Spitfire and Chinook near-miss
AIRMISS ?
May I suggest an alternative version of events:
Spitfire joins for his normal impressive air show arrival 'beat- up ' and at the last moment seeing a nice fat target decides to ' wake it up !
The innocent Chinook ( who did everything right ) takes umbrage and files an airmiss.
However was there any real danger of a collision ? I think NOT - unless the helo ( which was probably thought to be on the ground ) suddenly rotated into the path of the oncoming Spit - and even then the alert Spit pilot with a quick twitch of his sensitive controls would have avoided trouble.
Whilst not condoning what was obviously a very irresponsible action , thinking back in the distant past I can think of many similar events such as Lightings in reheat beating up Vulcans on the ORP , and Vulcans having ' a go ' at innocent Camel Trains and Sanpans !! Or Nimrods waking up unsuspecting container ships etc etc !
The real fright comes when ,usually flying VFR in a low sun,smoke or heat haze an aircraft,glider or balloon flashes by totally unseen until too late!
Spitfire joins for his normal impressive air show arrival 'beat- up ' and at the last moment seeing a nice fat target decides to ' wake it up !
The innocent Chinook ( who did everything right ) takes umbrage and files an airmiss.
However was there any real danger of a collision ? I think NOT - unless the helo ( which was probably thought to be on the ground ) suddenly rotated into the path of the oncoming Spit - and even then the alert Spit pilot with a quick twitch of his sensitive controls would have avoided trouble.
Whilst not condoning what was obviously a very irresponsible action , thinking back in the distant past I can think of many similar events such as Lightings in reheat beating up Vulcans on the ORP , and Vulcans having ' a go ' at innocent Camel Trains and Sanpans !! Or Nimrods waking up unsuspecting container ships etc etc !
The real fright comes when ,usually flying VFR in a low sun,smoke or heat haze an aircraft,glider or balloon flashes by totally unseen until too late!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
MPN11 a lot of your so called "heroes" are ex RAF, RN and Army.
IMHO Shoreham and the response is all wrong, the main difference at Shoreham was that people not attending were killed and that was a first, those attending by purchasing a ticket agree to a set of conditions laid out in the terms and one is they accept that shows are inherently dangerous so agree to accepting personal liability in attending. The changes however have moved the displays away from the crowd who have accepted that risk, to often outside the airfield boundary where those that haven't reside and they were the main the reason for the changes after Shoreham being brought about, thus it has failed at the first hurdle to protect those people it intended to protect.
...
Last edited by NutLoose; 22nd Nov 2018 at 22:14.
It takes Radar and Transponder Data to convince the Board???
A Military Aircrew, Tower Operator and the Thousand eye Witnesses cannot suffice....really?
Not to mention the Offenders very own narrative?
Time to break some Rice Bowls folks!
A Military Aircrew, Tower Operator and the Thousand eye Witnesses cannot suffice....really?
Not to mention the Offenders very own narrative?
Time to break some Rice Bowls folks!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Without the civilian participation Cosfords airshow would be over in ten minutes, sad but a fact, when I went one year (2016?) it started with a formation drive by down the runway of the fire engines, meat wagons and the pardre, I instinctively knew the flying side of it was going to be sh*te and they proved me correct.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,616
Received 291 Likes
on
159 Posts
OK Hawker Restorations have bought back his nice "Hurribomber" and are modifying it to two seat status which may seem a shame - but it was a genuine field modification I believe, plus the aircraft in question is a CCF built XII rebuilt from a scrap centre section and not the aircraft it purported to be.
I think it's great to have the chance to fly in a Spitfire, a Mustang, a 109 (alright a Buchon) and soon a Hurricane. It seems he doesn't agree. Rather sniffy in my opinion.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
In my military fixed wing days I was involved in an airprox (called an "airmiss" back then) where another pilot breached the ATZ by flying at 90 degrees across the climb out lane, apparently following a line feature to another airfield. When traced and subsequently asked to make a report he made it very plain that he had been flying the same route for thirty years without speaking to ATC and he seemed very much offended that a) anyone thought he shouldn't be allowed to do so and b) I hadn't identified his aircraft by exact make and model (not surprising because all I saw was the side of a blue and white tail fin pass right across my nose and it was over in a split second). The other pilot obviously hadn't seen me at all. He initially denied being involved until told he had been traced to landing. He had been watched in binoculars by ATC at the airfield I was flying from until he landed a few miles away. The ATC agency at the other airfield were contacted at the time to confirm who had just landed. The incident was confirmed on radar.
I had no chance to take avoiding action but it was still classed as a "B" incident (safety of flight not assured) by the AIRPROX board. I learned from it but I doubt the other pilot, a grumpy old duffer by all accounts, would learn anything from it at all.
I don't think a NATS controller would clear an aircraft for a run and break if the runway was occupied and I can very much sympathise with the Spitfire pilots idea that 'the runway was his'.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
I don't think a NATS controller would clear an aircraft for a run and break if the runway was occupied and I can very much sympathise with the Spitfire pilots idea that 'the runway was his'.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
NATS Controller, are you? Or what? Oh, Commercial ... OK, out of your comfort zone.
No Military Controller would ever consider that perspective. But then the Military Controller in this case didn't look out at what was happening anyway! A VRIAB should be above 500', not 50'. Simples!
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a NATS controller would clear an aircraft for a run and break if the runway was occupied and I can very much sympathise with the Spitfire pilots idea that 'the runway was his'.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
A DA is not an authorisation to low fly. It is an exemption from the low flying rules whilst displaying. This aircraft was NOT displaying.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
was quite surprised to see him having a pop at the two seater Spitfire operations ("madness") - as far as I know at least three of the UK-operated two seaters are genuine Vickers modified airframes, most of the rest have been built up from scrapped aircraft or wreckage recovered from where they crashed in WWII. It gives those of us without the finances or requisite piloting skills the opportunity to experience flight in these marvellous aircraft.
OK Hawker Restorations have bought back his nice "Hurribomber" and are modifying it to two seat status which may seem a shame - but it was a genuine field modification I believe, plus the aircraft in question is a CCF built XII rebuilt from a scrap centre section and not the aircraft it purported to be.
I think it's great to have the chance to fly in a Spitfire, a Mustang, a 109 (alright a Buchon) and soon a Hurricane. It seems he doesn't agree. Rather sniffy in my opinion.
OK Hawker Restorations have bought back his nice "Hurribomber" and are modifying it to two seat status which may seem a shame - but it was a genuine field modification I believe, plus the aircraft in question is a CCF built XII rebuilt from a scrap centre section and not the aircraft it purported to be.
I think it's great to have the chance to fly in a Spitfire, a Mustang, a 109 (alright a Buchon) and soon a Hurricane. It seems he doesn't agree. Rather sniffy in my opinion.
re the Hurricane being built from scrap, most are, very few Spits are survivors and original, most rebuilds have few original parts in them, a data plate is all that's really required for a rebuild, and even that can be replaced.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a NATS controller would clear an aircraft for a run and break if the runway was occupied and I can very much sympathise with the Spitfire pilots idea that 'the runway was his'.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
The idea of a Spitfire being cleared for a run and break and staying above 500' just seems rather unlikely.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,616
Received 291 Likes
on
159 Posts
more and more single seaters are being converted over to twin seaters to satisfy the demand
). That isn't to say that in due course further "data plate restoration" Mk IXs won't emerge with a second seat I guess...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
ZeBedie,
Can I suggest that before you comment further you read post #16? A military run in and break clears the pilot only to join the circuit to fit in with existing traffic - at normal circuit altitude. It certainly does not give a clearance for a low level beat up of the runway! Before this pilot got that far he should have called "downwind" and "final" (in the latter call he should have requested a low go-around). This would have allowed the Chinook to clear the runway and the incident would not have occurred.
Can I suggest that before you comment further you read post #16? A military run in and break clears the pilot only to join the circuit to fit in with existing traffic - at normal circuit altitude. It certainly does not give a clearance for a low level beat up of the runway! Before this pilot got that far he should have called "downwind" and "final" (in the latter call he should have requested a low go-around). This would have allowed the Chinook to clear the runway and the incident would not have occurred.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar thing happened to me many years ago.
Newly valid civil tower controller. Having left the RAF and experienced run and breaks from fast jets every day at work.
Had a call from a spitfire requesting run and break which I approved. Incorrectly, I assumed that would be at regular circuit height as per ex RAF days. Nowhere, anywhere, in any document does it say 'run and break' means a clearance to use the runway. Just my opinion perhaps, but ''line up, take-off, back track, land, touch and go or low approach and go around' means the aircraft can use the runway. Not 'run and break approved'!!
Therefore lined a 757 up in anticipation of the spitfire breaking in the overhead at 1000ft and clearing the climb out fairly promptly. Imagine my surprise when said spitfire then drops to maybe 100ft and passes down the right hand side of the 757.
Inexperienced at the time I summed it up as my lack of knowledge. Years later now and having a bit more gumption, I certainly would have enquired as to exactly what the spitfire pilot's understanding of the term 'run and break' meant. Clearly considerably different from what most of us controllers seem to think.
Newly valid civil tower controller. Having left the RAF and experienced run and breaks from fast jets every day at work.
Had a call from a spitfire requesting run and break which I approved. Incorrectly, I assumed that would be at regular circuit height as per ex RAF days. Nowhere, anywhere, in any document does it say 'run and break' means a clearance to use the runway. Just my opinion perhaps, but ''line up, take-off, back track, land, touch and go or low approach and go around' means the aircraft can use the runway. Not 'run and break approved'!!
Therefore lined a 757 up in anticipation of the spitfire breaking in the overhead at 1000ft and clearing the climb out fairly promptly. Imagine my surprise when said spitfire then drops to maybe 100ft and passes down the right hand side of the 757.
Inexperienced at the time I summed it up as my lack of knowledge. Years later now and having a bit more gumption, I certainly would have enquired as to exactly what the spitfire pilot's understanding of the term 'run and break' meant. Clearly considerably different from what most of us controllers seem to think.
I hope that the CAA guide in Nuttys post#13 has been updated. The "circuit procedures" seems a little thin on detail. The "guide" makes little attempt to advise the need for visiting pilots to ask for circuit details, such as circuit height and joining specifics. The description of run-in and break is brief to the point of nonsense. Is it an authoritative brief or just an awareness document? The"guide" describes high speed aircraft as breaking into the circuit "1 to 1 and 1/2 mins" after calling initials (actually often 30sec) and makes no mention of the strict height limits and overall responsibilities of pilots flying this manoeuvre, the VRIAB. TBH, I feel that this guide can be seriously criticised on these points. Civilian pilots do not generally know about or even have a legal duty to comply with military procedures. This is amply illustrated by the wazzing atittude of the Spitfire pilot involved. Overall, I would think that the duty of care of the airfield operator would be to only offer civilian control procedures to visiting civilian aircraft and, not to attempt integration with Military procedures. Civilians with Display authorisation should only be cleared to operate within their display limits at a Military airfield when specifically cleared for a display, in accordance with their civilian Display Authorisation, not for general operation of their aircraft, which must be IAW the ANO and Civilian Rules of the Air.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Civilian pilots do not generally know about or even have a legal duty to comply with military procedures.
We have more unique footage that will be added over the weeks to come. These will be from RAF Cosford, East Fortune, Southport Airshow and some others .On reflection, I feel sorry that I did not carry cameras earlier as it’s a special insight into the world of display flying but hey, we have these to watch and they are interesting, so get your anoraks on and have a ball 😊