|
Spitfire and Chinook near-miss
A Chinook HC1 and Spitfire came within 40' of each other in June 2018 at RAF Cosford.
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uplo...%202018121.pdf |
An interesting one, from my Mil ATCO perspective. To what extent should a Tower controller intervene with regard to visual circuit traffic? Having provided tbe essential information, it is deemed the pilots’ responsibity to sort themselves out ... agreed? Rightly or wrongly, I was an ‘interventionist’ Tower controller. If I saw something I believed to be ‘not going well’ I would ‘politely/assertively‘ chip in, depending on circumstances. In this case, I would have firmly advised the Spitfire he was too low in respect of the Chinook at the far end of the runway ... long before it became an issue. Would that be wrong? BUT ... my perpetual beef as a Local Examining Officer was that Tower controllers didn’t look out of the window enough. |
I am trying to get a grip on the Spitfire Pilot doing a low pass (no matter what he called it) instead of being at 500 Feet which is supposed to be the standard height for the Maneuver he asked permission to do.
He may not have violated his DA authorized height but it would seem he did violate a standard and accepted height for the Break maneuver he asked for. Whether the Helicopter cleared the runway or not....for what ever reason...the airplane was obliged to do a go around and stay in a closed circuit pending additional instructions from ATC or it would seem. Until clear of the Runway....it is the "landed" aircraft's runway....not the "landing" aircraft's.....but to be fair....ATC should not have cleared the Spitfire until the Runway was clear. |
Surely the Spitfire was only cleared for a Run and Break therefore the runway was not required to be clear? It doesn’t matter where the Chinook was on the runway, the Spitfire only needed clearance when he called Finals. The Spitfire pilot flew below his legal height, he was not routinely cleared to waz about at 30ft. He was only cleared low as part of a display and this was a routine arrival, not a display therefore he was not authorised to this height. It seems to me that the Chinook crew displayed appropriate airmanship (and sensible reactions and capacity by noticing the approaching Spitfire). It seems for the transcript that the Spitfire pilot clearly wazzed the place, didn’t file an airprox and was arrogant and belligerent in his response. I know what conclusions I draw from that report! |
A VRIAB can be cleared with dozens of aircraft on or near the runway, surely? The procedure doesn’t involve use of Her Majesty’s tarmac. It’s the perception of ‘aircraft in air vs. aircraft on ground/hovering’ that went astray here ... the Spitfire was inappropriately LOW for the procedure and the environment in which he was operating. PS: And the ATCO shoukd have said “Spitfire, you are too low for this procedure. Caution ... Chinook at the upwind end.” |
Was it 2017 or 16 when the B17 was mid display that the B52 did its run down the runway, I thought that was stupid. |
Was it 2017 or 16 when the B17 was mid display that the B52 did its run down the runway, I thought that was stupid. So what was the problem here? Both visual and good timing... |
I would be surprised if it was a Mark 1 Chinook?! (But fair enough I can’t see the mark number on the Airprox doc...!) |
It's a pity that the serial number of the Chinook and registation of the Spitfire are not given in the report.
|
Originally Posted by Super VC-10
(Post 10316398)
It's a pity that the serial number of the Chinook and registation of the Spitfire are not given in the report.
|
MPN11 Why should the controller mention the hover taxiing Chinook. A run and break at 500’ all does not include use of the runway. In all my time in ATC Tower, I never mentioned about aircraft taxiing, flying in the circuit yes, but taxiing no. The Spitfire pilot showed gross contempt for procedures by not complying and flying at 50’ or so. A complete arrogant knobhead. |
|
Originally Posted by BigGreenGilbert
(Post 10316450)
As for the Spitfire, looks pretty obvious that providing the serial would also identify the pilot, which is probably undesirable.
The Chinook, by the way, was a shiny new 27 Sqn HC6A from Odiham. |
Originally Posted by uffington sb
(Post 10316507)
MPN11 Why should the controller mention the hover taxiing Chinook. A run and break at 500’ all does not include use of the runway. In all my time in ATC Tower, I never mentioned about aircraft taxiing, flying in the circuit yes, but taxiing no. The Spitfire pilot showed gross contempt for procedures by not complying and flying at 50’ or so. A complete arrogant knobhead. |
Seems to me that the base cause of this near miss was the Spitfire pilot's lack of understanding regarding what a military "run and break" actually is (and it is a military procedure). That is more than a little worrying, bearing in mind that the pilot claimed to have been doing this for 15 years! It certainly does not mean that the runway "is his"! The run in for the break should not even be made over the runway in the first place, it should be carried out offset on the dead side, unless otherwise stated in local procedures, let alone at such an extremely low level. The procedure is flown at 500 feet and the rest of the circuit is either continued at that altitude for a low level circuit, or after a climbing break to normal circuit altitude. Downwind and finals calls should be made in the normal places and only the finals call allows the pilot to fly over the runway, for a go-around, a roller or to land.
|
Third time lucky?
Here are the first two reports. Well worth a read. It sets the scene perfectly. AIRPROX REPORT No 2013084 incident date 20 July 2013 AIRPROX REPORT No 2015059 incident date 4 May 2015 It is perhaps fortunate he has now retired from Display flying. |
Originally Posted by 3wheels
(Post 10316604)
Third time lucky?
2013084: Another local operator, with a Hurricane airborne at the time, declined to co-operate with the UKAB and stated that he did not wish to be contacted again regarding the matter. The Board commented that, despite the unique nature of the aircraft, it was unfortunate that the Hurricane pilot could not be definitively identified. They also commented that it was highly unhelpful that a Hurricane pilot who had been airborne at the time, and who could have been flying in that area, chose not to co-operate with the Board, even to rule himself out of the investigation. Unfortunately the Spitfire pilot declined to take part in the Airprox process and did not have Mode C information, so the height separation is not known. Turning to the Spitfire pilot, the Board expressed their grave disappointment that the pilot had chosen not to participate in the Airprox process; by not submitting a report he had denied the Board the opportunity to make more definitive assessments based on known facts, which, in turn,denied other pilots the opportunity to gain valuable lessons. The Board recalled that the same operator had been involved in a previous Airprox in which he had similarly refused to participate, and wondered whether this reflected his attitude [to] flight safety. |
The Board recalled that the same operator had been involved in a previous Airprox in which he had similarly refused to participate, and wondered whether this reflected his attitude flight safety. I'm delighted to read that the possible individual may have retired from display flying. Knob. |
Another way of looking at it is that the CAA failed to take any formal action against this display pilot at any stage prior to his retirement.
Somehow I do not get the feeling that the CAA is particularly adept in its role as a regulator. The post-Shoreham changes seem to be limited to making life difficult for professionals already engaged with the process whilst looking the other way when a genuinely rogue pilot crosses their path. If any pilot is suspected of breaching the ANO whilst refusing to engage with the aviation safety system must be reported to the police. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.