VOYAGER AIRPROX
 

Widely reported in the local media, but this report makes interesting reading:

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/...8%20-%20v2.pdf

My gut feeling is that unfair comments have been levelled at the ATCO on this occasion.....

You'll have to open the link to know more as it would seem that excerpts may not be posted....:mad:

For whatever its worth, I agree with the majority decision, no risk of collision.

Perhaps, but they got much closer than they should have. Try timing 18 seconds. It's a very very long time between an instruction to turn and it's commencement. I agree with beagle inasmuch as had the ATC turn instruction been complied with, the Voyager would have remained inside the control zone and passed well clear. But the ATCO took no action when his instruction was not complied with which surely warrants criticism. It would be interesting to see the full transcript. Was the 340hdg instruction acknowledged?

So as I read it this never got beyond a "TA"..is that correct?

Would this have anything to do with the expected RAF Brize Airsoace Change Proposal or the Oxford/Kidlington RMZ (https://sites.google.com/site/oxfordairportrmz/)?

It would appear as a bit of "Safety Case Building" to me.

iRaven

"The pilot... reported being in receipt of a Traffic Service.... The aircraft was level in the BZN CTR at 2300ft.." Ah, isn't that an impossible combination inside controlled airspace, the clue being in the name, ATC Service OUTSIDE Controlled Airspace?!

There are many issues here.

2 Gp crews tending to report every TCAS event (RA and TA) as an airprox, with a little ACP evidence building on the side.

The Voyager crew's understanding of the UK FIS and, thus possibly, the classification of airspace in which they were flying at the time.

The slow compliance by aircrews to instructions by ATCOs to turn and descend has been a contributory factor in a number of miltary airprox in recent years - formation turns and descents in IMC I understand but not single aircraft; however large.

At 1658L during the week there should have been an ATC Supervisor maintaining oversight, rather than distracting an ATCO from their primary duty. Especially when you consider that there were 4 radar positions open alongside the visual control room, with unit workload described as high to medium; too many times in recent years this has been a factor in military airprox. There is also something left unsaid here; the Director was setting up the PAR and thus, at a rough guess, was going to conduct the PAR having just directed the aircraft. Who then was going to fulfill the Director's roles and responsibilities iaw MAA RA towards the IFR traffic on PAR whilst they were conducting the GCA?

This distraction then led to them not monitoring the aircraft and not providing TI. The ATCOs prime role is to prevent collisions between aircraft and they can't do this if they're not watching what's going on. The way's in which an ATCO may prevent collisions is by issuing collision avoidance advice and/or by providing traffic information in order for the crew to determine a suitable course of action. In this situation they were unable to do either.

Root cause analysis would look at why that ATCO was placed in that position at that time of day, with that traffic loading, without a dedicated supervisor.

As for the UKAB's finding of cause, it is, as usual, utter guff. It is not a cause of the airprox (ie how the incident occurred) but a statement about what happened. The sooner the UKAB get their act together, as they have been told for a number if years now) the better.

For the movements at Brize they already have too much square footage of airspace, these and similar events will probably be used to try to grab more. Add the fact that Kidlington and Farnborough are trying for Class D - GA traffic in the uk is slowly being strangled by the constant push for more controlled airspace. Cases in point at Robin Hood International with their <10 movements a day and Norwich which is even less.

This airprox appears to be a non event.

Class D doesn't stop GA flying in it.
As for the UKAB it's well worth going as an observer, it an eye opener. It's a shame you cannot say anything as an observer there.

"non-event..?" OK, nothing got bent or burnt but the same chain of events anywhere moderately busy would take some sorting out. The aircraft ended up outside controlled airspace which certainly wasn't the controllers intention.

I can say something as an observer, and it is a disgrace. They are very explicit in saying it is not their job to apportion blame but this belies what is said. Also a cursory check of some random reports will reveal (in most) thinly veiled attacks on the professionalism (lack of) of pilots and controllers alike.

GT

Gliders can be refused permission to enter Class D.

Who cares about gliders, I meant proper GA.

Not a healthy attitude. You would have your day spoiled if you ran into one!

ACW

At least it won't be one from a VGS.......

So a departure from Fairford is an unusual occurence which distracted at least 3 of the controllers on duty?

I'm surprised to read that some military pilots are reporting every TA. In the big bad world outside CAS, it's not unusual to have to deal with them, usually without the assistance of ATC. The attitude of the SK76 driver in his report reflects that.

I see no mention of the Voyager pilot being slow to comply. Indeed the minimal information included in the report shows a 20s delay from the instruction to turn to a turn being initiated, however as Shotone has highlighted - was the instruction to turn acknowledged? Without a full transcript we, as observers, will never know. It appears to me that the turn was initiated by the pilot to avoid potential collision, not in response to ATC instruction, hence the Airprox report, however that is just my opinion based upon the information in the report - I may be completely wrong.

And that is my main point - how about we stop the armchair analysis, sat comfortably behind our anonymous profiles, and refrain from criticising the actions of those involved. We weren't there, we don't have the whole picture and so we don't know.

2Gp crews are mandated to report all RAs, regardless of the cause - this is an MAA policy so applies to all MAA regulated aircraft.

As for the our civilian counterparts under the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme:

There was no RA, though, was there? Only a TA, according to the report.

BTW, the TCAS 1, as fitted to the SK76, doesn't have the ability to give RA so there was no requirement for that crew to make a report, although they would no doubt have filed an AIRPROX based on other factors if they had felt the need.

To be perfectly blunt though, having had what I considered at the time very good cause to file a few AIRPROX reports, they don't actually seem to achieve much (apart from giving the board something to discuss over lunch of course).