Air miss at Lossiemouth
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air miss at Lossiemouth
BBC News has reported an air miss at Lossiemouth between Typhoon/Tornado which reportedly came within 300' of each other. What stands out is the claim the collision warning system didn't work apparently because "it was still warming up". Eh??
Full report here. I've not heard of TCAS warmup either but it is talked about in the report. Seems to me as if the root cause was the silly decision to make Lossiemouth 05 a right-hand circuit - it's back to left-hand now, as it had been for donkey's years before the Typhoons arrived and had to change something 
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Pilot members were completely astonished that there was not a standard procedure that aircraft occupying the runway should be called to joining formations at their initials call.
Just saying what? Do you even know how TCAS works on departure and recovery?
I am astonished that they could find a collection of controllers who didn't think a departing stream of aircraft were relevant traffic for a 4-ship on the break. Given that the passage of such information is both routine and expected I agree with the board regarding the pivotal role this had in this incident.
I also think the Typhoon pilot did well picking up the confliction from an obscured aspect whilst juggling his position, formation and noise abatement requirements. It is so easy for your scan to focus on the 3 playmates ahead and not spot the shark coming from below.
The Tornado crew didn't have much chance and in truth their IFR clearance didn't offer any protection and I have no idea what the Secretariat was trying to say when they stated that the Tornado and Typhoon shared an equal responsibility for collision avoidance.
I am astonished that they could find a collection of controllers who didn't think a departing stream of aircraft were relevant traffic for a 4-ship on the break. Given that the passage of such information is both routine and expected I agree with the board regarding the pivotal role this had in this incident.
I also think the Typhoon pilot did well picking up the confliction from an obscured aspect whilst juggling his position, formation and noise abatement requirements. It is so easy for your scan to focus on the 3 playmates ahead and not spot the shark coming from below.
The Tornado crew didn't have much chance and in truth their IFR clearance didn't offer any protection and I have no idea what the Secretariat was trying to say when they stated that the Tornado and Typhoon shared an equal responsibility for collision avoidance.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Agree with all the ATC-related comments above [and the UKAB report, of course].
BEagle has said exactly what I would have said, and I would have expected any ATCO to have said that too.
BEagle has said exactly what I would have said, and I would have expected any ATCO to have said that too.
I agree with Beags! Good airmanship all round would avoid any conflict! Maybe our modern Air Force is not used to a multi aircraft circuit?
Last edited by newt; 28th Jan 2017 at 18:54.
Being pendantic as an ex Controller, I would not have said 'clear join', just callsign join, 2 on for departure. If the joining aircraft are not visual in the 'visual circuit, back to Approach for Radar recoveries.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
All controllers should be pedantic, KPax 
I could offer "... 2 on for stream/trail departure" for maximum pedantry.
I used to have a 'bad habit' [technically] of actually 'controlling' the visual circuit. But with mixed traffic speeds ranging from Single Pin to Lightning, I always felt a bit of 'constructive intervention' was appropriate at times.
I never broke the habit on subsequent tours, and never incurred the wrath of the ATCEEB either.
I could offer "... 2 on for stream/trail departure" for maximum pedantry.
I used to have a 'bad habit' [technically] of actually 'controlling' the visual circuit. But with mixed traffic speeds ranging from Single Pin to Lightning, I always felt a bit of 'constructive intervention' was appropriate at times.
I never broke the habit on subsequent tours, and never incurred the wrath of the ATCEEB either.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great airmanship but, very, very poor ATC. The fact that the controller perceived the severity as 'low' is astonishing and a clear sign that he didn't understand the significance of the event.
Sorry to say this but that shows that ATC let the side down. There is no reason why a local controller should not have informed the aircraft joining through initials of the pair on for departure/departing. As aircraft calls initials, atc give him info on what he is likely to encounter and prioritised so that the ones nearest him are called first.
A "circuit clear, two on for departure" , or even "circuit clear, two departing" would have sorted this and given typhoon crews chance for a clearer picture.
A "circuit clear, two on for departure" , or even "circuit clear, two departing" would have sorted this and given typhoon crews chance for a clearer picture.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controller's failure to pass information on relevant traffic appears to be the principal root cause. However, had he spotted the conflict as it developed, he may have been unable warn the Tornados because they had switched to the departure frequency almost immediately after take-off. It is not clear if that was their clearance on this occasion, but nevertheless the custom is widepsread across the RAF despite not being compliant with CAP413. Unless the departure clearance otherwise instructs, if you are still in the ATZ you should remain on the tower frequency until instructed to transfer by the aerodrome controller.
What sort of "TCAS" do the RAF use? is it the all singing/dancing type that tells you what to do to avoid the impending collision, or is the type that just tells you there is an aircraft nearby?
We had the second type on our Police helicopter, and it was not uncommon for aircraft to suddenly appear a couple of miles away(having not been seen prior), not show at all, or be indicated on the wrong bearing.
We had the second type on our Police helicopter, and it was not uncommon for aircraft to suddenly appear a couple of miles away(having not been seen prior), not show at all, or be indicated on the wrong bearing.
Originally Posted by MPN11
I could offer "... 2 on for stream/trail departure" for maximum pedantry.
And I would imagine a Typhoon pilot might want to know it's a Tornado on for departure since the aircraft performance immediately after take-off (speed/angle and rate of climb) are markedly different from the Typhoon.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
j a j ... Concur fully. I don't call it 'pedantry' in a serious sense [just responding in kind to KPax] but, as you say, it's 'essential information' which should be fine-tuned to the circumstances prevailing at the time. In this instance the difference between a pairs departure and a 30-sec stream turned out to be a critical factor in Typhoon #4's SA.
I fully take your point about the relevance of aircraft type too, specially as my old brain still managed to recognise quickly the scenario that was developing. The challenge facing ATCOs is, of course, whether to talk too much when passing information.
I fully take your point about the relevance of aircraft type too, specially as my old brain still managed to recognise quickly the scenario that was developing. The challenge facing ATCOs is, of course, whether to talk too much when passing information.