Mid-Air Collision at OATS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mid-Air Collision at OATS
Just heard that there has been a mid-air collision between two OATS PA28's at Oxford Airport. Both aircraft were on finals to the landing runway, 02, and were involved in a collision.
Both aircraft managed to land safely, one on the runway and one on the grass. One of the aircraft is reported to have significant damage to a wing. There are no reports of injuries and both flights were dual instruction flights.
Well done to both instructors for landing their damaged aircraft safely.
Both aircraft managed to land safely, one on the runway and one on the grass. One of the aircraft is reported to have significant damage to a wing. There are no reports of injuries and both flights were dual instruction flights.
Well done to both instructors for landing their damaged aircraft safely.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I knew somthing like this would happen soon, the circuit is so bl**dy dangerous, it is a joke.
When oh when will they get dedicated radar, instead of sponging off Brize Norton?
Oh but hang on, that will cost money won't it? I wonder whether Oxford management realise that accidents are much more expensive than prevention, oh sorry I forgot they are Beancounters!
OK radar may not have helped in this incident, but by not overloading a single runway with a visual tower may have.
I reckon if the CAA have a look at the REAL No. of take off and lands at Oxford, they'll be in for a big surprise!!!!!!!!!
Do all these major Airlines who send their cadets there actually realise that OATS has no radar or ILS, but does have 2 grass strips, just about 1 instrument runway and a little tower?!!
I'm sure someone has to die first, or the Airlines themselves get involved before any money will be spent.
OATS really have bitten off more than they chew, and it's time someone sorted it out!
From a worried Oxford Flier.
P.S. Well done to the crews involved, I'm sure you'll be having a few beers tonight!
When oh when will they get dedicated radar, instead of sponging off Brize Norton?
Oh but hang on, that will cost money won't it? I wonder whether Oxford management realise that accidents are much more expensive than prevention, oh sorry I forgot they are Beancounters!
OK radar may not have helped in this incident, but by not overloading a single runway with a visual tower may have.
I reckon if the CAA have a look at the REAL No. of take off and lands at Oxford, they'll be in for a big surprise!!!!!!!!!
Do all these major Airlines who send their cadets there actually realise that OATS has no radar or ILS, but does have 2 grass strips, just about 1 instrument runway and a little tower?!!
I'm sure someone has to die first, or the Airlines themselves get involved before any money will be spent.
OATS really have bitten off more than they chew, and it's time someone sorted it out!
From a worried Oxford Flier.
P.S. Well done to the crews involved, I'm sure you'll be having a few beers tonight!
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I was at OATS I often worried about this happening to me 
You get Instruemnt Traffic inbound or circling low level to land - as well as circuit traffic and joining traffic from all directions both twin and singles !!! It can become madness especially when the viz is a little dodgy.
I have every respect for the ATCers at OATS who do brilliantly but still do not have any modern technology. They still use wartime pins to locate their aircraft !!!Perhaps they should accept Frank Williams' offer and install the ILS/VOR !!
I do also worry that they allow the Algerian/Kuwaiti circuit solo's to go up with dodgy wx and then mix it with the instrument arrivals and IRT's and then screw them up by turning finals in front of them whilst flying some none textbooks approaches !!! I know they are learning a new trade in a different culture with a differnt langauge but can surely realise when they should throw away and approach and try again - They don't and they end up causing mayhem !!!!
I am sure this incident will open a few eyes and ears and the circuit regulations changed or tightened !!
Well done to the crews involved !!!
You get Instruemnt Traffic inbound or circling low level to land - as well as circuit traffic and joining traffic from all directions both twin and singles !!! It can become madness especially when the viz is a little dodgy.
I have every respect for the ATCers at OATS who do brilliantly but still do not have any modern technology. They still use wartime pins to locate their aircraft !!!Perhaps they should accept Frank Williams' offer and install the ILS/VOR !!
I do also worry that they allow the Algerian/Kuwaiti circuit solo's to go up with dodgy wx and then mix it with the instrument arrivals and IRT's and then screw them up by turning finals in front of them whilst flying some none textbooks approaches !!! I know they are learning a new trade in a different culture with a differnt langauge but can surely realise when they should throw away and approach and try again - They don't and they end up causing mayhem !!!!
I am sure this incident will open a few eyes and ears and the circuit regulations changed or tightened !!
Well done to the crews involved !!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Similar to what at Hamble years ago unfortunatley two Hamsters were killed then. Hence a series of PA 28`s with Sunroofs. I worked there for sometime, it is workable if you keep your whits aboout you. As for having radar would that have prevented a collision in the circuit, and an ILS surley that would only add to the confusion in an already ATZ I think it is a god send that people do go elsewhere to practice their approaches.
Sponging off Brize is a bloody good idea,they are hardy pushed over there and taxs are used to fund Brize Norton.
Many who have OATS as your first experience of avaition lead a somewhat sheltered existance, you should also consider that OATS bears little or resemblance to GA in the rest of the country. OATS run avery good operation all things considered, but it is a shame that they put the ATC out to SERCO who fired one of their best contollers.
Sponging off Brize is a bloody good idea,they are hardy pushed over there and taxs are used to fund Brize Norton.
Many who have OATS as your first experience of avaition lead a somewhat sheltered existance, you should also consider that OATS bears little or resemblance to GA in the rest of the country. OATS run avery good operation all things considered, but it is a shame that they put the ATC out to SERCO who fired one of their best contollers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anyone ever thought about the quality of the instructors to get the aircraft into this kind of situation in the first place??
Surely the instructors should be monitoring radio traffic and keeping a good visual lookout whilst still monitoring the student's performance?
Isn't this why they have an instructors certificate in the first place?
Surely the instructors should be monitoring radio traffic and keeping a good visual lookout whilst still monitoring the student's performance?
Isn't this why they have an instructors certificate in the first place?
Guest
Posts: n/a
How fortunate that no-one was killed today!! This inadequate little aerodrome with its muddy grass and one tatty little hard runway is totally inadequate for the task of airline training. Lord Gnome seems to think that OATS should be able to clutter Brize Norton's circuit with training traffic at the taxpayers' expense rather than expecting OATS to upgrade Kidlington with sufficent infrastructure and navigation aids to conduct training properly at its own expense. A lame excuse from someone high up about the reason for not installing ILS at Kidlington was 'because everyone else would want to come and use it'!!
Of course another option would be to find somewhere with better approach aids, more runways and more space. Like Prestwick, perhaps??
Of course another option would be to find somewhere with better approach aids, more runways and more space. Like Prestwick, perhaps??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank God no one was killed first and foremost.
I too was often worried about the amount of traffic in the circuit when I was there. However an ILS or Radar is of no relevance to the visual circuit. ATC are not going to Radar vector you the circuit. All instrument traffic cancels IFR(if training) so it is all visual.
A busy circuit but very well managed by ATC.
I too was often worried about the amount of traffic in the circuit when I was there. However an ILS or Radar is of no relevance to the visual circuit. ATC are not going to Radar vector you the circuit. All instrument traffic cancels IFR(if training) so it is all visual.
A busy circuit but very well managed by ATC.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't kid yourself that midairs only occur in a busy circuit.
I was at Hamble in 1969 when two students collided and were killed. I think there were about two in the circuit with one joining.
One of the recommendations of that report was that right hand circuits should not be flown at training airfields with aircraft with side by side seating with the commander sitting in the left hand seat (solo).
Radar would be pretty useless in this situation but I recall that in the States quite a few years ago the biggest likelihood of collision was within 10 miles of an airport with mixed IFR/VFR traffic.
One answer is to limit the numbers in the circuit and also have plenty of relief landing grounds where early solo students can fly students without the congestion problems.
I was at Hamble in 1969 when two students collided and were killed. I think there were about two in the circuit with one joining.
One of the recommendations of that report was that right hand circuits should not be flown at training airfields with aircraft with side by side seating with the commander sitting in the left hand seat (solo).
Radar would be pretty useless in this situation but I recall that in the States quite a few years ago the biggest likelihood of collision was within 10 miles of an airport with mixed IFR/VFR traffic.
One answer is to limit the numbers in the circuit and also have plenty of relief landing grounds where early solo students can fly students without the congestion problems.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I saw the aftermath this lunchtime. Should have seen the faces on Bruce L and Jimmy Sommerville! Two Warriors - a miracle the nasty whizzing round bits missed the flimsy metal stuff. Wheel - wing contact must surely be pretty tight stuff. I cack myself every time I join the circuit here and I'm told "there are five others in the circuit", and I can only spot 3 (esp if there are Algerian or Cypriate voices). I'm so looking forward to the end of this VFR nightmare....
Guest
Posts: n/a
My God - I was at Oxford at 11.45 today to sort out something and decided to sit on the gate at the threshold of 20 to relive a few memories. Must have just missed it - the circuit was its usual self - 4 in , 1 joining overhead 4 ready to t/o.
I was more worried about the number of a/c doing G/A's on the wrong side (Kidders is different than most airfields as the Helo area prevents go arounds on the dead side)
Well done the instructors. I am not in the slightest surprised.
I was more worried about the number of a/c doing G/A's on the wrong side (Kidders is different than most airfields as the Helo area prevents go arounds on the dead side)
Well done the instructors. I am not in the slightest surprised.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As short courser last year before they moved there was even more congestion, but this is where you learn airmanship folks when VFR. The controllers do their best but have lost some excellent experienced people last year. I did my PPL at Biggin, 9 in the circuit average, Bizjets and 7 Flying schools, two helicopter schools et al. You learn what lookout is all about, immediates, RT on the ball,positioning for correct and safe spacing yet keeping the traffic moving quickly and efficiently and the controllers there with their archaic systems do a fabulous job.
Oxford ATC need our support and some continuity with staff not censure as we don't know the facts.
So glad no-one was hurt this time.
Oxford ATC need our support and some continuity with staff not censure as we don't know the facts.
So glad no-one was hurt this time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
They will probably sack the two instructors. The last guy to have a cat A airprox got canned, even tho the board said it was the fault of ATC and a visiting pilot. Guess he was the lucky one, he lived and got out of that **** hole without paying a bond. When will ILS realise that lives matter. This time they beat the clock. Tomorrow...?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well done to the crews who prevented this incident turning into a catastrophe. For those complaining about congestion in the Oxford circuit, I suggest you look towards WMU in the states. That airield had ILS/VOR/NDB/GPS approaches plus radar coverage. There were regularly 8+ (no exaggeration) in the circuit, plus a line of others waiting to depart, military fast jet and transport traffic, biz jets, and all run by incompetent ATCers whose instructions were best ignored in the interests of safety. Despite this there wasn't a single mid-air there. Even in that congested airspace, the best way to keep safe is a bl**dy good lookout and a major sense of self preservation. Technology won't do it for you!
Well done to the crews involved once again!
Well done to the crews involved once again!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Two a/c on finals for 20, neither cleared to land.
A was a little bit higher and little bit behind B. A was then cleared to land, and B initiated a go-around. B hit A at only 50' AGL and was smacked down into the grass, near the threshold. A landed.
Both instructors still in employment this morning.
A was a little bit higher and little bit behind B. A was then cleared to land, and B initiated a go-around. B hit A at only 50' AGL and was smacked down into the grass, near the threshold. A landed.
Both instructors still in employment this morning.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A mate of mine was in the circuit at the time, and was informed by the tower that he was No. 2, when he could see the two said aircraft on finals. So it seems to me as though the Tower had lost the plot, thinking back they did seem maxed out that morning, but they always are!!!
No doubt my mate will get a portion of the blame and Jimmy Sommerville will conduct a cover up of the real facts to the CAA to prevent restrictions of flying and to preserve profits!!!
No doubt my mate will get a portion of the blame and Jimmy Sommerville will conduct a cover up of the real facts to the CAA to prevent restrictions of flying and to preserve profits!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Geez! I am so glad this incident ended safely!! I am on the verge of starting an ab initio course and either have the option of staying closer to home but flying from an uncontrolled circuit airfield or further away at a controlled circuit airfield. There's me, perhaps naively thinking, that aerial conflicts only really happen (albeit very rarely) in an uncontrolled circuit - well this incident is very much a rude awakening for the uninitiated in me!
Perhaps in a visual circuit with ATC, radar etc (i.e. controlled) the odd pilot gets a little lax about maintaining a good look out for others in the circuit, perhaps relying too much on ATC and flying the aircraft. Whereas perhaps, in a purely uncontrolled circuit with no ATC or just a simple ATIS, pilots have nothing to fall back on other than their own vigilance and good airmanship and therefore are more aware of other circuit traffic.
There is really nothing about flying that scares me and with more knowledge and experience I expect to become more confident and competent. However, the only qualification to the last sentence is a pathological fear of a mid-air collision. This scares the s--t out of me. Recently near my house in Essex there was a collision involving a Cessna 152 (I think) under training and an aerobatic Yak which I understand collided in or very near the North Weald circuit. All 3 occupants were killed!
It strikes me that in this modern day and age , the 21st century, we still have no better safety against mid-air conflicts in VFR flights other than 'see and avoid' principle. I presume the stumbling block for introduction of further safetly features for training aircraft is cost but I am not sure. Some time last year there was a mid-air over Nottinghamshire between a Cessna doing aerial photography and an RAF Tornado. The AAIB noted in their report that the principle of 'see and avoid' failed as both pilots were preoccupied with their respective tasks, the Cessna pilot taking aerial shots and the Tornado pilot (under training) spending all his time looking inside the cockpit. Both aircraft therefore did not maintain a good look out. Although the Cessna pilot was heavily criticised in the report for not following establised guidelines vis a vis aerial photography and drifting into airspace used by the RAF.
I would be interested to receive views on this very touchy subject.
Safe flying to all!
Perhaps in a visual circuit with ATC, radar etc (i.e. controlled) the odd pilot gets a little lax about maintaining a good look out for others in the circuit, perhaps relying too much on ATC and flying the aircraft. Whereas perhaps, in a purely uncontrolled circuit with no ATC or just a simple ATIS, pilots have nothing to fall back on other than their own vigilance and good airmanship and therefore are more aware of other circuit traffic.
There is really nothing about flying that scares me and with more knowledge and experience I expect to become more confident and competent. However, the only qualification to the last sentence is a pathological fear of a mid-air collision. This scares the s--t out of me. Recently near my house in Essex there was a collision involving a Cessna 152 (I think) under training and an aerobatic Yak which I understand collided in or very near the North Weald circuit. All 3 occupants were killed!
It strikes me that in this modern day and age , the 21st century, we still have no better safety against mid-air conflicts in VFR flights other than 'see and avoid' principle. I presume the stumbling block for introduction of further safetly features for training aircraft is cost but I am not sure. Some time last year there was a mid-air over Nottinghamshire between a Cessna doing aerial photography and an RAF Tornado. The AAIB noted in their report that the principle of 'see and avoid' failed as both pilots were preoccupied with their respective tasks, the Cessna pilot taking aerial shots and the Tornado pilot (under training) spending all his time looking inside the cockpit. Both aircraft therefore did not maintain a good look out. Although the Cessna pilot was heavily criticised in the report for not following establised guidelines vis a vis aerial photography and drifting into airspace used by the RAF.
I would be interested to receive views on this very touchy subject.
Safe flying to all!