Collision avoidance - Fast jets vs light aircraft
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll forgive the 3 Herks who wandered through the circuit of an active and marked airstrip at less than 500ft MSD while I was turning finals one day
TSR22, to throw in my 2 pence worth, TCAS is a good system but there is a danger on developing an over reliance on it to the detriment of lookout (the same can be said of an RHWR to an extent). Since we don't exepect any aerial aversary to be squawking, its unlikely that a TCAS would have an operational value. Leaving aside the fact that most fast jets were deisgned and built before TCAS came into widespread use, there is one school of thought which says that it would be better for aircrew to develop robust lookout scans than to become reliant on a gizmo. Consider that the majority of FJ traffic operates in the less densely populated parts of the UK and the actual risk of colliding with a light aircraft is reduced to a level of risk which the MOD is happy to accept. It is also worth considering that one of the reasons Tucano was chosen as the trial platform for TCAS in the RAF is that it tends to operate mainly in the busier Vale of York airspace.
To sumarise, the RAF operates at a level of risk which it feels is appropriate and acceptable. There is an acknowledged risk of meeting other users in the low flying system and a set of procedures in place to mitigate that risk - chief amongst which is identifying likely choke points (CANP, Notams, PINS, information on the Low Flying Chart and from the central low flying booking cell) and briefing the need for extra vigilence in these areas. The potential benefit of a TCAS system is recognised and work is in progress to determine the likely effectiveness of such a system. However, the resource is not availaible to retro-fit the system to all aircraft at the moment.
I would echo some of the sentiments above, namely that we all have an equal right to use the air, better understanding of the constraints of others is valuable, and most of all I would advocate the value of the CANP system. Further, I am sure that a opportunity for your flying club to visit an RAF base to better see how we aim to stay safe could be arranged with a little thought.
Best regards.
Blunty.
Phew. Time for bed!
In Oz, low flying fast jets are largely restricted to military fast jet corridors IOT avoid this problem. They are activated by notam and are restricted areas.
Near accidents still happen with private civil a/c ocasionally wandering into this airspace, either due to not reading NOTAMS or Nav errors. I believe it is a good system, however.
It goes the other way too. I was on the flight deck of an RAAF Herc, tac flying in the Blue Mountains (west of Sydney) when we popped over a ridge at 250' to find a Jet Ranger at our level only a few seconds ahead! (Class G-uncontrolled).
During a night airdrop operation in an RAAF Caribou in SE Queensland we were nearly cleaned up by two afterburning f-111s climbing out accross our nose. (military control zone).
I have also been in a Civil SAR aircraft at low level during a search in restricted vis, when we came head to head with an RAAF Orion at very close range. The Orion was at fault and removed from the area. (Search area controlled by an Airservices King Air).
I take it fast jet, low level ops are not restricted in the UK?
Near accidents still happen with private civil a/c ocasionally wandering into this airspace, either due to not reading NOTAMS or Nav errors. I believe it is a good system, however.
It goes the other way too. I was on the flight deck of an RAAF Herc, tac flying in the Blue Mountains (west of Sydney) when we popped over a ridge at 250' to find a Jet Ranger at our level only a few seconds ahead! (Class G-uncontrolled).
During a night airdrop operation in an RAAF Caribou in SE Queensland we were nearly cleaned up by two afterburning f-111s climbing out accross our nose. (military control zone).
I have also been in a Civil SAR aircraft at low level during a search in restricted vis, when we came head to head with an RAAF Orion at very close range. The Orion was at fault and removed from the area. (Search area controlled by an Airservices King Air).
I take it fast jet, low level ops are not restricted in the UK?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lincs
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting Blunty
"opportunity for your flying club to visit an RAF base to better see how we aim to stay safe could be arranged with a little thought"
And on that tack, thanks very much to Waddington SATCO and Team for an excellent brief on ATSOCAS and visit to ATC afforded to Wickenby members yesterday evening.
Seeing the picture from the other side has refreshed my appreciation of the pressures and limitations faced by Mil ATC as they provide service in Lincolnshire's target rich MIL/GA environment.
And long may they continue to do so and be able to support, as happened recently, a mid week low level (500'-700') navex jaunt around 17 Lincs disused RAF sites in the Chippy, including handovers to Cranwell (under the stub), Cottesmore and Coningsby and a couple of inquisitive fly pasts from a Harrier.
I fly for the pure joy of it and whenever I can, and know that there are many aspects of this much prized freedom which have various associated risk to myself and others. I'm sure that strikes a chord with all flyers.
1. It's good to talk even OCAS.......
2. What price freedom.......
"opportunity for your flying club to visit an RAF base to better see how we aim to stay safe could be arranged with a little thought"
And on that tack, thanks very much to Waddington SATCO and Team for an excellent brief on ATSOCAS and visit to ATC afforded to Wickenby members yesterday evening.
Seeing the picture from the other side has refreshed my appreciation of the pressures and limitations faced by Mil ATC as they provide service in Lincolnshire's target rich MIL/GA environment.
And long may they continue to do so and be able to support, as happened recently, a mid week low level (500'-700') navex jaunt around 17 Lincs disused RAF sites in the Chippy, including handovers to Cranwell (under the stub), Cottesmore and Coningsby and a couple of inquisitive fly pasts from a Harrier.
I fly for the pure joy of it and whenever I can, and know that there are many aspects of this much prized freedom which have various associated risk to myself and others. I'm sure that strikes a chord with all flyers.
1. It's good to talk even OCAS.......
2. What price freedom.......
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Studefather,
Sounds like you got involved in a very rewarding visit and my personal opinion is that these "bi-lats" between GA and the Military flying communities are incredibly educating on both sides.
Low Flying in the UK has probably got a finite shelf-life but I'd wager we still maintain the most flexible and useful system in the whole of Europe and we should be pretty chuffed about that, IMHO! In terms of availability outside of dedicated range airspace it's much better than anything the USA provides within CONUS. The MoD are constantly reminding those who, quite fairly, complain of LL aircraft that it is a vital training element and it's important to understand that those who fly on these missions are not just looking out and 'admiring the view' or, in the case of fighter pukes themselves
. There's a deluge of tasks to complete in short-order and the aircrew mate that possesses 100% effective visual coverage to avoid other aircraft doesn't exist. Yep the Mil guys are trained to relentlessly maintain lookout where possible, but as a basic a-ship function aren't we all? TSR22's rather benign, and very genuine, question is a lot more than some aviators ask - good for you
I cannot understand why there's always a need for a torrent of abuse afterwards by some individuals.
LL flying should always have a purpose and a sound understanding of the regulations by someone with even the most basic airmanship skills is all that's needed....why does that warrant the Spanish Inquisition from a bunch of unknowns?!
Sounds like you got involved in a very rewarding visit and my personal opinion is that these "bi-lats" between GA and the Military flying communities are incredibly educating on both sides.
Low Flying in the UK has probably got a finite shelf-life but I'd wager we still maintain the most flexible and useful system in the whole of Europe and we should be pretty chuffed about that, IMHO! In terms of availability outside of dedicated range airspace it's much better than anything the USA provides within CONUS. The MoD are constantly reminding those who, quite fairly, complain of LL aircraft that it is a vital training element and it's important to understand that those who fly on these missions are not just looking out and 'admiring the view' or, in the case of fighter pukes themselves
. There's a deluge of tasks to complete in short-order and the aircrew mate that possesses 100% effective visual coverage to avoid other aircraft doesn't exist. Yep the Mil guys are trained to relentlessly maintain lookout where possible, but as a basic a-ship function aren't we all? TSR22's rather benign, and very genuine, question is a lot more than some aviators ask - good for you I cannot understand why there's always a need for a torrent of abuse afterwards by some individuals.LL flying should always have a purpose and a sound understanding of the regulations by someone with even the most basic airmanship skills is all that's needed....why does that warrant the Spanish Inquisition from a bunch of unknowns?!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Why not adopt the system that works so well in many countries where mil traffic transits med/high level to safe areas working ATC, then train in an environment where they can concentrate on their mission?
That was the case some years ago. However, due to the relatively small size of the UK means that if that was done, a few unlucky people would be subject to a large amount of low flying. Time in the air would have to increase to obtain the same amount of time at low level. "Non tactical" transits would often be a waste of taxpayers' money.
However, on another related subject mentioned elesewhere, I think the case against military aircraft having TCAS fitted is being over-stated. Most business aircraft can have it retro-fitted, as can helicopters, or anything with an electrical system. I've been privileged to fly TCAS equipped helicopters for nearly ten years now (after twenty years without it) and I certainly feel vulnerable without it. Despite what's continually being said about how nothing beats a good lookout, pilots of non-TCAS transponding equipped aircraft seldom see us first; at least if their non-compliance with the rules of the air is anything to go by. Before the doubters of the extent of my lookout chip in - I most definitely do NOT rely solely on TCAS in lieu of lookout for collision avoidance. Many, many times we are obliged to take avoiding action when the rules say it is the other aircraft's pilot who should be doing so, but he obviously hasn't seen us coming from his right.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TCAS or not is based on need and risk. For example the 8.33 kHz spacing radios, IIRC (t may have been something else) were restricted to aircraft using upper airspace, this included the F3 Tornado but excluded the GR1 Tornado.
Why? Simply a case of spending money only where absolutely necessary and applying States exemption to occasional upper airspace users.
TCAS might be 'inexpensive' but by the time it has been trialled to death at Boscombe and then retrofitted to several hundred aircraft - strange or odd, but true - the cost becomes extremely significant.
Why? Simply a case of spending money only where absolutely necessary and applying States exemption to occasional upper airspace users.
TCAS might be 'inexpensive' but by the time it has been trialled to death at Boscombe and then retrofitted to several hundred aircraft - strange or odd, but true - the cost becomes extremely significant.
Half-baked,
"Nothing wrong with it whatsoever if done properly and using a little common sense. I know a chap who makes a living out of doing just this."
If you seriously think that photography using a hand held camera in a solo cockpit is ok, then your username is most apposite, and I must congratulate you on its selection. But if that's what you do think, perhaps you could explain to me how flying one handed (at best) in an orbit, with no lookout, at low level, is anything other than sheer f*cking insanity?
Until then, I'm with the CAA, who judge that "using a hand held camera whilst flying a light aircraft... cannot be considered either prudent or in accordance with good airmanship."
They suggest that a "second pilot, dedicated camera operator and more suitable equipment would seem to be a much safer option."
If this is still too blooming difficult for you....
"A pilot who is manually flying a light aircraft with one hand whilst operating a camera through a side cabin window with his other hand cannot be considered to be able to maintain a proper lookout for other traffic.... his ability to take prompt avoiding action must be in serious doubt."
It astonishes and horrifies me that anyone interested enough in aviation to read and post on PPRuNe should be this clueless about the basics of airmanship.
If that's what your acquaintance does, then he is a tw@t. And if you're seriously defending him, then so are you.
Monty,
I suggested that 1,000 ft (or circuit height) ought to be a sensible minima for civvies, not 2,000 ft. This allows a margin, and avoids the 200-600 ft band at which most mil low flying takes place.
Though actually, 2,000 ft in a single engined light aircraft would seem to be a good height to allow (frequently rusty and less-than-current) PPLs enough time to plan and execute a proper forced landing if they get a technical problem. The AAIB observe that: "Pilots' abilities to cope safely with an engine failure, bird-strike, or even difficult wind conditions or down draughts while flying at such low levels (500 ft) must also be open to question."
Flying lower than you need to, as a PPL, in a single engined light aircraft is poor airmanship. End of story.
If your precis ("To blame a slower aircraft for an accident when you have rocked up from his six at 420, late sighting followed by a departure from controlled flight due to control inputs that exceed the envelope and it's his fault?") is intended to summarise the Carno incident, then you are either a fool, or beneath my contempt, and your summary is inaccurate and misleading.
The Jaguar's departure was, according to the AAIB, caused by the fact that "the entire Jaguar wing detached from its fuselage mounting points", and the aircraft was doing 450 kts not 420 kts. (The rolling moment was imparted by the aircraft hitting the Cessna's engine).
Moreover, we know that the twit in the Cessna pilot was flying below 500 ft AGL (he was estimated to be at 350 ft - which would have required special dispensation from the CAA, which he didn't have), was almost certainly contravening rule 5, and was using a hand held camera through the left hand window, and had 'previous' illegal low flying 'form'.
(It seems likely that the camera was being held up to the window even as the Jaguar hit the Cessna, as it was found at the point of collision, whence it fell, and not in the Cessna wreckage).
These were the main factors in the accident, and that's why it was the Cessna pilot's fault.
And it was pi$$ poor airmanship, as the AAIB point out: "In the event of an engine failure at low level his chances of carrying out a successful forced landing must be considered to be remote." They also pointed out what some PPRuNers seem to have trouble grasping: "This activity was detrimental to his ability to keep a good lookout for other aircraft... it must be presumed that he was aware that he was flying over areas that were frequently used by low level military fast jets.
His airmanship may be further gauged by his failure to visit the tower, file a flight plan, or even to obtain a met forecast..... let alone to use the CANP.
"It is not possible to establish whether this was due to his ignorance of the procedure or an unwillingness to draw attention to draw official attention to his low flying activity."
And he killed himself, and John Mardon, all to try to sell some pictures of houses and holiday homes (a pointless and unnecessary activity) and hadn't the wit to separate the roles of photographer and pilot. His company was an outfit that didn't have an AOC, and that tried to avoid the aerial work definition by not directly paying its pilots.
Even this circus did issue some guidance, and directly required that they did not fly below 600 ft.
By contrast, according to the AAIB: "The Jaguar crew were alert and carrying out their training flight in a responsible and professional manner."
And you choose to defend the Cessna pilot?
Words fail me.
TSR22,
You seem like a sensible chap. I'm sure that Carno and the later Tornado/Cessna collision will give you pause for thought.
"Nothing wrong with it whatsoever if done properly and using a little common sense. I know a chap who makes a living out of doing just this."
If you seriously think that photography using a hand held camera in a solo cockpit is ok, then your username is most apposite, and I must congratulate you on its selection. But if that's what you do think, perhaps you could explain to me how flying one handed (at best) in an orbit, with no lookout, at low level, is anything other than sheer f*cking insanity?
Until then, I'm with the CAA, who judge that "using a hand held camera whilst flying a light aircraft... cannot be considered either prudent or in accordance with good airmanship."
They suggest that a "second pilot, dedicated camera operator and more suitable equipment would seem to be a much safer option."
If this is still too blooming difficult for you....
"A pilot who is manually flying a light aircraft with one hand whilst operating a camera through a side cabin window with his other hand cannot be considered to be able to maintain a proper lookout for other traffic.... his ability to take prompt avoiding action must be in serious doubt."
It astonishes and horrifies me that anyone interested enough in aviation to read and post on PPRuNe should be this clueless about the basics of airmanship.
If that's what your acquaintance does, then he is a tw@t. And if you're seriously defending him, then so are you.
Monty,
I suggested that 1,000 ft (or circuit height) ought to be a sensible minima for civvies, not 2,000 ft. This allows a margin, and avoids the 200-600 ft band at which most mil low flying takes place.
Though actually, 2,000 ft in a single engined light aircraft would seem to be a good height to allow (frequently rusty and less-than-current) PPLs enough time to plan and execute a proper forced landing if they get a technical problem. The AAIB observe that: "Pilots' abilities to cope safely with an engine failure, bird-strike, or even difficult wind conditions or down draughts while flying at such low levels (500 ft) must also be open to question."
Flying lower than you need to, as a PPL, in a single engined light aircraft is poor airmanship. End of story.
If your precis ("To blame a slower aircraft for an accident when you have rocked up from his six at 420, late sighting followed by a departure from controlled flight due to control inputs that exceed the envelope and it's his fault?") is intended to summarise the Carno incident, then you are either a fool, or beneath my contempt, and your summary is inaccurate and misleading.
The Jaguar's departure was, according to the AAIB, caused by the fact that "the entire Jaguar wing detached from its fuselage mounting points", and the aircraft was doing 450 kts not 420 kts. (The rolling moment was imparted by the aircraft hitting the Cessna's engine).
Moreover, we know that the twit in the Cessna pilot was flying below 500 ft AGL (he was estimated to be at 350 ft - which would have required special dispensation from the CAA, which he didn't have), was almost certainly contravening rule 5, and was using a hand held camera through the left hand window, and had 'previous' illegal low flying 'form'.
(It seems likely that the camera was being held up to the window even as the Jaguar hit the Cessna, as it was found at the point of collision, whence it fell, and not in the Cessna wreckage).
These were the main factors in the accident, and that's why it was the Cessna pilot's fault.
And it was pi$$ poor airmanship, as the AAIB point out: "In the event of an engine failure at low level his chances of carrying out a successful forced landing must be considered to be remote." They also pointed out what some PPRuNers seem to have trouble grasping: "This activity was detrimental to his ability to keep a good lookout for other aircraft... it must be presumed that he was aware that he was flying over areas that were frequently used by low level military fast jets.
His airmanship may be further gauged by his failure to visit the tower, file a flight plan, or even to obtain a met forecast..... let alone to use the CANP.
"It is not possible to establish whether this was due to his ignorance of the procedure or an unwillingness to draw attention to draw official attention to his low flying activity."
And he killed himself, and John Mardon, all to try to sell some pictures of houses and holiday homes (a pointless and unnecessary activity) and hadn't the wit to separate the roles of photographer and pilot. His company was an outfit that didn't have an AOC, and that tried to avoid the aerial work definition by not directly paying its pilots.
Even this circus did issue some guidance, and directly required that they did not fly below 600 ft.
By contrast, according to the AAIB: "The Jaguar crew were alert and carrying out their training flight in a responsible and professional manner."
And you choose to defend the Cessna pilot?
Words fail me.
TSR22,
You seem like a sensible chap. I'm sure that Carno and the later Tornado/Cessna collision will give you pause for thought.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 8th Mar 2009 at 20:28.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How was the flight ?
TSR22, so how did the flight go then ?
I applaud you for seeking advice here, shows you are taking safety and airmanship seriously.
I hope that others will not be too discouraged by the negative comments and feel able to ask questions without getting flamed
I applaud you for seeking advice here, shows you are taking safety and airmanship seriously.
I hope that others will not be too discouraged by the negative comments and feel able to ask questions without getting flamed
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR22
Did you manage to notify via CANP?
I tried it once - I don't usually do this sort of thing and haven't needed to since - and couldn't find a way to do it if the flight was not aerial work. But either I may have been wrongly advised or the system may have changed, so it would be useful to know.
Tim
Did you manage to notify via CANP?
I tried it once - I don't usually do this sort of thing and haven't needed to since - and couldn't find a way to do it if the flight was not aerial work. But either I may have been wrongly advised or the system may have changed, so it would be useful to know.
Tim
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonocko.
You're obviously carrying around a lot of anger. I wasn't referring to the Carno accident, so please don't try and portray me as someone who would defend the actions of the Cessna pilot in that instant. Inferring (incorrectly) what you did, combined with your general aggressive posts says more about you than me.
I was actually referring to an incident in the mid to late nineties when a Tucano found itself in the middle of a Harrier formation, one of whom departed controlled flight without any collision, trying to avoid the Tucano (who hadn't seen him/them). Can't remember the exact date or location, and can't be bothered to look for your benefit. And do you know what? I might not have the facts straight, but the point that FJ have the same onus of lookout as everyone else remains.I also stand to be corrected, but it sounds like you don't.
Nobody is saying it's clever to float about in a light aircraft at low level, solo, with a hand held camera. So do not come on here inferring that I do.
If you want to ban all light aircraft from transit in certain low level bands then crack on and lobby the CAA.
Good luck.
You're obviously carrying around a lot of anger. I wasn't referring to the Carno accident, so please don't try and portray me as someone who would defend the actions of the Cessna pilot in that instant. Inferring (incorrectly) what you did, combined with your general aggressive posts says more about you than me.
I was actually referring to an incident in the mid to late nineties when a Tucano found itself in the middle of a Harrier formation, one of whom departed controlled flight without any collision, trying to avoid the Tucano (who hadn't seen him/them). Can't remember the exact date or location, and can't be bothered to look for your benefit. And do you know what? I might not have the facts straight, but the point that FJ have the same onus of lookout as everyone else remains.I also stand to be corrected, but it sounds like you don't.
Nobody is saying it's clever to float about in a light aircraft at low level, solo, with a hand held camera. So do not come on here inferring that I do.
If you want to ban all light aircraft from transit in certain low level bands then crack on and lobby the CAA.
Good luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Up North where its cold like!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
Just a quick update to let you know that I am still alive!
The photo shoot went well (although one of my photographer friends vomited, and vomited, and vomited, and vomited....) Had to get a straight in approach when we arrived back. Opened all of the windows etc - it was unpleasant!!! I think that she had been looking through the viewfinder for the entire shoot as we circled, circled, circled......! Not suprising then that it resulted in that!
The suprise photo isn't a suprise anymore... My friend was standing there waving in his garden - he has a scanner and heard me call in...!
Just to calm down any further flaming: I didn't descend below 1000ft and never intended to (that was quite low enough for my liking and the pics don't get any better lower down - there would be no point in taking them from an aeroplane!!) and ATC were kept fully informed before and after (during the climbout) - I was transponding and they had full primary radar coverage so it was safe
.
I do hope that the civvie pilot bashing thing is only a minority - most of us do take safety very seriously, not wanting to hurt or inconvenience anyone. As for fast jets using the airspace - I fully support the excellent job that they do. I'm well aware of previous incidents and that is why I asked the question - it is nice to know what you are dealing with!!
I only wish that I was lucky enough to be able to drive those nice shiny jets!!
Again - thanks for the comments both good and bad!!!!
P.S. 1000ft always feels very low - so 250ft - you gotta be kidding!!!!!!
Just a quick update to let you know that I am still alive!
The photo shoot went well (although one of my photographer friends vomited, and vomited, and vomited, and vomited....) Had to get a straight in approach when we arrived back. Opened all of the windows etc - it was unpleasant!!! I think that she had been looking through the viewfinder for the entire shoot as we circled, circled, circled......! Not suprising then that it resulted in that!
The suprise photo isn't a suprise anymore... My friend was standing there waving in his garden - he has a scanner and heard me call in...!
Just to calm down any further flaming: I didn't descend below 1000ft and never intended to (that was quite low enough for my liking and the pics don't get any better lower down - there would be no point in taking them from an aeroplane!!) and ATC were kept fully informed before and after (during the climbout) - I was transponding and they had full primary radar coverage so it was safe
. I do hope that the civvie pilot bashing thing is only a minority - most of us do take safety very seriously, not wanting to hurt or inconvenience anyone. As for fast jets using the airspace - I fully support the excellent job that they do. I'm well aware of previous incidents and that is why I asked the question - it is nice to know what you are dealing with!!
I only wish that I was lucky enough to be able to drive those nice shiny jets!!Again - thanks for the comments both good and bad!!!!
P.S. 1000ft always feels very low - so 250ft - you gotta be kidding!!!!!!
Monty,
Thank you for the clarification.
I did say 'If' and I did ? whether you were defending the Carno twit.
I'm grateful to you for your unequivocal condemnation of him.
I don't demur from your overall conclusions on the Tucano/Harrier incident (the slower speed should perhaps have flagged up that we were not talking Jag) though I believe that some of the detail of your description is awry.
I do carry some anger about Carno, which represented a tragic and needless killing of a good man, and do detect a common thread in the collisions we've seen between military FJs and civil light aircraft engaged in air-to-ground photography.
I commend the OP for staying above 1,000 ft AGL and do not include him in my condemnation of the fools who don't do it properly.
Thank you for the clarification.
I did say 'If' and I did ? whether you were defending the Carno twit.
I'm grateful to you for your unequivocal condemnation of him.
I don't demur from your overall conclusions on the Tucano/Harrier incident (the slower speed should perhaps have flagged up that we were not talking Jag) though I believe that some of the detail of your description is awry.
I do carry some anger about Carno, which represented a tragic and needless killing of a good man, and do detect a common thread in the collisions we've seen between military FJs and civil light aircraft engaged in air-to-ground photography.
I commend the OP for staying above 1,000 ft AGL and do not include him in my condemnation of the fools who don't do it properly.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monty, your summation of the 'cause' of the Tucano/Harrier (Northumberland) incident is pretty much how it happened and goes to show that even with thorough pre-flight planning, good training and a number of sets of eyes looking out, close calls still happen. It tends to be incidents where something unfortunate happens that steal the front pages. Given the amount of LL traffic that occurs over the UK Mon-Fri the number of AIRPROXs and serious incidents are actually low and in my own flying career I can say that I've 'seen and avoided' many more times than I've been 'brown-trousered' by a close call and of those, none have been civilian GA.
The Carno guy had a poor track record and on a number of occasions displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules whilst flying PIC. As such the incident was wholly avoidable weeks, month, even years before the collision happened but I bet few people actually DID anything significant about his antics. As has already been said, we all have a duty to look after each other in this game and TSR22's open and honest request for advice should be commended and nobody should tarnish him with the same brush
.
The Carno guy had a poor track record and on a number of occasions displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules whilst flying PIC. As such the incident was wholly avoidable weeks, month, even years before the collision happened but I bet few people actually DID anything significant about his antics. As has already been said, we all have a duty to look after each other in this game and TSR22's open and honest request for advice should be commended
and nobody should tarnish him with the same brush.
TCAS has value for everyone flying at low level.
My experience was flying a legal and notified low level flight in my civil aircraft, TCAS alerted the presence of two aircraft which were not immediately identified due to the visibility and their camouflage (2 x Tornado). TCAS enabled awareness, a direction in which to focus attention, and after contact confirmation that safe separation was being maintained.
I doubt that they saw us, more usually the presence of a 4 engine airliner at 250 ft gets a wing wave or a quick formation / fly-by with a ‘what are you doing down here? look’.
I would have thought that the military would embrace benefits of TCAS to alert the presence of traffic. In peacetime, another aircraft is just as much a threat as a missile / gun carrying fighter in wartime, either one hurts if you are hit by them.
Similarly, a wider spectrum of civil aircraft should consider the cost/benefit of TCAS; flying is expensive, but so is dieing.
My experience was flying a legal and notified low level flight in my civil aircraft, TCAS alerted the presence of two aircraft which were not immediately identified due to the visibility and their camouflage (2 x Tornado). TCAS enabled awareness, a direction in which to focus attention, and after contact confirmation that safe separation was being maintained.
I doubt that they saw us, more usually the presence of a 4 engine airliner at 250 ft gets a wing wave or a quick formation / fly-by with a ‘what are you doing down here? look’.
I would have thought that the military would embrace benefits of TCAS to alert the presence of traffic. In peacetime, another aircraft is just as much a threat as a missile / gun carrying fighter in wartime, either one hurts if you are hit by them.
Similarly, a wider spectrum of civil aircraft should consider the cost/benefit of TCAS; flying is expensive, but so is dieing.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey all.
Heres a question.
I believe Mil Traffic book into low fly areas before departing. Is there anyway as a PPL to find out what is booked in a particular area?
I know the MOD run a hotline for helicopters for the general public, as they can scare horses and cause them to bolt, but is there a way to find out re fast jets?
Regards.
Heres a question.
I believe Mil Traffic book into low fly areas before departing. Is there anyway as a PPL to find out what is booked in a particular area?
I know the MOD run a hotline for helicopters for the general public, as they can scare horses and cause them to bolt, but is there a way to find out re fast jets?
Regards.
Sorry to butt in on this interesting thread but I feel this might be a good place to remind people that "Mig alley north bound" (and also south bound past Waddo and through the 'gap') is the frequent stomping ground of a busy little yellow air ambulance!
Averaging 3 trips a day, most of them involving a field landing and t/o in the fast jet corridors and then an 8-10 min transit (at 500ft) we vertically cross and recross the FJ band an awful lot. Can't do anything warning wise about the short notice ad hoc landing and t/o locations but the general 500ft transit is a decision made after three air proxes (1999-2000) These all occured above 500ft.
At 500ft, in this area of intense mil and civ activity, we generally have just one type of traffic (250 ft low level mil) to look out for. 500 ft keeps us under the busy mil instrument patterns, and mostly clear of the gliders (eg Syerston) GA traffic, Sandtoft, Sturgate, Wickenby, Fenland and the traffic from a multitude of farm strips.
Our eyeballs are on stalks, we make full use of TCAS with range, bearing and azimuth voice alert and the mil ATC are really helpful. We haven't relaxed one little bit and we always expect the unexpected!
For example: the other day, descending through 400ft, shooting an approach to a HEMS site in the middle of the congested area of Newark, a fast jet 1000ft avoid area, a Cessna type civ (non squawking, so no TCAS alert) passed directly under us at an estimated height of 300ft!
.
Averaging 3 trips a day, most of them involving a field landing and t/o in the fast jet corridors and then an 8-10 min transit (at 500ft) we vertically cross and recross the FJ band an awful lot. Can't do anything warning wise about the short notice ad hoc landing and t/o locations but the general 500ft transit is a decision made after three air proxes (1999-2000) These all occured above 500ft.
At 500ft, in this area of intense mil and civ activity, we generally have just one type of traffic (250 ft low level mil) to look out for. 500 ft keeps us under the busy mil instrument patterns, and mostly clear of the gliders (eg Syerston) GA traffic, Sandtoft, Sturgate, Wickenby, Fenland and the traffic from a multitude of farm strips.
Our eyeballs are on stalks, we make full use of TCAS with range, bearing and azimuth voice alert and the mil ATC are really helpful. We haven't relaxed one little bit and we always expect the unexpected!
For example: the other day, descending through 400ft, shooting an approach to a HEMS site in the middle of the congested area of Newark, a fast jet 1000ft avoid area, a Cessna type civ (non squawking, so no TCAS alert) passed directly under us at an estimated height of 300ft!
.
Last edited by Bertie Thruster; 8th Mar 2009 at 20:05. Reason: added 'voice alert' (no need to look in at the TCAS display)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS has value for everyone flying at low level
I think you misunderstand what TCAS is. It's just another system which brings another set of information into the cockpit. It's down to the user to make best use of the information provided. TCAS was designed and optimised for the use of large airliners flying within CAS, not for military aircraft flying at low level. Suppose we came face to face in a valley somewhere? Would your TCAS have seen my squawk through the granite?
The flip-side of the benefits of any extra system which brings information into the cockpit is that a part of the crew mental capacity must be given over to processing that information. There is a particular danger with respect to any information which is presented visually - like a TCAS display. Time spend heads-in is time which can't be spent looking out. Lookout is what saves you from almost every threat at low level. Birds don't squawk (well...you know what I mean!), neither do hang gliders, paragliders, unmanned captive balloons, suspended power cables, infra-red guided missiles or enemy aircraft.
As I said in my previous post, TCAS has potential value which merits investigation. But it's not the right system for everybody!As always; lookout. He who sees, avoids!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Ejection seats have a far longer track record of saving aircrew lives than TCAS. Does your "civil aircraft" have ejection seats fitted? No?! How can you be so unsafe!
To be fair, only one side of the equation needs TCAS - as long as the other pilot squawks something it at least gives an alert in one cockpit out of the two aircraft.
And by the way, most TCAS units have audio alerting too so it's not essential to have eyes inside for long. Of course, we all know that steely-eyed military pilots can take in so much information at a glance inside, that a peep at the TCAS screen can be done in a fraction of a second. Or get their back seater to do it for them.