If you lot out there really want to know who Rolling Circle is, well for my best educated guess, I reckon it's a Husband and Wife combo, he a 757 Captain, and she teaches Performance at OATS!! The reason I write this being that Rolling Circle has posted such !!!!!e about the JAA exams and OATS e.t.c. it's untrue, from such a superior, snobbish, uppity viewpoint.

Anyway back on the point of OATS, last year Oxford spent more on Accounts/Marketing than they did on the whole Airfield! That tells me something about their management priorities!!! Don't ask me where I got this as my mate wouldn't be too popular with her Boss Jimmy Sommerville!

It's terrible to say this but I think that someone really is going to lose their life at this place or Wescott soon , unless something is radically done!

And as someone who is a weekend flier at OATS, and soon to be signing up for a JAA Modular course this sort of incident and management attitude of short term profit over long term investment really gets me worried

I would like to say something rather important.

I do not believe the instructors were at fault in any way regarding this accident.

Saying that they have limited experience is not relevant. How is the lookout of a 7,000hr instructor better than the lookout of a 1,000hr instructor? Come on - tell me how I can improve my lookout.

You´ve got THOUSANDS of flying hour instructors operating at their HOME airfield. The fact that this accident occurred MUST therefore be down to the fact that there is nothing they could have reasonably done to prevent it.

You´d need X-ray eyes to see another Warrior above you.

It sounds to me like the very busy tower were confused by what they asked the aircraft on finals to confirm which one he was.

This accident could happen to me in that situation. It could happen to me when I have 10,000hrs under my belt.

This one is going to run and run in the aviation training world. My betting would be on AAIB report resulting in CAA placing restrictions on operations at Kiddlington.

Safe flying everyone,

WWW

Aerosexual,

Thanks!!


[This message has been edited by Mini Mouse (edited 03 June 2000).]

WWW

THANKYOU!!

At last we have an intelegent comment.

There has been so much talk of un-profesional conduct and poor airmanship on this thread. I, like most other professional pilots, consider good airmanship to be paramount to flight safety. What I find quite amazing, is the speed that many fellow Pprune'rs have hung these instructors out to dry, with little knowlege of the facts. We are all vulnerable to misfortune, and if we continue to place a high number of aircraft into such a small area then accidents will happen dispite the vigilance/lookout/professionalism/regard for SAFETY of the individual.

Having read back through the thread it appears that only two posts are critical of the pilots. It is clear from his terminology that one has never been within 1000 miles of Oxford. The other, it would appear, has registered for the express purpose of making his first Pprune post on this subject, a post which is very defensive of the (not yet literally) fatally flawed system in use at Oxford - Doesn't that, combined with the significant lack of detail in his profile, tell us all something?

The fact is that cost-cutting has resulted in an overall drop in the experience level of Oxford instructors. This is, in itself, not a problem provided that adequate training and support is given. However, the amount of initial orientation training offered to new instructors has also been cut. Similar cost-cutting has decreased the effectiveness of ATC by handing it to an outside contractor. As if this were not sufficient recipe for disaster, the pressure is on to force more and more aircraft into already overloaded airspace.

The fault clearly lies with the money-grabbing senior management, not with the instructors who did not get the support they deserved to compensate for their inexperience.

RC

Well Said

I'll ditto your comment to RC, 185lbs of Ballast, as usual he's straight to the crux of the matter.

Rolling circle, I have been contributing to this site for over 3 years, but owing to a new pc & service provider, I have had to re-register. I feel very strongly about this whole incident. Why should I make my profile available to all? I do not feel that the Oxford system is fatally flawed. How can it be, when it has become significantly less busy in the circuit due to the "farming out" of the basic flying training to the USA. What I do feel is that the level of flying training provided, despite all new instructors going through "standards", has deteriorated somewhat. This is, as contributors who know Oxford will know, has been due to OATS taking on more students than they can feesibly handle. Also, a point of note, why should the takeover of ATC by SERCO have "decreased the effectiveness". As far as I am aware this is not the case, owing to more ATCOs being employed & offering full ATC cover for a longer period, not previously offered. One more important note on this subject is that if SERCO would not have been in charge of ATC, this matter would not have been made public....it would have been brushed under the carpet by the middle management of OATS, as has been done so many times in the past.

I agree that the Instructors did well in recovering from a potentially fatal situation, BUT they should not be praised for letting themselves get in that situation in the first place, irrespective of whatever information they were relying on from ATC. (Refer to my original post...if unsure of the no 1's position....do not press on to unknown territory....ask ATC)

When all is said and done these aircraft are flying VFR and so it is down to the PIC to maintain a good lookout, now i know the limitations of the PA28 and can understand how this could hapen even when all crew are doing the best they can to keep a good lookout but all this talk of ILS/VOR etc is just crap it would mean more guys flying around "heads down".
the only bit of high tech kit that would be of use is the device that picks up the strobe lights of other aircraft and warns you of proximity to other aircraft,the CAA was funding reserch into such a device but what has hapend on this front i dont know.

The guy who taught me to fly kept a good lookout because in his youth failure to do so would mean a ME109 drilling 20mm holes in his back....as he said to me "a PA 28 or C152 can kill you just as dead"

So as one who flys VFR a lot what i am trying to say is the responsability lies with all of us to keep that lookout, for your safety lies in your own hands ( or eyes)

You guys are so predictable - you bitch in the circuit, you bitch in the crew room and now, lo and behold, you're bitching on pprune! You ought to spend more time reading your "flying order book", and then, maybe, you'd know who has priority over who in the VISUAL circuit!

More info which puts the incident in context: the lower of the two Warriors was inbound off the 20 procedure. Even though (speculation here) they may have cancelled IFR, they would have been at MDA at approx 2 miles final...at 760' QNH, and would have had a restricted lookout from the left hand seat, since the screens are usually still up or in the process of being taken down at this stage. Add to this left hand circuits on 20 and you can have a difficult time seeing a/c descending on base leg from 1500' QNH. I would add, that TWR at Oxford alert circuit traffic to a/c "inbound 20/09 procedure" as soon as you've called base turn complete. Therefore traffic in the circuit or joining base should be looking for / expecting the instrument traffic on final at low level. The only issue I can raise regarding this, is that during the VFR training there was very little in the way of introduction to the IFR procedures...(in terms of background knowledge), and it's not inconceivable that many of the less experienced students have any idea what ATC are going on about when they report instrument traffic inbound on either of the procedures, unless they are at the stage themselves where they have flown them in the sim.

To A and C
Re: strobe detectors

As I understand it, the CAA did look into the possibility of strobe light detection equipment along with RAF. Whilst the trials were reasonably successful, it appears that production of such is not commercially viable due to their complexity.

Exact info from the AAIB website (in relation to another midair, between Tornado and C152). Section 2.2.5 at http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/gbpzx/gbpzx.htm#Collision

RC - I am a 1,000 odd hour flying instructor such as you describe as having low experience which you imply was a contributory factor to this incident.

My lookout beats the pants of some of the old timers I have flown with in the past. I honestly don´t think inexperience has ANYTHING to do with this incident.

Its all well and good people piously saying that lookout can solve these problems but its just not true.

Two aircraft can come together in such a way that it is impossible - repeat impossible - fo them to see one another.

Factor in a busy circuit, mixed IFR VFR traffic, the workload of TEACHING whilst flying, ATC errors/confusion and good old dependable Murphys Law and you have this incident.

Until you read the report and know exactly what ATC said to whom and when you should refrain from blaming the pilots. All will then be revealed.

Right, time for me to get back in the circuit and walk the walk,

WWW

Excuse me, but am I given to understand that OATS really fly with the view from the aircraft artificially limited with screens IN A BUSY CIRCUIT?? Is one not supposed to carry an 'observer' in such circumstances if the safety pilot (FI)'s field of view is restricted?? Rule of the Air No 6??

Beagle...no-one would have the screens up *in* the circuit....but the a/c inbound on the NDB let-down would have had the screens up until about 2 miles or a little less from the threshold. Of course the screens should not restrict the RHS view...however the workload goes up for the safety pilot whilst taking the screens down, and that certainly affects one's ability to look-out.

We never found the need to use any sort of screen in the RAF - occasionally the odd student had to be made to wear a visor if he tried to cheat. However, a bit of 'Chinese weaving' in solid cloud on limited panel soon stopped that. IREs know darn well when someone is cheating as the recovery to datums is different when flown visually!! But this discussion on screens means that I will NOT, under ANY circumstances, fit such things to any of my training aircraft - foggles work just fine!!

BEagle - That's fine so long as you confine yourself to PPL work. The CAA will not allow foggles to be used on the CPL Skill Test or the IR Skill Test, only screens.

However, this is another red herring since the screens were already down and, at the time of the incident, the visual circuit was not particularly busy (by Oxford standards).

What about the premise, enshrined in MATS Pt 1, that instrument traffic has priority over visual traffic irrespective of their relative positions in the circuit area?

BEagle,
I was under the impression that "foggles" weren't permitted for clocking IF time in the UK. That may be a crock but came from an "Oxford instructor" in the US.
However, I agree that for most of the time they would probably suffice.
Finally, I know for a fact that when I was at Oxford, there were quite a large number of students who, before they started their IFR training, didn't know what the hell "instrument traffic inbound on the 20/09 procedure." meant!

The CAA do still insist on these potentially lethal screens for CPL and IR work. It's their own little contribution to flight safety, I guess!! It's time such dated stupidity was stopped. Foggles are entirely adequate!!

BEagle

>We never found the need to use any sort of screen in the RAF - occasionally the odd student had to be made to wear a visor if he tried to cheat<

I confess I haven't had your military experience; but I know a man who has. He tells me that:

a) Screens are used in some military types (eg he used them on the Harrier)

b) Visors are used by all ab-initio students in their training (eg on Jet Provosts and Tucanos)

That said, you might have a point about them there screens! ;)