple fact is, if both had Mode C and even one had TCAS, the accident would have been avoided if the RA was followed.

Mode C was compulsory in the USA more than 25 years ago, it is mandatory in Belgium airspace. It's should be mandatory in UK.

For those dinosaurs anti-TCAS, turn yours off if you have one, but keep your Mode C on. Then if you're coming up behind me fast I do not die if your lookout skills are lacking. I don't want to die due to someone's poor lookout so I will keep my TCAS on. (there are enough studies to show that lookout for collision avoidance is a flawed policy)

But remember if that jet at 250 kts coming up behind you doesn't see you and is also anti TCAS (and has it switched off to improve his lookout !!) .. you may wish you had TCAS in your final moments.

Yesterday the weather was good, what if the visibility is 1000m and two aircraft are on a collision course at high speed. Mr lookout may not have a chance to avoid. What if IMC?

It's time to do something to stop any more unnecessary deaths. Mode C allows ATC to provide a safer "traffic service" and allows RA's to work.

nigelh

18th Nov 2017, 07:18

Noblues .
"I've found the Mk1 Eyeball system very reliable for GA VFR that requires zero investment and is by default carried on board every flying" machine.

Sounds like you are saying this could not have happened to you . Incredible stupidity to rule out a piece of tech that I truly believe would have saved them .

XV666

18th Nov 2017, 07:27

I see the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5093089/Helicopter-plane-crash-mid-air-collision.html) is quoting from posts on this thread: be aware!

One pilot said it was easy to be distracted by the estate.
Writing on an internet flying forum, the 36-year-old added: 'I've been guilty of paying too much attention to pointing passengers to the Rothschild palace and not enough to a lookout.'

Plus an interview with PACO:

None of the victims had been named last night, but the dead helicopter pilot's friend and former colleague Captain Phil Croucher said: 'He was probably the most respected instructor in the country.
'He achieved a very high position in the Army. If you wanted a training instructor there's no one more highly qualified.
'Almost everybody in the country has been instructed by him – most instructors have been trained by him. Everybody in the industry looked up to him.'
He was said to have been training a foreign flying student on a beginners' course when the helicopter crashed.
Captain Croucher, 65, of Ayrshire, said the pilot, who worked for Helicopter Services flying school near Aylesbury, was in his sixties and had a partner and family,
He added: 'I was shocked and surprised to hear what had happened. He was a real gentleman. Of course it is an industry where this does happen. We don't stop, we just get on and do the job, he wouldn't have wanted me to stop flying.'
Flight data shows a two-seater helicopter was flying at 1,025ft in the area at the time, but suddenly went off radar shortly after 12 noon. It had only been in the air for 15 minutes.

A and C

18th Nov 2017, 07:30

We are in danger of loosing the plot here, TCAS is far too expensive & heavy for fitment to small GA types so is a non starter, it should also be rmebered that Two TCAS equipped airlines collided over Switzerland a few years back.

ADS-B probably is the best answer, the UK CAA has been moving in that direction ( albeit hindered by EASA ) and awairness equipment like FLARM is avalable and widely used by gliders and the more forward thinking in powered Aircraft.

Even if the take up of such equipment was 100% there would still be a risk. The last thing we have to deal with is the civil liberties types who object to broadcast their position on privacy grounds............ I wonder what the civil liberties issues of being six foot under the ground are ?

The Old Fat One

18th Nov 2017, 07:33

I'm fully aware of what TCAS is PerPurumTonantes, its superb in a commercial environment within IFR. Its saved my bacon a few times flying down through say certain parts of Africa and a few other less well controlled parts of the planet in my day job - But my view is it has no place in GA.

I've found the Mk1 Eyeball system very reliable for GA VFR that requires zero investment and is by default carried on board every flying machine.

Somewhat prehistoric philosophy no? We don't need something because something we all ready got is adequate. Pretty odd at any time imo, even more so when the "thing" in question can help save lives?? I don't get it. But then again I don't really get a lot of things about GA.

russian roulette

18th Nov 2017, 07:38

BroomstickPilot

18th Nov 2017, 07:54

Hi Guys,
In this thread I have seen two or three comments to the effect that in the turn visibility from the cockpit of a high wing aircraft is poorer than from a low wing aircraft. If these comments are intended to compare visibility from an aircraft such as a C152/172 to that from a Pa28, or similar, then I would strongly disagree. In my view there is no difference. When you do a turn in a Pa28 the upper edge of the into-turn window frame comes down and the roof then obscures your into-turn visibility every bit as completely as the wing of a C152/172. Hence, in both aircraft types, before turning it is vital to turn your head and shoulders round and take a really good look, using the good old Mk 1 eyeball, to make sure that there is no other traffic in the way of your intended turn. (This is one reason why I so liked the Sky Arrow; tandem seating, blister canopy, and wings that were above and behind the pilot).
Regards,
BP.

simonrennie

18th Nov 2017, 08:04

Agreed. Pilot workload especially in small GA is ludicrous. Why are are we still fiddling with knobs and frequencies? Why not a touchscreen with the nearest 6 ATCs marked on it in plain English?
I was taught originally to change frequency you continue to look out and find the knob blind as you know the frequency you are on you count the clicks to the frequency you want then glance over and check and adjust. I also have a GTN650 touchscreen which results in far more eyes in time particularly in turbulence as its very hard to keep your finger stable yes the frequencies are all to hand in the database but you have to be expert on a very complex bit of kit to find it very fast and it can't be done blind

PerPurumTonantes

18th Nov 2017, 08:12

it should also be rmebered that Two TCAS equipped airlines collided over Switzerland a few years back.

Überlingen collision was due to pilot ignoring his TCAS and instead following instructions from an overworked ATC controller.

The unfortunate controller was later tracked down and stabbed to death by a parent of one of the Russian children on board. Stories don't get much more tragic than that.

If both pilots had followed their TCAS the accident would have been avoided.

Kerosene Kraut

18th Nov 2017, 08:19

EESDL

18th Nov 2017, 08:25

Unlike one of the above contributors - I cannot imagine what it must be like at HS.
Condolences thread required.
Such a nice guy, who knew no limits when helping someone.
There is now a huge void in the Helicopter world.

A and C

18th Nov 2017, 08:59

Why would any one fit a mode C transponder these days when mode S is mandated almost everywhere ?

I have seen some of the certified traffic systems and most of these are expensive and heavy so only suitable for the upper end of the single engine market.

The traffic system that seems to meet the lower end of the market is POWER FLARM, the cost of the system is low ( about £2K ) and the system weight is about 0.5Lb. It will detect and give position of Mode S , ADS-B & FLARM targets and proximity to mode C targets. The system is Garmin Compatable so those with Garmin moving map displays can see the traffic. This is the traffic system road I am going down with the display going onto a G500.

This system should only be seen as a back up for the Mk 1 eyeball but with my main collision threat coming from gliders ( that are very hard to see ) and with the FLARM take up within the gliding community being so high the POWER FLARM system represents a considerable safety improvement for not much cash. I know that installation in a wooden Aircraft such as mine is simple but even with the issue external antenna fitting FLARM to metal Aircraft the cost is reasonable .

This can ( at last ) be done under EASA CS-STAN ( as can mode S retrofit ) so the paperwork costs are very low.

ShyTorque

18th Nov 2017, 09:00

A and C

Agree with TCAS - that can be a personal choice. No one is advocating TCAS for all, but Mode C for all is inexpensive and lightweight.

And, yes of course there can be a collision if the RA is not followed. You could say the same about a stick shaker - people have pulled instead of pushed !

Many smaller aircraft operated in Class G already have ACAS/TCAS I or TAS but that version only gives TA, not RA. I've been using it for almost 20 years and would feel very vulnerable now without it. It has to be used in context, the most relevant aircraft might not appear on it for reasons already known and so it must be used to assist lookout, never to replace it. It works very well as long as it's limitations are understood. It's proved to me many times that lookout alone is very often inadequate, due to human limitations. I've lost count of the number of occasions when other pilots had a clear obligation under the rules of the air to take necessary avoiding action from our aircraft, but completely failed to do so because they obviously never saw it. So we are always prepared to take action instead. Thankfully TCAS gives good advance warning so we can (and very often do) avoid a conflicting flight path by taking early action.

I posted on this forum very many years ago to explain that the full use of the transponder with mode c where fitted was a great asset to safety because a TCAS equipped aircraft could "see" other aircraft well beyond the range of human eyesight. I got heavily criticised by some who claimed I was using it as an excuse not to look out and even by some who considered the use of a transponder a breach of their human right to remain anonymous in flight!

[email protected]

18th Nov 2017, 09:00

I have only flown with TCAS for the last 3 years and even with the odd false alert or wrong sector indication, it is far, far better than just relying on the Mk1 eyeball.

The wannabe (or ex) fighter pilots need to remember that not all Mk 1 eyeballs are equal and a great may GA pilots are of more mature years - are spectacle wearers (possibly bi or tri focal) or just have less than perfect eyesight. Add in creaky or arthritic necks and you have great potential for degraded lookout.

There is no reason that all flying machines shouldn't be equipped with a transponder at the very least - you wouldn't go out driving at night without your headlights on. Remember it is SEE and BE SEEN.

Allow those with TCAS to see you even if you don't have it fitted yourself.

The system I use is a simple display but it has an audio alert - no RAs or anything, just distance and clock code - but it has helped me see aircraft far earlier than I could have noticed/identified them with the naked eye.

Technology might not be the absolute solution but it goes a bloody long way towards it.

heli14

18th Nov 2017, 09:05

Sincerest condolences to all involved. I cannot imagine what HS must be going through right now.

I have known the HS team since the mid-90's though haven't been in touch for a few months and no longer work in the industry.

A very sad day for aviation.

h14

RetiredBA/BY

18th Nov 2017, 09:07

A and C

18th Nov 2017, 09:16

As a long term ( former ) resident of WAP and a former employee of AAA Ltd I too am shocked and saddened by the news that people who I have worked alongside have perished.

As of this moment I don’t know exactly who has died and being out of the UK dont want to further distress those at HS & AAA by making enquiries on the phone.

As of yet I don’t know who to direct my condolences to , I am sure this will become apparent in the fullness of time, meanwhile I am happy to discuss the technical issues surrounding traffic detection equipment but not anything to do with this tragic accident.

anchorhold

18th Nov 2017, 09:22

As quoted if true............but rotor while flying on 1000 ft in steady course
had no chance to see above&behind and plank last data was:
2,700 ft Vertical Speed -1,536 fpm.

A descent of 1536 fpm seems very high for a C152, and comenced below a height where you would not generally enter a spin or spiral dive. Despite which you would make clearing turns first.

A glide, approach, or normal decent would be more likely to be 500, 600 fpm in a C152, sideslip slightly higher.

FullWings

18th Nov 2017, 09:30

...now that electronics are so light and cheap, a TCAS or FLARM system could, at least, significantly reduce the risk.
Absolutely. Electronic conspicuity is the name of the game if we want to improve the accident statistics.

Yes, lookout is vital but no-one can see around their aircraft 100% of the time in all directions. I use TCAS at work but it doesn’t really fit with typical GA flight profiles.

I have FLARM, which will alert me to traffic that it perceives as a threat, getting more insistent as the time to collision reduces. It doesn’t tell me what to do but where I should look. If I can’t see whatever is causing the warning, I know I need to change height and/or heading to deconflict.

A properly installed and set up EC system should have much less in the way of blindspots than humans have when seated in light aircraft. It is a complement to lookout, not a replacement but in today’s crowded skies and in areas where traffic is funnelled under and/or between airspace restriction, I think it is indispensable.

ATCO Fred

18th Nov 2017, 09:38

Sadly I watched this accident on radar . . . . both Mode S equipped squawking A and C. Any form of ACAS would have helped. Condolences to all those touched by this tragic but avoidable event.

Having spent half a decade watching the maggots within 15nm of WCO on a good flying day I can tell you that's the last place I would be on a good weather day !!

BUT. . . what staggers me is the amount of mode S equipped aircraft that operated without Mode C (We can tell) either off due lack of equipment knowledge, deliberately switched off (there was was a 14 page thread on flyer about that) or unserviceable.

On one side there are those who demand the right to fly no radio no electronics etc and the other, those whom fly commercially whom want as many layers of ALARP safety as possible. I actually don't think it's the CAA or any ANSP responsibility; it's yours! Get your BGA, BHA, GA alliance et all together to see if they can establish a minimum operating standard to aid airborne conspicuity.

This is the 2nd time this year I've sent radar recordings to the AAIB - 2 times too many.

Stay safe all - Fred

roving

18th Nov 2017, 09:50

ADS-B can help reduce airspace infringements and mid-air collisions, says CAA

https://www.caa.co.uk/News/ADS-B-can-help-reduce-airspace-infringements-and-mid-air-collisions,-says-CAA/

ADS-B can help reduce airspace infringements and mid-air collisions, says CAA ? Future Airspace Strategy VFR Implementation Group (http://fasvig.org/ads-b-can-help-reduce-airspace-infringements-and-mid-air-collisions-says-caa)

mbbcam

18th Nov 2017, 09:53

I just wanted to add my condolences. I was once part of a small group that collected the wreckage of a glider that had been in a mid-air. It was a sobering experience.

I also wanted to make an observation from the point of view of someone who has a background in psychology, though not in cognitive psychology, which is the relevant field here. Anyone who puts their trust in the human cognitive system should look at the articles on Wikipedia that discuss *change blindness* and *inattentional blindness* (can't post the links). And they could do worse than look at some videos by Dan Simons and Chris Chabris, which are easy to find on YouTube (once again, sorry I can't post the links).

It is important to recognise that, even if something is right in the middle of your field of view, your cognitive system may not pass that information to your consciousness. I am not taking sides in the debate about TCAS or anything else, just saying that every system has limitations, but I suspect that not everyone is aware of the extraordinary limitations of human equipment. Perhaps a short course showing those limitations ought to be part of pilot training, if it isn't already. The same goes for driving.

9Aplus

18th Nov 2017, 09:54

Indeed, it is called multilateration - unfortunately a term that a lot of people aren't familiar with.

Where does the accuracy of 50m for x,y,z come from? I've never heard of a specific accuracy for FR24 but would be interested to know if its implentation of MLAT really is that accurate.

I'm afraid that the "radar site" getting time and position from a GPS attached to the receiver is outdated by several years. Whilst a GPS can be used, flightradar allows users to enter X,Y and Z of their receiver (or more specifically their antenna) without ever having to connect to a GPS. If the GPS was (still) a requirement then the data would likely be a fair bit more reliable.

Edit: Just googled - Here is the official accuracy statement for MLAT from the flightradar blog: "MLAT position calculations have a general accuracy of 10-100 meters and 1000 meters in the worst cases."
We are talking about utility non professional service,
which is not certified,
have no intention to be navigational aid,
just for informational use,
etc....
On the other hand that area is have fair coverage with F- kind of FR24 hardware where GPS is ON 7/24/365 and position can not be "written by
hand" and time domain timing is not estimated through network but sourced from GPS timing.
Which is slight difference to T- kind of devices mostly self home-made out of good SDRdongle, RPI2or3, fair 1 GHz range antenna, good net, with or without GPS present.

Here, have both and experience of more than 4 years of 24/7/365 monitoring is that accuracy of MLAT on S type of transponders is within
20 m range. There are also several other pilot implementations of similar time domain MLAT technology for example in SAR use. Have some
experience on that too.

Let's see official report but expect no surprise, the plank was above
and behind on 7 to 8 diving on poor souls in G2 :sad:

Edit / this post just confirm that the data for FR24 was enough to have fair estimation of position:
Sadly I watched this accident on radar . . . . both Mode S equipped squawking A and C.

Cows getting bigger

18th Nov 2017, 09:58

Leon & Ruth. The reputation and quality of the training HS provides is second to none. Like many, I've been welcomed into your family and learnt so much, way more than mere EASA regulations, from excellent aviators and instructors. Yesterday's tragedy may seem catastrophic right now but I know you will find a way through.

flight beyond sight

18th Nov 2017, 10:00

It is a very sad day at HS
We have lost a great Instructor and friend through no fault of his own
He was inspirational for so many students and will be greatly missed by us all
Now is not the time for recriminations but to remember a great guy and also his student who was also an innocent victim
May they both RIP
Leon

FullWings

18th Nov 2017, 10:07

Sadly I watched this accident on radar . . . . both Mode S equipped squawking A and C.
And there’s the thing. There were probably quite a few who saw this on their radar displays or FR24. The information to prevent this was out there, in almost real-time. But the people to whom it would have made the greatest difference didn’t have access to it.

That has to change.

RMK

18th Nov 2017, 10:11

Yes.

I used to fly in the USA and if I remember correctly you could easily get a 'flight following' service giving deconfliction (can any US pilots confirm?) Was amazed to find that in the much more cramped UK airspace, LARS is seen as a luxury.

It's like the English feel awfully embarrassed to have to bother those busy chaps at Farnborough.

I hold both EASA & FAA licenses and fly in both countries. You cannot compare the US Aviation Infrastructure to that of the UK. The US has far greater govt support and funding.

PerPurumTonantes

18th Nov 2017, 10:23

my view is it has no place in GA.

I've found the Mk1 Eyeball system very reliable for GA VFR that requires zero investment and is by default carried on board every flying machine.

TCAS saved me a head on collision flying back from Milton Keynes to Wycombe in the evening sun.

And good lookout saved me a collision with someone merrily joining base the other day without a single radio call (different airfield).

You're right, good lookout is paramount. Also that TCAS has flaws and isn't ideal for GA in dense traffic. But for me it was a lifesaver.

gevans35

18th Nov 2017, 10:43

Let's see official report but expect no surprise, the plank was above
and behind on 7 to 8 diving on poor souls in G2 :sad:

PFL with incomplete HASEL?

Flying Binghi

18th Nov 2017, 11:19

Sadly I watched this accident on radar . . . . both Mode S equipped squawking A and C...

I see yer a Pom. Though you may know why ADS-B were instructed to be turned off for Oshkosh ?

.

HeliAl

18th Nov 2017, 11:24

A great guy who I have had the pleasure of being around and learning my trade from his mentoring since 1987 when we both taught at FAST at Thruxton. RIP my friend.

FrightByWire

18th Nov 2017, 11:25

My condolences to HS family and the families of the flight crew involved.
Damian

Flying Binghi

18th Nov 2017, 11:31

TCAS saved me a head on collision flying back from Milton Keynes to Wycombe in the evening sun.

And good lookout saved me a collision with someone merrily joining base the other day without a single radio call (different airfield).

You're right, good lookout is paramount. Also that TCAS has flaws and isn't ideal for GA in dense traffic. But for me it was a lifesaver.

I've had TCAD in me spam can for many years. (poor mans TCAS) Great thing out in the GAFA if there's a radar ping about and yer can't be bothered looking out the window though fairly useless as mentioned in a high traffic environment - the continuous "traffic" warning keep yer head inside trying to work-out the screen when eyes should be outside.

.

Bell_ringer

18th Nov 2017, 11:31

This is no longer the 1930's where we waft along at glacial speed, in largely empty airspace waving casually as someone flies past.
Modern solutions are needed to deal with congested airspace and the wide variety of machinery trying to use it.
The eyeball is important, but solely relying on it is a flawed for the reasons stated in previous posts.
Accurate flying and concise communication about intentions will also help others take avoiding action before a conflict occurs, especially in uncontrolled airspace.
The place to start is using the tech that is available, it helps no one if it is turned off or unserviceable. Getting back to basics and being disciplined in uncontrolled airspace may also help.

On the TCAS front, Garmin's GTS800 is TCAS v1 and in it's cheapest form provides about 12nm of advanced warning. Equipment costs were about $10k excluding labour and paperwork. If you spend more you get better range but for most light machines that is probably sufficient.

anchorhold

18th Nov 2017, 11:33

Flight Beyond Sight wrote:

"Now is not the time for recriminations but to remember a great guy and also his student who was also an innocent victim".

This I assume was written by the helicopter operator, on the one hand he is saying it is not a time for recriminations, on the other hand he is saying the helicopter crew are innocent, how did he form this opinion, and is he suggesting that the fixed wing aircraft was at fault.

We will not know until the matter has been investigated by the AAIB.

9Aplus

18th Nov 2017, 11:33

PFL with incomplete HASEL?
Educated guess...
You happy now :}
BTW you missed this part->

We are talking about utility non professional service,
which is not certified,
have no intention to be navigational aid,
just for informational use,
etc....

Discorde

18th Nov 2017, 12:04

As a SkyDemon user I look forward to the day when TCAS/ FLARM alerts can be shown on my screen. But I'll still follow the Neil Williams 9/1 lookout procedure.

finalchecksplease

18th Nov 2017, 12:15

Great instructor and a very nice guy to boot, knowledgeable and willing to share that knowledge. RIP Mike

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4941941/aylesbury-plane-helicopter-crash-pilot-mike-green-student-waddesdon-manor/

4468

18th Nov 2017, 12:24

Firstly, condolences to all those affected by this tragic accident.

Secondly. Far, far, far too early to say whether anyone was (or was not!) at fault!

Now

TCAS works great inside Controlled Airspace.

TCAS works great when everything you could hit, has a transponder. Preferably with an altitude read out.

TCAS works great when pilots have been taught how to use it, and follow it’s commands religiously. Whether or not they can actually ‘see’ what they presume to be their conflicting traffic!

From what I’ve heard of the area around WAP (and other popular GA locations, the danger is, pilots would be swamped by information, and deconfliction manoeuvre demands.

TCAS does not work great when pilots start to ignore it due to it sucking up too much of their attention. Much of it inside the aircraft, when they should be looking out.

TCAS can be confusing, and frankly rather scary when it commands conflicting manoeuvres due to multiple simoultaneous threats. Or if the other aircraft does not follow coordinated actions.

Coordinated actions often require specific rates of climb or descent. In such situations, TCAS requires Instrument Flying skills, the trajectory of which may also take you into cloud.

Knowledge of TCAS seems a little ‘rudimentary’ by some on this thread?

TCAS is not a panacea. It simply brings different problems. Some of which, an ‘average’ GA pilot might struggle with?

Bell_ringer

18th Nov 2017, 12:32

There does some to be some confusion. What is being discussed is traffic avoidance. None of these systems provide any instruction beyond placing aircraft position (accurate or estimated) on a display followed by a verbal warning if any may be likely to cause a conflict (that's how the garmin works anyway).
The similarity to TCAS is that aircraft will interrogate other transponders for information rather than passively listening in to responses from transponders to SSR.
It is an informational tool to help provide better awareness, nothing more.

[email protected]

18th Nov 2017, 12:33

Full blown TCAS isn't really what is needed but a simpler (and probably cheaper) TAS would fit the bill for GA (no RAs to worry about - just threat indications).

Flyin'ematlast

18th Nov 2017, 12:39

Condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those lost in this sad incident.

2Sticks

18th Nov 2017, 12:58

I just wanted to send my sincere condolences to the families of those who died so tragically yesterday. My friends at Helicopter Services are in my thoughts at this difficult time.
Mike S.

TiPwEiGhT

18th Nov 2017, 13:03

My thoughts are with Mikes family and everyone at HS. I am fortunate to have spent many hours in Mikes company, and those memories will never be forgotten. The industry has lost a true gentleman and a first class aviator.

Pittsextra

18th Nov 2017, 13:11

jayteeto

18th Nov 2017, 13:16

We have a simplified version of TCAS on our helicopters that gives an audio and visual warning. It’s not massively accurate, but it does tell you that there is ‘something there’. A recent airprox released near Lancaster, shows the true value of such a system. It doesn’t guarantee deconfliction, but it adds to situational awareness and doesn’t require a lot of heads in
People, it’s a no brainer. ANYTHING like this that adds awareness is good value

paco

18th Nov 2017, 13:17

Probably the same type of chance event that caused two chipmunks to have a head on collision at Middle Wallop on a gin clear day while taxying.

Phil

Flying Binghi

18th Nov 2017, 13:18

...TCAS is not a panacea. It simply brings different problems. Some of which, an ‘average’ GA pilot might struggle with?

...and TCAS is generally found in two pilot aircraft.

.

Flying Binghi

18th Nov 2017, 13:24

Pittsextra

18th Nov 2017, 13:27

Probably the same type of chance event that caused two chipmunks to have a head on collision at Middle Wallop on a gin clear day while taxying.

Phil

No that isnt the same level of chance is it ? Taxying suggests the constraints of at least the boundary of the airfield and 2 dimensions. That and the constraints in forward vision with a taildragger... but yes accidents do occur and in the most odd /freak manner.

gim

18th Nov 2017, 13:29

My flying instructor Mike Green , what a lovely person. Sad day

Simonta

18th Nov 2017, 13:31

My thoughts are with Mike's family and all at HS. You taught me well and examined me with flare and fairness. You didn't teach me how to fly a helicopter, you taught me how to fly.

RIP Mike. A true great.

aa777888

18th Nov 2017, 13:35

I used to fly in the USA and if I remember correctly you could easily get a 'flight following' service giving deconfliction (can any US pilots confirm?) Was amazed to find that in the much more cramped UK airspace, LARS is seen as a luxury.

It's like the English feel awfully embarrassed to have to bother those busy chaps at Farnborough.
I hold both EASA & FAA licenses and fly in both countries. You cannot compare the US Aviation Infrastructure to that of the UK. The US has far greater govt support and funding.
To answer @PerPurumTonantes question: yes, you can easily get VFR flight following (aka VFR Advisories, aka Radar Traffic Information Service) on any flight where you can be tracked via transponder and controller workload permitting (good article here (http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/37_5/features/Hacking-VFR-Flight-Following_11340-1.html)). You get it by default when in Class B and C airspace. It can be difficult to get if you are flying at typical helicopter altitudes where only enroute radar coverage is available, i.e. if they can't track you reliably they can't offer you service. I generally only use it when I intend to enter Class B or C, and, when exiting same, will hang onto it for a while until I know that I'm going into an area where it isn't going to work out.

I recently installed Mode S in/out. I've never had traffic information available to me before and it sure is nice. After a few days of "playing with the new toy" it is now in my background scan. The voice will warn me of anything close. I leave the traffic display up on the panel GPS in case the tablet goes wonky, and have the tablet set to overlay traffic on the map display, so I get good situational awareness whenever I check the map.

You can still be "surprised" when in a TAS only area/altitude. It's actually kind of sobering when the technology picks up the traffic before you do. An object lesson, with multiple messages: a) you can always do a better job of scanning and b) the technology, used correctly, does add safety margin.

zimbizee

18th Nov 2017, 13:40

MOSTAFA

18th Nov 2017, 13:47

Mick I so remember a long time ago flying a Gazelle night sortie with you on BRW - I can remember your wise words to myself, a young student pilot at debrief, 'that was a good solid green sortie Steve but never forget night flying is a large part of being a military pilot, treat it with respect but it's just night flying, the same as day flying - only dark'.

Rest in Peace pal.

LeadSled

18th Nov 2017, 14:07

Folks,
Be very careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Who was the great economist who said:"It is just as well we don't get all the government we pay for".

There have been some very ill-informed statements about the US and FAA, for a start, Class G airspace in US is very rare, transponders are not a universal requirement for VFR.

There have been some very uniformed statements about the use of various collision avoidance devices, but the ALL have one thing in common, they are not accurate enough in such as a circuit environment, or approach/departure areas to their airfields. And they are "head down" when you should be "head up".

I speak from considerable experience of such devices, pilots who are "gadget freaks" are also the one who already do not look out the window nearly enough, and put undeserved faith in their latest toy --- usually extolling the virtues straight from the manufacturer's sales blurbs, with no idea of the real limitation ---- and this is not a shot at PPLs, one of the worst offenders I know is a high time corporate pilot.

The first step is to properly analyze the real risk --- not the perceived risk.

The next step is, once the magnitude of the risk is established ( the ICAO separation assurance standard is a good benchmark), and there will ALWAYS be some risk, the next step is: What to do about it.

A good start is always to amp up the national on-going pilot education efforts. How to conduct a proper search, including making certain your eyes are not on a fixed focus, would be a start, it can't be emphasised too often.

When it comes to "mandating" equipment, sentiment ( I was going to call it loudly expressed ignorance) can cost a lot of money, the preferred process (about which the FAA is quite rigorous) is a cost/benefit analysis. using real costs, not fantasy figures dreamed up by proponents ( more properly called "proponent bias"). And I do mean cost/benefit, not cost/effectiveness --- which is a different thing. Most of you on this thread have been making claims about perceptions of cost/effectiveness --- not benefit.

Unless the cost (initial and ongoing) is less than the benefit ( using national standard cost for lives and damage) the idea fails. Whether you like it or not, life is not "priceless", a principle accepted throughout public planning processes, "the sky is NOT the limit" to save a life. This is the national statistical cost of life, not trying to put a value on the life of one individual.

I can say, with great confidence, that mandating ACAS/ ADS-B in Class G airspace in UK will not produce a positive benefit to cost ratio, based on work I have done over the years, indeed, it will not even go close.

At time like the aftermath of this recent occurrence, there is too great a tendency for kneejerk demands that "they do something".

Tootle Pip!!

The Nr Fairy

18th Nov 2017, 14:08

I first flew with Mike in 2000, when he was at Thruxton. Over the next 6 years he took me from a raw PPL(H) to CPL(H) then FI(H), training at Helicopter Services.

I was always in awe of the man's sheer flying ability. Once, after a particularly **** sortie on my FI(H) course, I tentatively asked Mike "Can I ask a personal question?".

"Yes, David" - he never called me Dave. I asked how long he'd been doing this, as we hover taxied back in towards the Helicopter Services pads at Booker.

"About 40 years". It was the "about" which I remember, as well as the picture on the Sun's online page (https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/nintchdbpict000367703824.jpg?strip=all&w=626) of him in his flying attire with a big smile.

What a sad, sad, day.

jeepys

18th Nov 2017, 14:34

I also had the pleasure of Mike's company for FI course and renewals over the years.
Great guy.

Tcas 1 does not give resolution advice, that's Tcas 2 that must be followed.

A good lookout is always the number 1 but a form of tcas will inevitably give better SA.
For those people insisting that it will force people's heads inside the cockpit, well yes there is that argument and in some cases this will happen but then so does GPS. I fly aircraft with and without Tcas and I feel far more comfortable in a tcas aircraft.

RIP Mike.

gevans35

18th Nov 2017, 14:44

An audio beep that varies in tone and frequency and ideally uses surround sound technology to "position" the beep using suitable headphones could be the answer.

Duchess_Driver

18th Nov 2017, 15:03

An audio beep that varies in tone and frequency and ideally uses surround sound technology to "position" the beep using suitable headphones could be the answer.

Except for those who don't hear in stereo anymore......(or never have!)

gevans35

18th Nov 2017, 15:08

Except for those who don't hear in stereo anymore......(or never have!)

They'd still hear the beep and be warned that something was close, even if they had no directional information.

Bell_ringer

18th Nov 2017, 15:11

In this modern world where we can get self driving vehicles that manage to miss most things, there has to be a cost effective solution for this.

We keep seeing the same type of accidents and somehow expect a different result each time.
Perhaps it's time to look at things slightly differently and not keep doing the same things since that seems to have limited results?
Aviation, particularly GA, seems quite backwards looking in a time when every other industry seems to be looking ahead.

gevans35

18th Nov 2017, 15:15

FullWings

18th Nov 2017, 15:17

It’s not going to be long before you can don a pair of AR glasses and be able to see other traffic, even through the structure of the aeroplane and have threats made conspicuous.

Until then, anything that warns you of the “fly on the windscreen” that’s shortly to bloom into something frightening is something worth having.

4468

18th Nov 2017, 15:39

And the accident aircraft this thread is about didn't have any TCAS type devices fitted ? An accident report would be handy.
Quite correct.

Nor are they likely to have CVR or FDR. Which will make the accident that took 4 precious lives far more difficult to investigate than it needs to be. We may never find complete answers?

Bear in mind also that even a microlight has the capacity to bring down an aircraft carrying a number of people. So where do we stop with the march of 'technology'? Should all a/c be required to carry strobes, transponders, tcas, cvr, fdr? Where do we draw the line? How much kit can these little aircraft realistically carry? What are the electrical requirements? How often should this equipment be tested? Precisely when should a 'simple' (to operate) type become a type that requires all of this equipment?

Will we end light aircraft flying for the masses. (Who for a century have flown perfectly safely, year in and year out!)

ATCO Fred

18th Nov 2017, 16:23

The devil will be in the detail but...

Two aircraft out of the same airfield have a midair in a known busy piece of sky and we think having an electronic device that requires even more head inside the cockpit is going to help ? I wonder, was this a two ship ? It seems a very odd chance event otherwise.

Nope - The fixed wing was south/West of the Heli. . . . then established same course slightly behind and above. Providence . . . .

Fred

ShyTorque

18th Nov 2017, 16:23

...and TCAS is generally found in two pilot aircraft. .

Notwithstanding that TCAS is also fitted to most modern SPIFR equipped helicopters.

Unfortunately, from what has been found already, it appears that the pilots of both aircraft were probably completely unaware of the other's close presence.

From personal experience, small helicopters such as the Gimbal Cabrio offer a very small profile and are very difficult to see, especially from behind.

Sloppy Link

18th Nov 2017, 16:27

How so very sad.

ThomasTheTankEngine

18th Nov 2017, 16:34

Very very sad news.

Mike taught me for my CPL back in 1999 at Thruxton.

Condolences to all the families and HS.

finalchecksplease

18th Nov 2017, 16:35

MK1 eyeball is so much better and even if you have, like in the aircraft I fly, TCAS 2 fitted when flying VFR you still should spend most of your time heads outside scanning for other traffic.

What I notice is some pilots overly relying, trusting the TCAS and not scanning, to the extend that when ATC calls them about other aircraft saying "we have him on TCAS" :ugh:

Even with the top of the line TCAS equipment we have fitted the amount of times I've seen one contact suddenly splitting into two, disappearing altogether, not in the same postion when you spotted the other aircraft or when flying near a small GA airfield with aircraft without transponder there will be nothing on TCAS!

Also if you get an RA you (partly) rely on the other pilot flying correctly what their TCAS is telling them, something we train but isn't a given.

IMHO TCAS has its place but not in GA aircraft, because of the reasons listed above together with cost factor.

n1tut

18th Nov 2017, 16:41

Could anybody tell me if Mike used to fly with Bristow helicopters?

Cheers

David

ShyTorque

18th Nov 2017, 16:46

MK1 eyeball is so much better and even if you have, like in the aircraft I fly, TCAS 2 fitted when flying VFR you still should spend most of your time heads outside scanning for other traffic.
True, but the Mk 1 eyeball also has well documented limitations.

Additionally, it is totally useless if another aircraft approaches yours from an blind spot such as above (or below) and behind you.

Unless you have a 360 degree view from the cockpit and a neck like an owl.

TCAS is a very useful supplement to help build a pilot's awareness of what is going on around him. As I wrote a few posts back, it needs to be used correctly, with it's own limitations borne in mind.

Same as listening out on the radio. Another useful tool, but no good in isolation.

wealthysoup

18th Nov 2017, 16:48

On the other hand that area is have fair coverage with F- kind of FR24 hardware where GPS is ON 7/24/365 and position can not be "written by
hand" and time domain timing is not estimated through network but sourced from GPS timing.
Which is slight difference to T- kind of devices mostly self home-made out of good SDRdongle, RPI2or3, fair 1 GHz range antenna, good net, with or without GPS present.

Let's see official report but expect no surprise, the plank was above
and behind on 7 to 8 diving on poor souls in G2 :sad:

Edit / this post just confirm that the data for FR24 was enough to have fair estimation of position:

Yes, "F" type receivers are much better than the "T" type SDR devices. Unfortunately FR24 doesn't make it publically available (to the best of my knowledge) what type of receivers and how many receivers are tracking a flight. I would be the first to credit the accuracy of FR24 for correctly equipped aircraft at high level, however the same can not be said for MLAT at low level; especially for suddenly changing data.

Since we've pretty much decided that there is no need for the AAIB based on the FR24 data perhaps you have some thoughts on these questions:

1. Why the sudden dog-leg on the last data received from the aircraft as plotted on the FR24 map? The reported track was 17 degrees which is consistent with the previously received data. Note: If you plot the co-ordinates yourself this will correlate with the map, not with FR24's csv/xml data.

2. The aircraft tracks crossed somewhere between 11:58:28 and 11:59:01 according to the FR24 data. At this time FR24 reports the aircraft was not "diving" and was infact holding an altitude of 3500-3700 feet. The helicopter was consistently between 1,025 and 1,050 feet. Any thoughts on this? Based on the FR24 data they had ~2,500 feet of vertical seperation.

3. Last received data from the helicopter was at 12:00:46 (1000 feet consistent speed and heading with previous data). Last received data from the aircraft was at 11:59:44 (2700 feet (a loss of 700 feet in 24 seconds), with speed and direction remaining consistent with previous data. Generally speaking data from the heli was received every ~10 seconds. Data from the plane was received slightly less often but not by a large amount. Why was data received from the helicopter for another minute than the plane? I can only think of one reason - and if that was the case it msot likely wouldn't be reporting a steady alititude of ~1,000 feet.

4. Do you know what filtering FR24 does on received data in order to provide the end users with positon, heading, speed and alititude data? I would imagine it's fairly accurate when data is relatively consistent but I guess all bets are out the window when incidents like this occur.

5. If reception in this area is so great why is the first received data from the aircraft received at 11:57:27 when it is already at 2,800 feet? I suppose it is possible the pilot didn't have the transponder on until that point but it seems a bit odd to me, especially for a training flight.

Maybe this gives some indication of why I created my original post rather than people throwing around theories such as xxx FPM descent rate, cessna "diving" towards the heli etc etc.
At the end of the day whatever happened 4 people have died. Perhaps its not the circumstances to be drawing conclusions based on limited publically available data.

Bell_ringer

18th Nov 2017, 16:53

FR24 data is inaccurate, particularly low-level.
I've played back the recorded data on our flights and it's not close.
(coverage is sparse locally)
It should not be taken as gospel.

Bubblecopter85

18th Nov 2017, 16:57

Plenty of time for arguing over TCAS and learning from the safety report but for now I just want to say what an incredible loss this man is to us all.

Being taught by Mike was like being taught by your Grandad, only my actual Grandad was not able to conduct a backwards auto in an R22 from low level and land within its own skid length, followed by a grin and then gently saying “ok then?”

Can’t speak highly enough of him and can only hope if heaven exists then God has just logged his first lesson with one of the greats!

RIP Captain Green

n5296s

18th Nov 2017, 17:01

What a very sad accident. It seems almost sacrilegious to turn it into an argument about TCAS (etc) vs eyeballs.

Someone asked about the US. I've had TCAD (TCAS without RA) for 15 years (Garmin 330). I feel very uncomfortable flying without it, especially in a heli. The traffic picture is part of my scan, along with the outside. Flying into a busy airport like Palo Alto, it is a huge help. Now I have ADS-B (Garmin 345) which is even better.

A recent example... last weekend I was flying to Auburn, about 120 miles away. For the last 15 minutes there was another aircraft ahead of me on the screen, gradually getting closer, most likely going to the same airport. I kept clear of it using TCAS even though I never saw it until we were both almost in the traffic pattern. Then on the way back out someone got uncomfortably close on the way in, manouvered to be sure to keep clear. I was talking to ATC and so were they, but still very nice to know where they were. Never actually saw them.

And a negative example... descending through 13000 feet in a non-TCAS aircraft (fast) with a VERY experienced ex-mil instructor - saw an A320 pass WAY too close for comfort. Would never have happened with TCAS/ADS-B.

As for weight and cost... the GTX-330 or 345 is like any other transponder, and there is nothing else. You need a display but it couples into a GNS-430 or 530 or similar. My 330 cost about $5K in 2002, the 345 about the same in 2016 - not cheap but relative to the general cost of flying, not ridiculous. And now you can get even cheaper ADS-B In devices that couple to an iPad. Worth every penny, and much more, for the constant knowledge of what's out there.

Pittsextra

18th Nov 2017, 17:11

Nope - The fixed wing was south/West of the Heli. . . . then established same course slightly behind and above. Providence . . . .

Fred

Very sad, I think G2 have yellow rotor flashing to the tips and eyes are on stalks around that area as it is v popular GA gawking area plus the WCO. Report will as ever be interesting.

Duchess_Driver

18th Nov 2017, 17:18

They'd still hear the beep and be warned that something was close, even if they had no directional information.

Rather like the audible "Traffic, Traffic" call that I get already, you mean?

finalchecksplease

18th Nov 2017, 17:22

n1tut:

Could anybody tell me if Mike used to fly with Bristow helicopters?

Cheers

David

Mike might have worked at Middle Wallop for Bristows after leaving the Army Air Corps but there was also another Mike Green in Aberdeen (TRE 214) you are probably thinking off.

MOSTAFA

18th Nov 2017, 17:27

Could anybody tell me if Mike used to fly with Bristow helicopters?

Cheers

David

He certainly did David at Middle Wallop teaching on Basic Rotary Wing.

n1tut

18th Nov 2017, 17:39

Thanks, Mike would have been after my time then, I did MW in '66 in the Royal Marines then when I joined Bristow Aberdeen in '77 we later had a Capt Mike Green on the Tiger, but as I retired early in '93 I have lost touch with most since then.

He certainly seemed a very talented and respected Instructor, hard to imagine that the cause was any other than wrong place, wrong time.

spekesoftly

18th Nov 2017, 17:42

Could anyone tell me if Mike flew Sioux helicopters with the UN Aviation Flight at Nicosia in 1974?

Cows getting bigger

18th Nov 2017, 17:52

Could anyone tell me if Mike flew Sioux helicopters with the UN Aviation Flight at Nicosia in 1974?

I believe he did. He certainly had a picture of a Sioux in his training room.

spekesoftly

18th Nov 2017, 18:03

Thanks. He was kind enough to take me along for the ride when he was doing an airborne recce of the damage to Nicosia Airport post Turkish invasion.

airpolice

18th Nov 2017, 18:07

FR24 data is inaccurate, particularly low-level.
I've played back the recorded data on our flights and it's not close.
(coverage is sparse locally)
It should not be taken as gospel.

Nor should it be discounted. Sometimes it is bang on.

9Aplus

18th Nov 2017, 18:16

@wealthysoup
Answering on your questions can push my position within speculation area,
which is not my intention.
Knowing that:
There are, at the moment 1691 FR24 receivers ("radars") in UK
Some in range of that particular incident are:
EGLL
F-EGLL1
T-EGLL98
T-EGLL101
EGLF
F-EGLF1
T-EGLF8
T-EGLF46
EGVN
F-EGVN1
EGTK
F-EGTK3
F-EGTK2
EGGW
T-EGGW95
T-EGGW100
F-EGGW1
T-EGGW125
may be at last 20+ more of T kind around too....

So should be enough F type data for multilateration (4 is minimum) .... and post-processing if
necessary.

If someone is (even officially) interested to request data from FR24 servers,
that is possible and good practice.
FR24 data was used for some high profile incidents, where radar coverage was limited.
For this case investigators can have enough official sources of data, but who knows.

@Bell_ringer that is true in case that number of FR24 sites is low.
I have opposite experience of FR24 overlay on GPS track recorded on
Cabri G2 in Germany with more than fair accuracy, even during autorotation phase of training flight.

Just for educational purpose what is source of my educated guess, public data from FR24 of both flights...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ucbpxrcmlnqtlzt/crashC152_G2.jpg?dl=0
and another angles, cleared
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4vbszoiml0b54r/crashC152_G2_1.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t1lesr05lsakl06/crashC152_G2_2.jpg?dl=0
both KML files loaded in Google Earth Pro and screen taken to jpg

Iron Duke

18th Nov 2017, 18:35

Captain Mike Green is a tragic loss to the industry ...

He did some check rides on me 15 years ago with Fast Helicopters at Thruxton ... he was a very experienced man then, and a "top drawer" instructor ... ...

Rest in Peace

GoingAroundAgain

18th Nov 2017, 19:46

I’ve flown from Wycombe for decades, fixed wing and gliders. What I would say is that TCAS, PCAS, FLARM etc are great in lower traffic density areas, but can be distracting in an area like the west of Heathrow zone where there is a lot of traffic squeezed into cramped class G. I eventually turned it off in these areas (except in visibility minimums when there were only a few othe madmen out anyhow) because it is constantly alerting you or attracting your eye and attention when you’d be better off looking out of the window and flying the aeroplane.

I like technology and I like being safe. But you can’t remove all risk from aviation simply by adding another system. Think of the accidents that have happened because people were head down in the cockpit systems, when head up was what would have saved them.

Capt Pit Bull

18th Nov 2017, 20:28

It was not standard to have to follow TCAS in any case like it is today at that time. So don't blame the pilot.
ATC was understaffed, had phone-line troubles and gave conflicting instructions. So I'm not blaming that poor ATC guy neither. The ATC organization above did a poor job that day.

I get such a sense of deja vue every time there is a collision.

It might not have been standard to have to follow the RA, but it was well understood by the manufacturers and those of us in receipt of proper training that manoeuvring in the opposite sense of the RA was very dangerous.

I still don't blame the crew; they had bad training and in spite of the fact that good training guidance was available it was not successfully promulgated around the industry....... AND STILL ISN'T.

For those advocating TCAS: Bear in mind it is designed for transport category controlled airspace separations, traffic density and performance. I suspect (but don't know never having looked at it for the GA role) that it would be a lot less use than many might think. If nothing else I can imagine the datalink freqs getting utterly saturated.

Don't get me wrong, much as 'see and avoid' should be an essential part of the arsenal it is not a total solution, even when practised rigorously. But TCAS is NOT and never will be, a panacea. Especially for GA.

And I say this as a TCAS training expert and advocate of TCAS.

[email protected]

18th Nov 2017, 20:54

Cpt PB - we are not talking about TCAS 2 and RAs - a simple TAS with audio would have at least got the crews looking in the right direction (especially up/down).

There is no doubt in my mind that if both aircraft in this sad event had been similarly equipped, they would have both known about and avoided each other.

A little yellow blob on a screen with a relative height readout and an audio warning could easily have saved four lives.

Having been through the military fighter pilot training thing early in life, the whole 'lookout' is good training but ultimately hampered by human limitations.

rr84c

18th Nov 2017, 21:00

As someone who flies rotary and FW, with TCAS in the FW, I can attest that it’s not a good solution on its own. Often the warnings come very late, and a decent lookout is the best first line of defence.

I do think there are bigger issues which should be fixed before mandatory TCAS though. Such as the glider pilots from Bicester who sit at the end of Oxford’s Instrument approach watching G5s almost hit them, saying “I can’t have a transponder because they take up too much battery power”...

TheFatController

18th Nov 2017, 21:06

How desperately sad about Mike Green. He was the examiner for my R22 and 206 ratings back in the late 90's when he was at Fast Helicopters as-was at Thruxton. Fantastically unflappable pilot. RIP.

Grumpyasever

18th Nov 2017, 21:59

Mike flew with us on the Bristow operation at Eket, Nigeria in the early eighties. Great chap to have around, enjoyed his football and if memory serves he was a Spurs supporter. We met again when he was at FAST. He became a legend in the Flight Training industry and I am proud to have worked along side of him. A great loss to the Industry and a sad sad day for his family.

ShyTorque

18th Nov 2017, 23:02

For those advocating TCAS: Bear in mind it is designed for transport category controlled airspace separations, traffic density and performance. I suspect (but don't know never having looked at it for the GA role) that it would be a lot less use than many might think. If nothing else I can imagine the datalink freqs getting utterly saturated.

Everyone has their own opinion of how useful it might not be in theory, but those of us who do actually use it in Class G don't ever want to be without it.

As I said before, I've been flying with it for VFR / IFR in Class G for almost 20 years now (and the previous 25 flying without it) and I do know how good it is. It's not the perfect answer, and no system will ever be, but it is far better than flying without.

PerPurumTonantes

19th Nov 2017, 00:39

Unless the cost (initial and ongoing) is less than the benefit ( using national standard cost for lives and damage) the idea fails. Whether you like it or not, life is not "priceless", a principle accepted throughout public planning processes

Correct. I worked for 20 years in railway safety and we had a price per life for investment decisions.

Thing is, my life is priceless to me :cool:. Certainly worth more than a few thousand for TCAS (or FLARM, ADS-B in etc). And there's a fair chance it did save my life (previous post). So on my cost-benefit analysis it makes sense.

If I was in a C172 about to do, for example, "unusual attitude" training, with an almost invisible helicopter hovering below me, it would be good to have an electronic Mk2 eyeball to help the human and imperfect Mk1 pair.

N13FB

19th Nov 2017, 00:50

I don't normally enter public discussions on web sites such as this however I am driven to do so on this occasion by a tidal wave of emotion as a result of Mike's demise.

I am blessed to have been taught during my 3500 hours rotary time by Mike, DRK, Mike Buckland and Ian Shoebridge. In my view; collectively the most talented and professional group of rotary pilots in the UK. Two of those four now are now innocent victims of someone else's mistake it would seem.

In times gone by when I was "Maverick and Invincible" I would have considered TCAS to be an unnecessary gadget, together with Mode S transponders etc. Having recently been flying a relatively new Enstrom (Not my first choice of type) in Texas which is fitted out with every Garmin toy one could imagine, I have learnt that TCAS DOES work. You don't need to look at it, it gives a verbal warning i.e "traffic one mile 12.00".

It is my strong belief that transponders and TCAS should be a legal requirement on ALL aircraft. That includes hang gliders, gliders, paramotors, microlights, spam cans and helicopters. With the one exception of Paramotors, I have owned and flown all those listed. I do not subscribe to the argument that cost is prohibitive. Frankly, if you can't afford it, take up golf.

There have been two occasions over the last 15 years where I was nearly involved in a midair; one in the Manchester low level route flying South late in the day in bright low sunshine when opposing FW traffic skimmed over the top of me with inches to spare and another occasion when I was lifting out of a pub in the Pewsey Vale when a Tiger Moth crossed 100' AGL right to left in front of me whilst performing a beat up. On that occasion I wasn't really bothering to look out in the manner that I have become accustomed to these days because I just assumed that at that height, I was unlikely to meet any conflicting traffic. I survived both of these incidents by pure good fortune. TCAS as fitted to Previously mentioned Enstrom I believe would have prevented both heart stopping moments.

Its impossible to legislate against every accident however in the ever increasing busyness of the skies, especially in South of England, why not use the equipment thats already out there to help keep us alive? It no replacement for the MK1 eyeball, just a compliment to it which in yesterdays accident (Which occurred only two miles from my home) may just have saved Mikes life.

I wish I had taken the opportunity to thank Mike for all he taught me before his demise.

Hot and Hi

19th Nov 2017, 06:04

I believe with a SkyEcho (ADS-B IN/OUT) device £600 a tablet and SkyDemon you have a TCS device for as little as £1000 with all the benefits of skydemon. Then as long as everyone runs mode S we would all see each other and reduce these sad events happening. This is UK CAA Approved only. Even gliders could run this, has an internal batteries that runs for 6 hour. SkyEcho ? uAvionix (http://www.uavionix.com/products/skyecho/)

It would appear from the tracks they where both on the same track and the 152 descended onto the helicopter so in each others blind spot very sad day.
Does the SkyEcho receive transmissions from other TPX-equipped aircraft squawking Mode C. Does SkyEcho display those in SkyDemon as a bearing less targets?

Hot and Hi

19th Nov 2017, 06:15

...
2. The aircraft tracks crossed somewhere between 11:58:28 and 11:59:01 according to the FR24 data. At this time FR24 reports the aircraft was not "diving" and was infact holding an altitude of 3500-3700 feet. The helicopter was consistently between 1,025 and 1,050 feet. Any thoughts on this? Based on the FR24 data they had ~2,500 feet of vertical seperation.

3. Last received data from the helicopter was at 12:00:46 (1000 feet consistent speed and heading with previous data). Last received data from the aircraft was at 11:59:44 (2700 feet (a loss of 700 feet in 24 seconds), with speed and direction remaining consistent with previous data. Generally speaking data from the heli was received every ~10 seconds. Data from the plane was received slightly less often but not by a large amount. Why was data received from the helicopter for another minute than the plane? I can only think of one reason - and if that was the case it msot likely wouldn't be reporting a steady alititude of ~1,000 feet.
...

Wealthysoup: Are you suggesting that the fix wing aircraft suddenly entered into an extreme dive, consistent with (for example) pilot incapacitation and/or loss of control plus total loss of electric power, consuming all of the 2,500' of carefully maintained vertical separation?

Bell_ringer

19th Nov 2017, 06:18

Does the SkyEcho receive transmissions from other TPX-equipped aircraft squawking Mode C. Does SkyEcho display those in SkyDemon as a bearing less targets?

Appears to be ADS-B only and mode S extended squiter.

Hot and Hi

19th Nov 2017, 06:44

I understand the accident didn't happen in the circuit. Can those familiar with the area advise whether the accident happened in uncontrolled airspace (where pilots are supposed to broadcast their position and intentions in regular intervals, while keeping a listening watch at all times on the FRQ allocated to that area)?

Or was it in an area (controlled, or advisory airspace) where a/c communicate with a controller? Here, a listening watch should equally alert pilots of a potential conflict. The controller may put in further efforts to help with separation and/or to alert a/c of nearby traffic (while I understand that for VFR flights the responsibility to maintain separation remains with the pilots)?

Last question: In the case of this accident flight, would there be recordings of the radio calls made by either aircraft, from the transmission before the accident back to prior take-off? I understand that neither a/c had a CVR, but maybe there are recordings made by ATC?

--

In my experience, even in the busiest of urban weekend flyer traffic, pilots are very responsive to radio calls that indicate the intention to go to the same area ("... for a sightseeing flight over the XYZ dam") or of ending up on conflicting tracks. Pilots would immediately agree to deconflict, either by increasing vertical separation, and/or by agreeing to stay on opposite sides of certain landmarks, and/or by confirming of "having you visual".

(Whereby in case of the other a/c coming towards you with, say, 500 ft vertical separation, I would never see the other a/c more than 5 seconds before it passes me. I guess that time would be even lower, if (i) the vertical separation was lower and (ii) I wasn't actively looking for the target - my 2c worth of contribution to the Mk1 discussion.)

ShyTorque

19th Nov 2017, 07:38

Hot&Hi,

It occurred in Class G airspace. That airspace doesn't work in the way you stated. There is no frequency allocated. The principle in UK is "See and avoid".

Bell_ringer

19th Nov 2017, 08:00

Hot&Hi,

It occurred in Class G airspace. That airspace doesn't work in the way you stated. There is no frequency allocated. The principle in UK is "See and avoid".

That does sound somewhat crazy, particularly if there are potential hotspots.
Would a special rules area approach be a safer option?

Purely using see and avoid seems more like rolling the dice than a holistic approach to safety.

Hot and Hi

19th Nov 2017, 08:12

Hot&Hi,

It occurred in Class G airspace. That airspace doesn't work in the way you stated. There is no frequency allocated. The principle in UK is "See and avoid".Wow! And I thought we had ICAO aiming at harmonization. So I guess in this case the first world can learn a lot from a third world best practice solution (radio calls). 10 pages of debate Mk1 vs TCAS, and a working low-tech solution is right there :D.

For the record, I am still going to install a FLARM or Monroy type of personal collision avoidance system (that picks up ADS-B, TPX S, and TPX C traffic) in my aircraft, as radio calls do not 100% guarantee separation in the pattern of small, unmanned GA airports, and - as others have reported - there is the odd pilot who is flying without sending regular position reports.

I think the more it is an audio warning of only the closest, immediate threats, and the less it requires to constantly check minute symbols on a tablet computer down on your knee, the better.

ShyTorque

19th Nov 2017, 08:39

UK airspace is complicated and congested. One radio frequency could not really cater for everything. We do have "safetycom" which is a single frequency allocated for use at low level but intended to announce arrival/departure at small landing strips where there is no other dedicated frequency.

I wouldn't want to fly with traffic warnings on my lap!

A and C

19th Nov 2017, 09:11

I get the feeling that some on this forum are using the term “TCAS” for any traffic awareness system.

I would be surprised to see TCAS fitted to anything smaller than a turboprop or a top end turbine helicopter.

There are some very good traffic systems on the market, the smaller ones can be fitted in the smallest of Aircraft.

My one request to people contributing to this forum is to properly refer to the system you are talking about and no use TCAS as a generic term for any traffic system

timprice

19th Nov 2017, 09:11

Thats what I love about our industry, so many fecking idiots with hindsight, RIP Mike condolences to family and everyone else affected by the loss of a true Gentleman in aviation.

Same again

19th Nov 2017, 09:20

Well said Tim. A few of us were discussing a particular accident one day and Mike said "Some people just refuse to believe that accidents sometimes happen - no matter what we do to mitigate them" RIP my friend.

helimutt

19th Nov 2017, 10:20

A tragic accident and a great loss to the industry. If it wasn't for Mike Green, i'd probably never have become an instructor and made my career change. I did my FIC course pre-entry check with him back in 1999. RIP Capt. green and my condolences to all affected.

For those who haven't got the FR24 access, i've taken a couple of screenshots of the flight parameters and posted the links here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zj5nuczgyy593tz/G-JAMM.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8tkrl13l0w7viv/G-WACG.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t18wwttyroyvj45/Playback.jpg?dl=0

Basil

19th Nov 2017, 10:25

Thats what I love about our industry, so many fecking idiots with hindsight, RIP Mike condolences to family and everyone else affected by the loss of a true Gentleman in aviation.
But 'hindsight' is what the AAIB report will contain.

There are some interesting comments re the meaning of 'accident' in the second Hunter crash (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/591713-aaib-investigation-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi-22-august-2015-a-51.html#post9959844) thread.

Anyway, a reminder to S-turn when descending (which the gentleman may have been doing but still not seen the helicopter against a difficult background)

wealthysoup

19th Nov 2017, 10:27

Wealthysoup: Are you suggesting that the fix wing aircraft suddenly entered into an extreme dive, consistent with (for example) pilot incapacitation and/or loss of control plus total loss of electric power, consuming all of the 2,500' of carefully maintained vertical separation?

The only thing I am suggesting is that the Flightradar 24 data that many people are taking as gospel on this thread should not be entirely trusted, for the reasons I have listed in my previous posts.

helimutt

19th Nov 2017, 10:35

No-one is taking the FR24 data as 'gospel' but it does look fairly stable and give an outline indication of possible reasons. For instance the altitudes are relatively stable on both aircraft, the fixed wing appearing to take a reasonably rapid descent within the last 20-30secs. This we know because it was initially at 3000+ft and the helicopter always had been around the 1000'ft.

Best to wait and see what the accident report says and if the FR24 data is all wrong, then it's all wrong, and it shouldn't be used to 'second guess' reasons for such a tragic accident.

ShyTorque

19th Nov 2017, 10:47

FR24 has shown my aircraft travelling anywhere between 0 and 300 kts in a steady cruise.

9Aplus

19th Nov 2017, 11:33

So what? All on FR24 are just smokes and mirrors :D

runway30

19th Nov 2017, 11:45

Nope - The fixed wing was south/West of the Heli. . . . then established same course slightly behind and above. Providence . . . .

Fred

You can place more reliance on Fred "slightly behind and above"

oldbeefer

19th Nov 2017, 11:58

Did a number of end of course checks for Mike's FI students way back. Was always impressed by the standards that he had set. A very sad loss.

mavisbacon

19th Nov 2017, 12:24

RIP Mike, great guy who i flew with many times over the years.

"TCAS should be made compulsory for all GA" Stupid statement!!! Eyes should be outside the cockpit, we don't need more gadgets pulling us inside more than they are already. Unfortunately just a terrible accident, not the first and won't be the last

I used to fly WACG many years ago in that particular pice of airspace, and I can tell you it's a hotspot. As good as a mk1 eyeball maybe, it can't see through metal. I once had a near miss climbing out of Wycombe when a Dove flew directly over the top of me from behind. No way would I have been able to see him, and he probably wouldn't have been able to see me either. So no, I have to disagree, not stupid at all.

vaqueroaero

19th Nov 2017, 12:31

There have been some very ill-informed statements about the US and FAA, for a start, Class G airspace in US is very rare, transponders are not a universal requirement for VFR.

Stating that Class G airspace in US is very rare, would be one of those 'very ill-informed statements'. Outside of towered airports it extends from the surface to either 700' or 1200' agl across the entire country. I spend my life in it. In mountainous areas the rules can become fairly complicated, suffice to say that you can be flying around at 14,499 msl...in Glass G airspace.

Without hijacking the thread, more info here for anyone interested in what's happening in the USA in 2020:

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/ads-b/where-is-ads-b-out-required

Yellow Son

19th Nov 2017, 13:09

A little yellow blob on a screen with a relative height readout and an audio warning could easily have saved four lives.

Having been through the military fighter pilot training thing early in life, the whole 'lookout' is good training but ultimately hampered by human limitations.

Agree - but it's not just human limitations. I've yet to fly a GA type that doesn't block off your view in some directions, even the Tiger Moth. Cessnas stop you seeing above, Pipers ditto below, unless you manoeuvre frequently - which of course we all do for HASELL, but probably not so much the rest of the time. I try my best to spot the other guys, but I do know that a "little yellow blob and an audio warning" have made my life more comfortable several times. Just as it seems sound sense to take a sextant as well as a GPS when I sail long distance, so I switch on TCAS and keep a decent lookout when I'm airborne. I'm not sure that's a strong enough argument for making some kind of collision avoidance technology compulsory; but that's a different argument.

FLY 7

19th Nov 2017, 13:50

Do the, so called, hi-viz markings on rotorblades significantly improve 'conspicuity'?

aa777888

19th Nov 2017, 14:35

In times gone by when I was "Maverick and Invincible" I would have considered TCAS to be an unnecessary gadget, together with Mode S transponders etc. Having recently been flying a relatively new Enstrom (Not my first choice of type) in Texas which is fitted out with every Garmin toy one could imagine, I have learnt that TCAS DOES work. You don't need to look at it, it gives a verbal warning i.e "traffic one mile 12.00".That would be TAS/TIS, not TCAS, correct? TCAS does more than just call out traffic. It would be extremely unusual, if not actually impossible, to provision a helicopter like an Enstrom with TCAS. ADS-B In/Out with TAS/TIS, yes, TCAS, no.

It is my strong belief that transponders and TCAS should be a legal requirement on ALL aircraft. That includes hang gliders, gliders, paramotors, microlights, spam cans and helicopters. With the one exception of Paramotors, I have owned and flown all those listed. I do not subscribe to the argument that cost is prohibitive. Frankly, if you can't afford it, take up golf.That's pretty elitist. The counter-position to that is "If you are that risk averse, stay on the ground and don't ruin things for a large portion of TRULY not so well off general aviation." Even for those who don't fly on a shoestring, a high end ADS-B upgrade (e.g. GTX345 + installation) can still equate to 25% of yearly operating costs for many GA operators (it does for me). For those who do fly on a shoestring budget that sort of thinking will take them right out of the game. Oh, wait, that's the plan, isn't it? Maybe we should just kill off general aviation all together. Nobody needs to fly under Part 91. Waaay too dangerous. They can all just sit in their basements and use simulators :ugh:

skyrangerpro

19th Nov 2017, 17:25

important not to jump to any conclusions re FR24 data which can be erratic as I have witnessed when checking back on my own aircraft.

What I would say looking back on the historical readings is that I have much more confidence in the G-JAMM data than the G-WACG data. G-JAMM's sortie earlier in the day to what likes Silverstone and Wing has painted well and reliably as did the fateful flight taking a similar route although slightly to the east of Silverstone this time. The G-WACG data is much less reliable which is perhaps not surprising considering the relative ages of the two craft involved and the spec of the fitted avionics and there is little low level data on any of G-WACG's recent flights.

Bell_ringer

19th Nov 2017, 17:44

9Aplus

19th Nov 2017, 17:47

Fully agree on possible erratic data,
but on the other hand G-WACG available data on FR24 are in accordance to this statement: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/602010-midair-collision-near-waddesdon-8.html#post9961457
Nope - The fixed wing was south/West of the Heli. . . . then established same course slightly behind and above. Providence . . . .

Fred

Have made this few pages before, just for educational purpose:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t1lesr05lsakl06/crashC152_G2_2.jpg?dl=0
So anyone can draw own educated guess (not necessary) even on mentioned "Providence"

aa777888

19th Nov 2017, 18:55

@aa777888

Risk is everywhere but in a regulated environment it also implies risk management.
Risk management implies some degree of control in influencing the outcome.
Having to rely on someone else's ability to see you, in this instance seemingly requiring xray vision, seems futile especially since uncivilized regions like ours have other techniques, as per @hot&hi's post, to help mitigate situations where an eyeball can fail.
Aviate, navigate & COMMUNICATE.

Can't help but think that see and avoid alone should have retired along with the tigermoth.I've already stated that I very much like traffic information in the cockpit, and that I've done more than what is mandated in the US in that respect, so clearly I feel it has value. Indeed, I'd happily pay for something like this:

E0UZWn4bnGY

when they get it to be that good (AeroGlass is shipping, but it's nowhere near like what you see in that Hollywood production of a Youtube video).

However, I don't agree with requiring people to spend more than the rest of their aircraft is worth, sometimes much more, on avionics mandates.

A tablet and a crappity ass USB radio dongle can do better than the vast majority of the GA avionics already installed for achieving situational awareness. If you can make meeting the mandate that inexpensive, then I'd be all for it.

Anyhow, you can have all the technology in the world, and until we take the pilot out of the loop aircraft will still hit each other in mid-air.

Bell_ringer

19th Nov 2017, 19:01

Thanks A-squared 7&8-cubed.
Won't disagree with that.

fireflybob

19th Nov 2017, 22:02

Ok here's another angle on this debate.

Emergency avoiding action is not in the syllabus for PPL/CPL (although 45 degree bank turns are). Maybe it should be?

LeadSled

20th Nov 2017, 01:36

Thing is, my life is priceless to me :cool:. Certainly worth more than a few thousand for TCAS (or FLARM, ADS-B in etc).

PPT,
No argument from me when you are spending your own money, but when there is a huge push to spend somebody else's money on somebody else's aeroplane ---- and make it mandatory, that's when proper analysis and process should kick in --- but often doesn't.

Far more than motoring "safety", aviation "safety" attracts lurid headlines, and all sorts of self-appointed experts ( eX is the unknown quantity, "spurt" is a drip under pressure) demanding "they do something", and all too often, politicians respond.

This is a huge problem in Australia, where GA has been saddled with a "WORLD'S BEST/First" (we just love being self proclaimed world first/best** something ) ADS-B mandate, far broader than the FAA or Eurocontrol ADS-B mandate --- the millions spent ( or, aircraft grounded because owners can't afford it) will not reduce risk on iota, because the traffic levels are so low, in most of the areas GA operates, that the assessed risk is not only below the ICAO Separation Assurance Standard, but is assessed as "vanishingly small", the statistical equivalent of zero, nil,zilch, naught, but it doesn't silence the "but what if ---" brigade, who are quite happy to spend every last dollar of somebody else's money.

** Delete as applicable

Tootle pip!!

Whopity

20th Nov 2017, 07:23

Emergency avoiding action is not in the syllabus for PPL/CPL (although 45 degree bank turns are). Maybe it should be? And are students taught WHY they do steep or advanced turns? However; if something is not in your field of view, avoidance turns will not provide a solution.

LOOKOUT is invariably taught during S&L in a lateral environment from wingtip to wingtip, possibly because relative speed is perceived as the major contributer to the threat. Lokout below in a descent, is seldom taught correctly; lowering the nose is of little use, but if you weave the aircraft it gives you the opportunity to look down into the area where you are descending. It is much more diffiucult to see an aircraft silouetted against terrain, especially if it is small and has a low cross sectional profile and the relative speed is low.

fireflybob

20th Nov 2017, 08:30

Lokout below in a descent, is seldom taught correctly

I second that. Rarely do I see pilots clearing airspace below them before commencing a descent.

RetiredBA/BY

20th Nov 2017, 08:36

I taught up to 60° although I do recall that it is now only required to 45° in UK land. I however did teach it as primarily an evasive manoeuvre as it felt like a more likely use and one I had to use a few times myself. I agree though it should be firmly in the syllabus as an avoiding manoeuvre.

Perhaps we should go further and teach turning past 60 degrees of bank,up to the buffet, Max. rate, as we called it in the RAF, rarely used or needed in civil aviation but would also give the student a better understanding of his aircraft performance. Not asking for military standards by a ppl student but would, aat least serve as an introduction to such turning performance , it's not a particularly difficult exercise.

Perhaps , too, instructors could at least demonstrate the emergency break, an application of max rate turning, which might, just might, one day prove useful., regularly practised in the RAF, and used in anger by myself, and no doubt others, a few times, and just once in civil life when a 727 on another FIR frequency, at FL 330 was cleared through my level, 350 , to 370 That was before TCAS but lookout saved the day.

I doubt it's even mentioned in the ppl syllabus.

mary meagher

20th Nov 2017, 08:41

As a retired gliding instructor, tug pilot, & IR, etc, the midair over Waddesdon
was unfortunately the coming together of a number of factors.

Sun very low in winter months. Almost impossible to spot other aircraft against the sun.
VFR weather rare in winter months. So when the fog lifts at last, or it finally stops raining, those training flights which have been waiting for a good day finally could be possible.

In uncontrolled airspace, local landmarks like stately homes become worth a view from the air.

As someone who learned to fly at Booker (gliders and fixed wing only)
helicopters were always a pain; one could not predict how they would behave...would they go up, down, backwards, whatever.

And as someone who has been trying to run the airfield at Shenington, helicopters have behaved VERY BADLY in that area. Like taking off from a village back garden, directly into the path of a K8 glider on approach. We would respect a heli that with prior permission did a proper lookout and approach AND DEPARTURE at the airfield, not somebody's back yard.

Just because he called on the radio and nobody answered, did not imply that no flying was taking place at the airfield.

Instructors in all types of aviation should persuade students to fly in weather when the instrument rating is used, that is valuable experience....and not only when it is VFR. Teach your students a bit of night flying, have a go with in IMC in the winter.

The first thing a glider student is taught is that lookout could save your life. Because gliders fly near each other in thermals, most gliders have excellent vis from the cockpit. Most power aircraft have restricted vis.

If there are more gadgets inside the cockpit, lookout will not necessarily get the attention it requires.

A and C

20th Nov 2017, 09:02

I have to agree with Whopity & Fireflybob, I was on an instructor seminar and tasked along with a number of young instructors to do a steep turn briefing, almost all of then saw steep turns as an aerobatic manoeuvre requiring a HASEL check before starting it and the use of a steep turn as an evasive manoeuvre simply had not dawned on them.

Prevention is better than cure so a sharp lookout ( backed up by FLARMor TIS if you have it ) should be the primary defence aganst collision but the ability to enter a steep turn instantly has to be part of the PPL course.

This is viewed from a fixed wing perspective and I am sure the helicopter instructors will have their own take on this subject that best uses the aerodynamic strengths of the helicopter.

anchorhold

20th Nov 2017, 09:15

Fireflybod states "Emergency avoiding action is not in the syllabus for PPL/CPL (although 45 degree bank turns are). Maybe it should be?".

I have always taught 45 degree banked turns followed by 60 degree banked turns. During the briefing I make it clear that this exercise is to build on the students coordination and accuracy. However I also brief at the same time avoiding turns and spiral dive recovery.

On completion of turn steep turns exersise, I teach avoiding turns and the spiral dive recovery. I think it is essential that the student can fly a 60 degree turn on full power through 90 degree heading change in the correct direction. The reason is that I feel collision avoidance should be instinctive. For that reason I cover it on renewals.

The lookout and clock code should be breifed and taught in the very early stage, not least because the student is your second pair of eyes. the other skill is how to teach your student how to remove dead bugs from the windscreen.

HP & L covers collision avoidance, I do not have a problem with 'constant angle' taught in theory, but I think collision avoidance should on the whole be taught as a practical skill. There was, I think a CAA safety sense leaflet on collision avoidance at one time, and likewise in the earlt days of CRM it was on the CAA syllabus,. I never understood why, as you would think that a CPL or ATPL would have covered that in training.

Talkdownman

20th Nov 2017, 09:25

I feel collision avoidance should be instinctive...and in the correct direction...

[email protected]

20th Nov 2017, 10:09

It would appear - if the FW did descend onto the heli from behind - that all the lookout and steep turns in the world would not have prevented this sad loss of life.

TAS/TCAS/ADS-B/FLARM etc - might very well have done so............A gadget in the cockpit that gets the eyes out in the right direction simply enhances lookout.

Contact Approach

20th Nov 2017, 12:31

Those declaring TCAS / use of tech as nonsensical are clearly skygods of a bygone era. Yes it's not a one stop solution but how many more people need to die for this roulette wheel to stop spinning?

ShyTorque

20th Nov 2017, 12:41

The UK AIRPROX Board website contains some very useful information, for those who haven't read it:

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Topical-issues-and-themes/Collision-Avoidance/

ShyTorque

20th Nov 2017, 13:07

Bing

20th Nov 2017, 13:12

Interesting that the leaflet on Electronic Conspicuity contains a blanket statement

Of course you can do simple things to
help yourself be seen such as switching
on a beacon or strobe lights (and why
not the nav and landing lights, it doesn’t
cost any more money)

It's worth noting that lighting needs to be something like an order of magnitude brighter than the background to make you stand out. In the worst case turning the landing lights on may make you blend into the background as you'll be around the same brightness rather than a contrasting black dot. That's not to say never switch them on, but if it's a summer's day and the sun's behind you they may be better off.

aox

20th Nov 2017, 13:44

I've already stated that I very much like traffic information in the cockpit, and that I've done more than what is mandated in the US in that respect, so clearly I feel it has value. Indeed, I'd happily pay for something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0UZWn4bnGY

when they get it to be that good (AeroGlass is shipping, but it's nowhere near like what you see in that Hollywood production of a Youtube video).

However, I don't agree with requiring people to spend more than the rest of their aircraft is worth, sometimes much more, on avionics mandates.

A tablet and a crappity ass USB radio dongle can do better than the vast majority of the GA avionics already installed for achieving situational awareness. If you can make meeting the mandate that inexpensive, then I'd be all for it.

Anyhow, you can have all the technology in the world, and until we take the pilot out of the loop aircraft will still hit each other in mid-air.

If the view in the video is what the pilot was looking at.... one has to ask: Where was his lookout scan? He didn't move his head once.

Well, there isn't much point in looking out when the sky to one side is masked off with a software-generated artificial curtain.

That bit where it's quite near the airspace, all red cross-hatching and so on, there could be an aircraft in there and about come out of it, either very soon or a potential encounter in a few minutes time, and the so-called augmented reality would be hiding it from being seen by eye

Maybe even the rectangles forming the tunnel it's going along inside could temporarily partly mask an aircraft slightly higher or lower.

Sometimes things that are supposed to be more conspicuous are surprisingly not. I can remember standing on different days on an airfield with a set of chimneys a few kilometres to the south. In certain conditions of light and haziness the middle third of the height of the chimneys was completely invisible. Red and white stripes had suddenly become excellent camouflage.

ShyTorque

20th Nov 2017, 14:06

NAROBS, uncontrolled airspace means just that.

aa777888

20th Nov 2017, 14:07

If the view in the video is what the pilot was looking at.... one has to ask: Where was his lookout scan? He didn't move his head once.Seriously? It's a representation of a capability, said representation done at a relatively low cost. Surely one can imagine how the augmented parts of reality would maintain their proper positions in one's field of view as that FOV shifted during scans.

Or, perhaps not. Not everyone is good at imagining things. I actually have a few hours of seat time in an augmented reality system (for ground vehicles, not air). Done right (and this one was), it's truly Next Level Stuff. Absolutely transformational, in every sense of the buzzword.

Done right, I'd fly with that capability in a heartbeat. Fighter pilots have it now for finding targets. Civilians need that, except we call it "traffic" ;), plus symbology for clearly visualizing airspace. This is the future.

ShyTorque

20th Nov 2017, 14:12

In Class G airspace, the principle of collision avoidance is see and avoid. Representation of capability or not, that seems to be seeing transponding aircraft only.

Thomas coupling

20th Nov 2017, 14:49

This is one of those things.
NOTHING can account for human factors. It's got nothing to do with technology when it comes to saving the day.

One guy dropped his guard for a while. It happens. It's sad but it happens.

It's busy up there.

It will only go away (HF) when we go pilotless.

RiP

Duchess_Driver

20th Nov 2017, 15:03

Waddesdon air crash: Vietnamese pilot killed in crash - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-42051672)

Cows getting bigger

20th Nov 2017, 15:09

A musing.

Q) EGTT/QSTLC/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5137N00049W005
B) FROM: 17/11/07 11:00C) TO: 17/11/30 16:30
E) ATC CLOSED DUE STAFF SHORTAGE. WYCOMBE AIR PARK ATZ AND GLIDING
REMAIN ACTIVE. NO DEPARTURES ARE PERMITTED 15 MIN PRIOR TO
CLOSURE, ALL MOVEMENTS DURING CLOSURES ARE STRICTLY BY APPROVAL OF
AERODROME MANAGER ON 01494 529261
SCHEDULE: 07 12 13 14 17 20 21 26 27 29 30 1100-1130, 1330-1400, 1600-1630

Does this limitation accentuate possible traffic density problems by forcing operators to launch in waves? My relatively limited experience of Booker, and the airspace it's operators frequent, is of a busy sky at the best of times. Take away 2:15 of the daily launch period and..........

9Aplus

20th Nov 2017, 15:38

Recent article about FLARM on rotorcraft in UK airspace...
Good enough for informational purpose.
https://medium.com/@helipaddy/traffic-avoidance-for-helicopters-13edb94c1d5e

Duchess_Driver

20th Nov 2017, 16:13

Take away 2:15 of the daily launch period and..........

I doubt that the focus on WAP Tower being closed for period is relevant here. There are several airfields within the North London, Hertfordshire, South Bucks and Oxford area that use the area around Westcott as a 'LFA'. (Elstree, Denham, Booker, Waltham, Hinton, Enstone, Halton, Oxford, Cranfield off the top of my head)

There is little (read none) coordination of the training area although it does have AIAA status.

There are three 'relevant' LARS providers available in that area now: Brize, Oxford and Farnborough North - with Benson being able to 'chip' in when they're not busy with their own patch. Whether there is a 'policy' effort to use one provider (Oxford Radar, perhaps) I don't know - but again, they're optional calls if you want cover. It really is a congested piece of sky but is about the only place for those airfields to be able to get up high due London/Luton CTR/CTA to the east and Birmingham to the North West

BizJetJock

20th Nov 2017, 17:48

ShyTorque

20th Nov 2017, 17:59

n5296s

20th Nov 2017, 18:42

And it's not unusual to call one of the LARS stations and be told - if you can get a word in on the R/T at all - "unable to give you service due to high traffic density". The same problem would apply to your TIS if you made transponders mandatory; you wouldn't be able to make anything out due to the number of targets.
This is nonsense I'm afraid. It's rare to be refused service with Norcal (SFO and a long way beyond), but it happens. And still the targets you need to worry about are very easy to see on the screen. And as always, mostly impossible to see with the much-vaunted "Mk I eyeball".

Just before the US eclipse event, we were flying north to see it. Oakland Center were clearly overwhelmed by the traffic - they later told me they were tracking over 100 GA flights, just in one sector. But still the ADS-B picture 6 miles out was nearly always empty.

There was one target that was close for a while. Once again we saw it on the screen LONG before we saw it visually, and hence were able to be sure to keep clear of it. Later we chatted to them at the destination airport.

Flying into Palo Alto at the weekend you can have a dozen or more targets in a 6 mile radius, but it is VERY easy to see which ones you need to be worried about.

n5296s

20th Nov 2017, 19:00

Yeah, you should be afraid.
I'm way more afraid of Pprune than I am of being refused flight following.

The traffic density in the Bay Area (or LA, or the Boston/New York area) is WAY higher than anything you'll find in the UK. And my point is that TIS/TCAS/TCAD/ADS-B/whatever you want to call it is STILL extremely effective and valuable, whether or not you can get flight following or the equivalent.

The same problem would apply to your TIS if you made transponders mandatory

Same comment applies. In all heavy traffic areas in the US (in every Class B veil, i.e. 30 miles around every major airport) transponders are mandatory. Not a problem. There is a lot of special pleading going on here.

SASless

20th Nov 2017, 21:19

This thread is about UK airspace,

Yes....and we know how perfectly coordinated that can be...right?

At least the Fee Structure for using it anyhow!

I watched a MidAir occur at what is now an International Airport between a DC-9 Airliner which overflew a C-172 when both were on a straight in final to an Instrument Runway...in very nice weather...with both Approach Control and Control Tower in operation.

There are always going to be conflicts, failure to see other traffic, and tragedies no matter the technology and complexity of air traffic de-confliction efforts using technology and other methods.

Sadly, I was in the process of cranking an aircraft and just happened to glance up to see the two aircraft in less than a couple of seconds of colliding and could not do a thing but look on as the Cessna came apart....lost one wing...and strike the ground a few meters from the Wind Sock.

The DC-9 suffered minor damage to the fuselage and landing gear struts and landed safely.

These sad events bring home the notion the Sky can be a very small place at times.

cyclic flare

21st Nov 2017, 01:34

Have done renewals with Mike for two decades very sad RIP sir.

Hot and Hi

21st Nov 2017, 03:52

I believe with a SkyEcho (ADS-B IN/OUT) device £600 a tablet and SkyDemon you have a TCS device for as little as £1000 with all the benefits of skydemon. Then as long as everyone runs mode S we would all see each other and reduce these sad events happening. This is UK CAA Approved only. Even gliders could run this, has an internal batteries that runs for 6 hour. SkyEcho ? uAvionix (http://www.uavionix.com/products/skyecho/)

It would appear from the tracks they where both on the same track and the 152 descended onto the helicopter so in each others blind spot very sad day.

Does the SkyEcho receive transmissions from other TPX-equipped aircraft squawking Mode C. Does SkyEcho display those in SkyDemon as a bearing less targets?

Appears to be ADS-B only and mode S extended squiter.Response received from uAvionix:
At this time SkyEcho renders 978MHz and 1090ES ADS-B targets. There isn't any notification of Mode 3/A, Mode C or Mode S aircraft.

anchorhold

21st Nov 2017, 08:39

It is interesting that neither the CAA Safety Sense leaflet and the Airprox video really fully explain the visual scan, for instance it seems mostly confined by them forwards, why would you not scan through the side windows and over your shoulders.

Likewise, absolute no explanation of how to visually scan in an aircraft with a persex canopy, such as DR400, T67, Bulldog, G115. For example tilting the head back to look above. looking over the rlight shoulder, then toward the windsheld, over the the left shoulder, tilting the head back looking above and back to the windshield.

Interesting the comments on here especially why pilots are not being trained to think aboout the lookout before and during a decent.

Finally, can anyone suggest why the younger instructors in the UK are not teaching 60 degree banked turns? What do instructors do in other countries?

Duchess_Driver

21st Nov 2017, 11:09

Finally, can anyone suggest why the younger instructors in the UK are not teaching 60 degree banked turns?

In the majority of cases I suspect that schools have not updated their training manuals since the introduction some ways back, so if it wasn't there then it wouldn't be now. I would suspect the desire for schools to teach 'more' than what is in the syllabus is driven by time/cost constraints. I know I was taught them, 20 odd years ago and have taught them since - along with teaching navigation by compass which seems to be becoming a 'forgotten art'.

I ensure that all of the FI candidates I teach are able to teach to both 45AoB and 60AoB but see the norm during the discussion is that 60AoB is seen as a 'pusher' (challenge) for those who get 45AoB early in the lesson.

I do also teach maximum rate turns to those candidates, but I would suggest that over 90% of those haven't seen one before, let alone been taught to do one.

paco

21st Nov 2017, 14:34

"I doubt that the focus on WAP Tower being closed for period is relevant here"

Not where the accident happened, perhaps, but with people trying to get in and out of Wycombe before the closure times, I'm surprised that this has not already happened in the circuit.

9Aplus

21st Nov 2017, 20:58

This is nice reading, document update finished just a month ago =>
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Helicopter%20Flight%20Inst%20Manual%203.10.17%20FINAL.pdf

ATCO Fred

21st Nov 2017, 21:31

There are three 'relevant' LARS providers available in that area now: Brize, Oxford and Farnborough North - with Benson being able to 'chip' in when they're not busy with their own patch. Whether there is a 'policy' effort to use one provider (Oxford Radar, perhaps) I don't know - but again, they're optional calls if you want cover.

Sadly Oxford is not a LARS provider and the services we do offer are from within our controller spare capacity (although we did offer to do LARS and were given a refusal by DAP). Brize and Farnborough are the only LARS provision within the area although the Westcott area and the route toward WAP, albeit within the Farnborough north AOR, affects Benson and Oxford. Brize LARS is only 0900-1700 so we do find ourselves picking up a lot of transit outside those hours. The loss of Coventry radar means both Oxford and Brize probably having to work aircraft further north which reduces controller capacity even further. A review of capabilities and who does what, and where, might be useful. Albeit to late for the 4 victims of this accident.

Regards Fred

Genghis the Engineer

21st Nov 2017, 22:26

Two thoughts in particular about Fred's comments above.

(1) The moment you have two providers in the same bit of airspace, you have a potential problem. It really shouldn't be hard in Britain to have a line on the chart, that clearly demarks to whom an aircraft should be talking, where (and if necessary, when).

(2) Historically instrument approaches are primarily controlled by a pilot, with supporting information from controllers. Historically pilots are also responsible for see-and-avoid in VMC. Always and forever, pilots are responsible for the safety of their aircraft. Therefore, particularly since this technology exists and is becoming increasingly affordable, I think that future collision avoidance strategies should concentrate on putting information directly into the cockpit - not be reliant on information from a controller [notwithstanding that I'd still like to see (1) sorted out in British airspace].

G

Whopity

22nd Nov 2017, 08:58

Finally, can anyone suggest why the younger instructors in the UK are not teaching 60 degree banked turns? Simply, because a number of items, including max rate turns, that were taught as part of the UK PPL, are not included in the JAA/EASA syllabus that we are now obliged to follow.

Whilst the CAA SSL13 - Collision Avoidance referred to here is quite comprehensive regarding lateral lookout, it only includes a one liner regarding lookout in the climb and descent c) During the climb and descent beware of the blind spot under the nose– manoeuvre the aircraft so that you can check

anchorhold

22nd Nov 2017, 14:09

Whopity, wouldn't you say the whole syllabus is being dumbed down. I accept I am oblidged to follow the syllabus, but surely the instructor is able to go beyond the syllabus based on his initiative. For example 60 AofB and collision avoidance, sideslipping if someone is having problems with crossed controls on landing in cosswinds and pilot induced ocsilations, if you were training on certain types, such as the DR200 or DR400. What next, stalls can only be taught up to the stall warning?

But Im wondering can a flying school opt to teach beyond the EASA syllabus, I am also wondering if EASA thinks a steep turn is an aerrobatic manouvre?

On the point you raised about the lookout, says it all. What happenned to HASSELL and clearing turns. I think this leads me back to Firefly Bob's original point, is why dont we teach collision avoidence.

Is there a mechanism under EASA for the UK CAA to make it a requirement under a variation for 60 AoB turns and practice collision avoidance, based on the intensity of some Class G airspace in Southern Britain and fewer radar units?

212man

22nd Nov 2017, 14:50

Simply, because a number of items, including max rate turns, that were taught as part of the UK PPL, are not included in the JAA/EASA syllabus that we are now obliged to follow.

Whilst the CAA SSL13 - Collision Avoidance referred to here is quite comprehensive regarding lateral lookout, it only includes a one liner regarding lookout in the climb and descent

Yes, I was taught (in Fixed Wing) to turn as the altimeter needle passed every 500 ft, to clear the view obscured by the engine.

I think many posters may never have flown FW and, for those in that category, may not realise that the view out of a typical Piper or Cessna is like looking out of a letter box by comparison to most helicopters. Better with a bubble canopy (Slingsby or Bulldog for instance), but there is still a major blind spot caused by the engine.