"2 RAF personnel killed in mid-air collision" today
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a few pounds spent on overtime for ATC and a manouvering block in the MATZ would be money well spent?
The MATZ only goes up to 2000 feet and aerobatics are not to be conducted below 3000 feet, so a manoeuvring block in the MATZ is a non-starter. If you tried to get a dedicated manoeuvring block established above the MATZ, you'd have a riot on your hands from the civvie world.
Anyway, trying to get all the UAS and AEF aircraft that are airborne at any one time to do their aerobatics in an area as small as the MATZ would result in a large number of close calls to say the least, especially if you were talking about operating in/above the home base (Benson) MATZ. If you were suggesting that the aircraft transit from Benson to Lyneham, by the time the AEF Tutor had flown the 30 (ish) miles, it would be time to turn round and go home.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that I've also seen the graphic of flight tracks to which Windy Militant is referring.
Whether it's genuine or not remains to be seen. Certainly the AAIB called for glider logger traces for the area at the time of the accident, so I am sure that they are building, or have built up a graphic of flight tracks in the area similar to the one I've seen.
Genuine picture or not, there is no denying that the corridor between the Brize zone, Benson and the Luton zone (not between Brize and Lyneham, Windy) gets very busy, especially on a good soaring day. It is a classic example of the "squeeze effect" of controlled airspace on GA flights
The collision point was right in the middle of the corridor.
The graphic in question shows very clearly that there were areas of far less crowded air to the east of Benson. Overhead the Brize and Lyneham zones were almost totally deserted. Irrespective of the provenance of this particular graphic, I suspect that the reality on the day matched the picture.
Benson's just taken a beating in the Puma inquest. In the collision inquest I suspect that questions will be asked about the decision making process which led to an AEF flight being conducted where it was. It could be another bad session for the RAF.
Whether it's genuine or not remains to be seen. Certainly the AAIB called for glider logger traces for the area at the time of the accident, so I am sure that they are building, or have built up a graphic of flight tracks in the area similar to the one I've seen.
Genuine picture or not, there is no denying that the corridor between the Brize zone, Benson and the Luton zone (not between Brize and Lyneham, Windy) gets very busy, especially on a good soaring day. It is a classic example of the "squeeze effect" of controlled airspace on GA flights
The collision point was right in the middle of the corridor.
The graphic in question shows very clearly that there were areas of far less crowded air to the east of Benson. Overhead the Brize and Lyneham zones were almost totally deserted. Irrespective of the provenance of this particular graphic, I suspect that the reality on the day matched the picture.
Benson's just taken a beating in the Puma inquest. In the collision inquest I suspect that questions will be asked about the decision making process which led to an AEF flight being conducted where it was. It could be another bad session for the RAF.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep didn't think that through I'd forgotten the 3000' foot rule. I seem to recall a block system being operated by Benson with regard to UAS flights in years gone by though. I'd presume similar would be employed for AEF.
Edited to add it was Brize, Lyneham and Heathrow Zone. The Stream was Heaviest along the Eastern side of the zones which put it over Sutton Courtney as they cut from one to the other. But the stream did straggle out as far as Booker.
Edited to add it was Brize, Lyneham and Heathrow Zone. The Stream was Heaviest along the Eastern side of the zones which put it over Sutton Courtney as they cut from one to the other. But the stream did straggle out as far as Booker.
Last edited by Windy Militant; 27th Oct 2009 at 12:51.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
astir8 is right about the squeeze effect of controlled airspace, including (to some extent) MATZs. I wasn't flying my glider XC that day, but the previous night I'd planned a potential flight which would have passed through the accident area.
Because gliders need to plan for the possibility of getting as low as 800 ft or so, they will tend to avoid controlled airspace - if you're down at ATZ level you're rather too busy to want to talk to ATC. In that area there is quite a narrow corridor of usable (800ft to cloudbase) airspace.
The day in question was one of the best of the year for gliding, and from the club where I was flying I estaimate that something between 30 and 50 gliders transited the corridor. This is just one gliding club, though a fairly large one. I suspect the plot might just be all the glider flights transiting that corridor, which could easily have been in the 100s for that 90 minute period. Nowhere else usable to go in that direction.
Because gliders need to plan for the possibility of getting as low as 800 ft or so, they will tend to avoid controlled airspace - if you're down at ATZ level you're rather too busy to want to talk to ATC. In that area there is quite a narrow corridor of usable (800ft to cloudbase) airspace.
The day in question was one of the best of the year for gliding, and from the club where I was flying I estaimate that something between 30 and 50 gliders transited the corridor. This is just one gliding club, though a fairly large one. I suspect the plot might just be all the glider flights transiting that corridor, which could easily have been in the 100s for that 90 minute period. Nowhere else usable to go in that direction.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
climb rate
How long does a G115E take to get to aerobatic height in time and distance terms?
How long are most AEF sorties?
Traffic density can be reduced by operating further away & higher from base.
Most PPL powered a/c seem to stay below 2500 feet in England.
How long are most AEF sorties?
Traffic density can be reduced by operating further away & higher from base.
Most PPL powered a/c seem to stay below 2500 feet in England.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum height for aeros = 3000 ft MSD, so we are already operating above your 2500 ft.
At Max AUW:
Time to 4000 ft = 5.4 minutes.
Distance = 7.1 nm.
Time to 6000 ft = 8.7 minutes.
Distance = 11.5 nm.
AEF sortie length = 25 minutes.
However, you can extend the sortie to enable you to go to a less 'populated' area to increase the safety margins.
At some AEF bases it almost wouldn't matter how far away you went, the air would still be filled with aircraft at times, but of course we do operate where we believe there will be the least traffic. Nothing can be guaranteed though in terms of numbers of aircraft in the area you choose on the day and at the time. Good lookout (and the use of a Traffic Service) is your only saviour, as it is in most aircraft and on most types of sorties.
At Max AUW:
Time to 4000 ft = 5.4 minutes.
Distance = 7.1 nm.
Time to 6000 ft = 8.7 minutes.
Distance = 11.5 nm.
AEF sortie length = 25 minutes.
However, you can extend the sortie to enable you to go to a less 'populated' area to increase the safety margins.
At some AEF bases it almost wouldn't matter how far away you went, the air would still be filled with aircraft at times, but of course we do operate where we believe there will be the least traffic. Nothing can be guaranteed though in terms of numbers of aircraft in the area you choose on the day and at the time. Good lookout (and the use of a Traffic Service) is your only saviour, as it is in most aircraft and on most types of sorties.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Back in the Black Country
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A classic example of a series of errors in the system all arranging themselves in a row.
Wasn't there a flight safety film about that, once upon a time?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I hope the SDR doesn't mean the end of AEF flights but I fear it might. These flights are the catalyst for many young cadets dreams, my own included. On my computer I have a picture of the BBMF Chipmunks, one of which I believe I flew in at Manston. Whether I did or not that flight is a precious memory, the smells, sights sounds of that day still there.
I wouldn't stop my son taking the opportunity for such a flight and I'd have every faith in those he flew with.
I wouldn't stop my son taking the opportunity for such a flight and I'd have every faith in those he flew with.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say it all depends on what happens to the UAS system - If the UAS system goes, the AEF system goes. However at least the ACO have the benefit of their own motor / winch glider fleet. it may have to be re-profiled / tasked, and perhaps extra resources (if they're available - ha!) pushed into them, but arguably flying in the ACO would likely still continue.
Mind you, without flying, what would be the point of the ACO?!
Something for a different thread perhaps?
The report made very sobering reading.
Mind you, without flying, what would be the point of the ACO?!
Something for a different thread perhaps?The report made very sobering reading.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fincastle - yes there is a video, cadets are supposed to watch before they go to the AEF, then watch it again on arrival; the problem is that kids just switch off, thinking it will never happen to them.
Interestingly enough, my daugther was flying a couple of weeks later at her AEF and she said everyone sat quietly watching the video, engrossed in the emergency procedures.
But, TBH, if you read the report in total, no cadet would have got out in time at the altitude and angle of descent, panic would have set in and with the limited mobility of the pilot would have reduced the actions in the cockpit.
RIP both.
Interestingly enough, my daugther was flying a couple of weeks later at her AEF and she said everyone sat quietly watching the video, engrossed in the emergency procedures.
But, TBH, if you read the report in total, no cadet would have got out in time at the altitude and angle of descent, panic would have set in and with the limited mobility of the pilot would have reduced the actions in the cockpit.
RIP both.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid Air 2009 Tutor / Glider
I hope that this accident and the parallel Grob Tutor incident in S Wales in 2009, does not sound the death knell for Air Cadet sorties, although I have felt for a long time that the AEF's are poor value overall when compared to the VGS provision in both financial terms and added value terms.
As has been said earlier in recent remarks on this thread, there are many links in the causal chain, - BUT.............the inescapable conclusion here should have been that the AEF Pilot was medically unfit by reason of Ankylosing Spondylitis/restricted head/neck movement and thus should have been grounded permanently as far as RAF flying was concerned and arguably as far as PPL flying was concerned. Everything else pales into insignificance if we clearly see that a pilot was unfit for purpose - i.e., restricted head and neck movement QED !
Neck and head mobility and reported difficulty with scan patterns whilst under review, when completing checks at 115 Sqn Cranwell should have been a sufficient signal and for the possible medical chop ride - indeed the SMO gave evidence to the effect that he himself would have insisted on carrying out the checks himself had he been aware of previous reports.
Many people in the "chain" were well aware of his medical issues, but he slid easily through the net. Training reports highlighted the crucial issue, Medical reports were plentiful and comprehensive but nontheless he managed to continue.
Many of the other issues raised are valid - yes of course, but you cannot allow a system to continue where impaired pilots are allowed to continue - maybe, arguably in a two crew aircraft, but not where the px is unqualified.
As a side issue, I don't see anywhere in the report the stated pilot checks that should have carried out before proceeding with/continuing his aero's.
An urgent recommendation missed here surely should be a review of ALL AEF pilot's medical files within 3 months maximum, including a complete trawl of ALL earlier RAF medical reports. Do it now to avoid another unecessary tragedy ! And for those who may be grounded, retire with a good record !
As has been said earlier in recent remarks on this thread, there are many links in the causal chain, - BUT.............the inescapable conclusion here should have been that the AEF Pilot was medically unfit by reason of Ankylosing Spondylitis/restricted head/neck movement and thus should have been grounded permanently as far as RAF flying was concerned and arguably as far as PPL flying was concerned. Everything else pales into insignificance if we clearly see that a pilot was unfit for purpose - i.e., restricted head and neck movement QED !
Neck and head mobility and reported difficulty with scan patterns whilst under review, when completing checks at 115 Sqn Cranwell should have been a sufficient signal and for the possible medical chop ride - indeed the SMO gave evidence to the effect that he himself would have insisted on carrying out the checks himself had he been aware of previous reports.
Many people in the "chain" were well aware of his medical issues, but he slid easily through the net. Training reports highlighted the crucial issue, Medical reports were plentiful and comprehensive but nontheless he managed to continue.
Many of the other issues raised are valid - yes of course, but you cannot allow a system to continue where impaired pilots are allowed to continue - maybe, arguably in a two crew aircraft, but not where the px is unqualified.
As a side issue, I don't see anywhere in the report the stated pilot checks that should have carried out before proceeding with/continuing his aero's.
An urgent recommendation missed here surely should be a review of ALL AEF pilot's medical files within 3 months maximum, including a complete trawl of ALL earlier RAF medical reports. Do it now to avoid another unecessary tragedy ! And for those who may be grounded, retire with a good record !
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mother of air cadet killed in this mid air receives MoD out-of-court payout
BBC News - Mother of killed air cadet receives MoD out-of-court payout
BBC News - Mother of killed air cadet receives MoD out-of-court payout
