Mid-Air Collision at OATS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just my 2p's worth.
I would dispute that foggles are entirely adequate. They usually mean the wearer has to adjust their neck to some uncomfortable cock-eyed position, and even worse when trying to read the compass or OAT guage.
On the other hand I have yet to use a set of screens which did not restrict my own view to some degree as well as the students.
I would dispute that foggles are entirely adequate. They usually mean the wearer has to adjust their neck to some uncomfortable cock-eyed position, and even worse when trying to read the compass or OAT guage.
On the other hand I have yet to use a set of screens which did not restrict my own view to some degree as well as the students.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Less fortunate were the crews of 2 Dutch KLM flight school Bonanza's, (each carrying 3 people) which collided in mid-air near to their home base Eelde Airport(EHGR), yesterday around 13:00 UTC.
One instructor and 2 student died instantly While 2 were seriously injured. 1 instructor managed to escape without serious injuries.
One instructor and 2 student died instantly While 2 were seriously injured. 1 instructor managed to escape without serious injuries.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I flew an OATS warrior with the strobe det. system a few years back - Only once myself, but I had alot of feedback from others.. With it selected on in the circuit it sat there bleeping all day long i.e. warning value=0. (Out of the circuit v. useful)
eyes, eyes, eyes, or gimme TCAS
eyes, eyes, eyes, or gimme TCAS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Forgive my ignorance, but from reading this thread, am I to understand that IFR training in the UK involves actually covering the windows ?
There are lots of 'foggle' devices out there that do a good job of restricting the students visual field to the panel, why would anyone want to block the instructors view as well?
What lunatic thought of that?
There is no way that I would get in an aircraft,in any VFR conditions, let alone a busy circuit!, without at least one pilot having as unrestricted a view as is possible!
Maybe its' time to get this idiotic 'screen' practice banned before any more pilots get killed!
There are lots of 'foggle' devices out there that do a good job of restricting the students visual field to the panel, why would anyone want to block the instructors view as well?
What lunatic thought of that?
There is no way that I would get in an aircraft,in any VFR conditions, let alone a busy circuit!, without at least one pilot having as unrestricted a view as is possible!
Maybe its' time to get this idiotic 'screen' practice banned before any more pilots get killed!
Guest
Posts: n/a
NIMBUS,
Yes in the UK the windows on the pilot under training/test side are covered, normally the left seat. The Instructor/Examiner in the right seat can still see out of his side of the aircraft.
Out of circuit, under RIS or RAS ATC cover this is not a problem. The problem occurs on the end of an instrument approach when going visual and the screens are coming down. Flying a multi eng aircraft, with one engine at idle thrust, in 'sporting' conditions and trying to take down wobbly plastic screens with your 'spare' throttle hand is not my idea of fun or safety.
My IMC student manages very well with foggles only and we do a bit of cloud flying also to make sure he isn't cheating. So my vote goes with foggles!
Yes in the UK the windows on the pilot under training/test side are covered, normally the left seat. The Instructor/Examiner in the right seat can still see out of his side of the aircraft.
Out of circuit, under RIS or RAS ATC cover this is not a problem. The problem occurs on the end of an instrument approach when going visual and the screens are coming down. Flying a multi eng aircraft, with one engine at idle thrust, in 'sporting' conditions and trying to take down wobbly plastic screens with your 'spare' throttle hand is not my idea of fun or safety.
My IMC student manages very well with foggles only and we do a bit of cloud flying also to make sure he isn't cheating. So my vote goes with foggles!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The details concerning last Augusts Airprox at OX are slightly out. Its main relevance is that OATS (financial) management dont learn from mistakes and that very experienced instructors can have airprox's in a normal (not busy) circuit. The guys in the recent incident were not at fault as the circuit with low sun, haze and loads of a/c has been regarded as dangerous by the instructors for years. Why, when this incident appears a mirror image of the previous one were steps not taken to increase safety? Instead the reverse seem to be the case as the FSO and standards who used to rock the boat on theses issues have gone.
Last years incident
PA28 on final, cleared to land
PA23 on final, behind and below.
ATC asks if either can see each other. Aswer is no so PA23 sent around.
PA23 appears just in front of PA28.
The report states that the PA23 pilot and ATC were at fault.
A few days later the PA28 pilot was suspended for "gross misconduct for refusing to fly when ordered" - by the VFR manager. He was duly sacked despite having a medical restriction preventing him from working a 15 hour day as ordered.
Balpa had a field day.
Hopefully one of the OX managers will bite.
Last years incident
PA28 on final, cleared to land
PA23 on final, behind and below.
ATC asks if either can see each other. Aswer is no so PA23 sent around.
PA23 appears just in front of PA28.
The report states that the PA23 pilot and ATC were at fault.
A few days later the PA28 pilot was suspended for "gross misconduct for refusing to fly when ordered" - by the VFR manager. He was duly sacked despite having a medical restriction preventing him from working a 15 hour day as ordered.
Balpa had a field day.
Hopefully one of the OX managers will bite.
