Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Class A near miss over the town of Lossiemounth

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Class A near miss over the town of Lossiemounth

Old 20th May 2019, 11:58
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Class A near miss over the town of Lossiemounth

We almost did it again.

No CWS. No plans to fit it. Nothing learned in 7 years

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/...-night-flight/
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 12:03
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,360
Received 455 Likes on 120 Posts
DV

I hear what you’re saying, I really do. However, you can’t compare this directly with the Moray GR4 collision.

This happened in the visual circuit at night. I can’t speak for Lossiemouth SOPs but there’s every chance they would squawk standby in the circuit and if not they certainly would not be reliant on TCAS at that stage of flight.

Notwithstanding this, your argument about CWSs on fastjet aircraft is still valid.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 20th May 2019, 12:45
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Airprox board report here:

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2018/Airprox%20Report%202018320.pdf

BEagle is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 13:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Wow! I am amazed that there is all sorts of talk about radar lock coming and going, lack of NVG or FLIR but there didn’t seem to be a thinks bubble when the No2 called finals before his leader!!! Am I missing something?
Flap62 is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 14:21
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
Finals for 05 is not “ over the town of Lossiemouth”

The 05 visual pattern is not a simple circuit but has a jink in it to avoid noise complaining cottages, which you can’t see at night. Not surprising therefore that 2 pilots had differing opinions of where they were. The problem here is being so afraid of noise complaints that we compromise safe circuit flying.

Last edited by Timelord; 20th May 2019 at 14:34.
Timelord is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 14:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: EGPT/ESVS
Posts: 755
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bit of a dramatic thread title there DV....Fig 5 on the report shows CPA about 6km from the town. But indeed...
Floppy Link is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 14:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Flap62
Wow! I am amazed that there is all sorts of talk about radar lock coming and going, lack of NVG or FLIR but there didn’t seem to be a thinks bubble when the No2 called finals before his leader!!! Am I missing something?
I don't think 2 did call before his leader did he, according to the report? And I'm not sure where the thread headline 'over the TOWN of Lossiemouth' comes from.
Background Noise is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 14:34
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: hi in the ski
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flap62
Wow! I am amazed that there is all sorts of talk about radar lock coming and going, lack of NVG or FLIR but there didn’t seem to be a thinks bubble when the No2 called finals before his leader!!! Am I missing something?
I think you must have..... From the Board Report "Incident AC2 [Typhoon(2)] called final 19 secs after Incident AC1 [Typhoon(1)] and was cleared to land in turn. Having heard the previous call, Incident AC2 [Typhoon(2)] believed he could see the two aircraft ahead (when in fact there were 3) and was unaware that Incident AC1 [Typhoon(1)] had flown a wider than usual visual circuit.

barotraumatized is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 16:53
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they certainly would not be reliant on TCAS at that stage of flight.
They were reliant, in the end, on A-A TACAN, which only gave range information. TCAS would have given range and bearing.

I note that Lossiemouth recommendation (3) calls for the fitting of a collision warning system, which is not going to happen.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 17:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Distant Voice
They were reliant, in the end, on A-A TACAN, which only gave range information. TCAS would have given range and bearing.

DV
Indeed. If they were squawking...which they would not have been in the visual circuit.
Timelord is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 17:44
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Typhoon 1 also awarded himself his own clearance with his "Finals, gear down, land" call. The 3 other Typhoons made correct 'finals' calls and the weird ATC calls are already covered extensively.

Coming from a couple of types that routinely flew night low-level and on NVGs (including ones that did auto-detach on ejection - some 20+ years ago), the idea of pitching-up in a night pattern with 3 pairs of aircraft, all with different intentions, and hoping to sort it all out visually still looks barking mad. Recoveries at night should be planned and de-conflicted. Perhaps MIDS / L16 has papered-over some basic aviation skills.

As a final point - 1nm radar trail in a visual circuit is neither radar trail nor a visual circuit.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 17:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Timelord
Indeed. If they were squawking...which they would not have been in the visual circuit.
If they were specifically directed to squawk standby perhaps; but these days it is not uncommon to be given a specific squawk for the visual circuit or retain your recovery squawk. This aids VCRs equipped with SA radars and preserves TCAS functionality and SA modes for the crews in the busiest bit of sky.

It was all very different back in the day - leader only squawks in a 4-ship etc, but times change.




Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 18:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Distant Voice wrote:
They were reliant, in the end, on A-A TACAN, which only gave range information.
Surely such modern aircraft as the Typhoon have a BCN mode, so that one can provide range AND bearing information to another? But at short range in a visual circuit...??

Just This Once... wrote:
Recoveries at night should be planned and de-conflicted. Perhaps MIDS / L16 has papered-over some basic aviation skills.

As a final point - 1nm radar trail in a visual circuit is neither radar trail nor a visual circuit.
I know nothing of current SOPs, but can't half help wondering whether those aren't insignificant points. Also, just how much real (as in not in a simulator) night flying experience did the members of the formation(s) actually have?
BEagle is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 18:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
JTO, until a couple of years ago at least the recovery to Lossie was “squawk standby, contact tower stud 2” but it may have changed. I don’t recall any reference to IFF/SSR in the AIRPROX report.

Beags, makes a good point, Sim sorties tend to concentrate on the tactical aims of the sortie and end with an emergency for currency or a freeze and get out. In 15 years as a sim instructor I don’t remember any sorties that concluded with a busy night visual circuit. I think the report refers to one of the pilots flying the 05 circuit for the first time. This is one element of flying that cannot be replaced with sim time.
Timelord is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 19:04
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
TL - Both were squawking with Mode C, recording an 80ft difference in height at CPA.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 19:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
JTO, thanks, I stand corrected.
Timelord is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 19:24
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
True, but not what I said - 1nm radar trail in a visual circuit is neither radar trail nor a visual circuit.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 19:58
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Joining as a formation is one thing, but once in the visual circuit and downwind you are your own aircraft, flying your own pattern as required to fit in with all the other visual traffic and making your own calls. Radar / TCAS / Link / SKE / FLIR etc are all additional tools but it remains a visual circuit.

I agree with your concern with the non-standard R/T and that the Occurrence Investigation seemed to skirt around it. The Airprox Board said it more clearly:

The Board quickly agreed that the Lossiemouth Occurrence Investigation had been thorough and that relevant causal factors had been identified that did not warrant further detailed debate by the Board. That being said, although the Board agreed that there had been a series of cumulative factors that had led to this incident, they were struck by the fact that, having lost sight of and formed a flawed mental model about the position of his leader, it had been the reinforcement of that model by the ambiguous R/T phraseology that had been a key element in the chain of events.

In the Board’s opinion this ambiguous terminology was fundamentally flawed and had unsurprisingly reinforced Typhoon(2) pilot’s incorrect mental model...
No kidding.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 22:58
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 2,318
Received 23 Likes on 15 Posts
I note the report says:
Examine the possibility and associated risks of Typhoon aircrew using NVG below Safety Altitude.

What is safety altitude and why are night vision goggles not worn below it?
Is it to do with inadequate height/time to disconnect goggles in case of sudden need to eject?
EDIT: Disregard - question answered - yes.
tartare is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.