C-17 Near Miss
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: oxon
Age: 52
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 Near Miss
Not sure if this has been covered already ?
BBC News - Planes came within 100ft of crash over Oxfordshire
A day I won't soon forget !
BBC News - Planes came within 100ft of crash over Oxfordshire
A day I won't soon forget !
The incident is detailed in AIRPROX REPORT No 2009-044.
See http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/...sedAirprox.pdf .
Although the actions of the Glasair pilot in attempting to avoid conflict visually seem incorrect according to the Rules of the Air, this needs to be put into perspective. The actions of the ATC unit were not particularly helpful.....it wouldn't provide even a Basic Service to the Glasair crew.
How many times have GA pilots been unable to pass their details to that unit due to ATC 'capacity limits'? Being unable to advise crossing above the CTR because that ATC unit is maxxed out providing LARS to people miles away is a fairly typical event, in my experience.
It should also be noted that the hold in which ATC had positioned the C-17 is NOT in protected airspace.....
See http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/...sedAirprox.pdf .
Although the actions of the Glasair pilot in attempting to avoid conflict visually seem incorrect according to the Rules of the Air, this needs to be put into perspective. The actions of the ATC unit were not particularly helpful.....it wouldn't provide even a Basic Service to the Glasair crew.
How many times have GA pilots been unable to pass their details to that unit due to ATC 'capacity limits'? Being unable to advise crossing above the CTR because that ATC unit is maxxed out providing LARS to people miles away is a fairly typical event, in my experience.
It should also be noted that the hold in which ATC had positioned the C-17 is NOT in protected airspace.....
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Jan 2010 at 07:57.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am suprise the subject of wake vortex wasn't mentioned in the report.
At the time the light aircraft was flying into the rising sun although that time of year it would be quite high I can quite understand the visual view of thinking you are actually the same level if not below of a slightly lower aircraft. I have put the de-icing gear on enough times thinking I was going into cloud to find that I was actually above it to know that I would be fooled as well.
Now as to the point of going behined the aircraft believing that you are below it. C17 is big and heavy in my book and flying a small plastic pig your small and light, 6 miles to be safe. Although decending to avoid is contray to the rules of the air if you believed you were below it going close behind you would be setting yourself up for a fatal wake vortex incident if you followed the rules of the air.
Now not absolving the GA of all blame I would question his choice of route to fly through a hold of a busy field without getting a service with the airfield. But this isn't purely an issue with Mil fields, it is also an issue with civi airfields in class G where VFR pilots don't have a clue what the instrument procedures are. But technically he is perfectly legal to do this.
Although this is another issue because the Mil fields don't publish thier plates on the AIS website so civi pilots have no access to where the holds are even if they do know what they mean.
Thank goodness for TCAS. And I believe not all aircraft operating into Brize have it. Another day a different aircraft, a different outcome.
At the time the light aircraft was flying into the rising sun although that time of year it would be quite high I can quite understand the visual view of thinking you are actually the same level if not below of a slightly lower aircraft. I have put the de-icing gear on enough times thinking I was going into cloud to find that I was actually above it to know that I would be fooled as well.
Now as to the point of going behined the aircraft believing that you are below it. C17 is big and heavy in my book and flying a small plastic pig your small and light, 6 miles to be safe. Although decending to avoid is contray to the rules of the air if you believed you were below it going close behind you would be setting yourself up for a fatal wake vortex incident if you followed the rules of the air.
Now not absolving the GA of all blame I would question his choice of route to fly through a hold of a busy field without getting a service with the airfield. But this isn't purely an issue with Mil fields, it is also an issue with civi airfields in class G where VFR pilots don't have a clue what the instrument procedures are. But technically he is perfectly legal to do this.
Although this is another issue because the Mil fields don't publish thier plates on the AIS website so civi pilots have no access to where the holds are even if they do know what they mean.
Thank goodness for TCAS. And I believe not all aircraft operating into Brize have it. Another day a different aircraft, a different outcome.
A good point about being unable to obtain the Mil AIP on line any more - it was available until recently, but is no longer so.
If the 'hold' isn't published, how can it be avoided? Also, the abject failure of the ATCU to provide a Basic Service is highly significant.
Whoever attends the next MCASD should ask why the Mil AIP is no longer available on line and mention that this Airprox could perhaps have been avoided entirely if the GA pilot had been able to plan a route avoiding the hold.
One could, if so disposed, indulge in aerobatics over Chedworth disused aerodrome. I know that wouldn't be a terribly clever idea, but how many other GA pilots would know that?
Another point worth considering is that the 'LARS' frequency is often too busy to call for a simple zone crossing - or to advise crossing above the zone. The VHF frequency exists; however, I suspect manning constraints preclude separate controllers being used for 'LARS' and 'zone'. Brize aerodrome itself is rarely, if ever 'busy' these days; however Brize ATC frequently is.
If the 'hold' isn't published, how can it be avoided? Also, the abject failure of the ATCU to provide a Basic Service is highly significant.
Whoever attends the next MCASD should ask why the Mil AIP is no longer available on line and mention that this Airprox could perhaps have been avoided entirely if the GA pilot had been able to plan a route avoiding the hold.
One could, if so disposed, indulge in aerobatics over Chedworth disused aerodrome. I know that wouldn't be a terribly clever idea, but how many other GA pilots would know that?
Another point worth considering is that the 'LARS' frequency is often too busy to call for a simple zone crossing - or to advise crossing above the zone. The VHF frequency exists; however, I suspect manning constraints preclude separate controllers being used for 'LARS' and 'zone'. Brize aerodrome itself is rarely, if ever 'busy' these days; however Brize ATC frequently is.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats your views on passing close behind a C-17 in a light aircraft?
wouldn't fancy it myself in my 10 ton TP.
There seem to be quite a few very costly issues in both man power and service provision/information which have been side stepped by saying the GA pilot didn't follow the rules of the air.
And personally if I was in his situation I don't think I would have turned behind it either due to votex considerations. But its very easy to say that sitting in the comfort of ones livingroom.
wouldn't fancy it myself in my 10 ton TP.
There seem to be quite a few very costly issues in both man power and service provision/information which have been side stepped by saying the GA pilot didn't follow the rules of the air.
And personally if I was in his situation I don't think I would have turned behind it either due to votex considerations. But its very easy to say that sitting in the comfort of ones livingroom.
