|
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/ |
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 |
|
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? |
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. |
Bit of a dramatic thread title there DV....Fig 5 on the report shows CPA about 6km from the town. But :eek: indeed...
|
Originally Posted by Flap62
(Post 10475601)
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? |
Originally Posted by Flap62
(Post 10475601)
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? |
they certainly would not be reliant on TCAS at that stage of flight. I note that Lossiemouth recommendation (3) calls for the fitting of a collision warning system, which is not going to happen. DV |
Originally Posted by Distant Voice
(Post 10475726)
They were reliant, in the end, on A-A TACAN, which only gave range information. TCAS would have given range and bearing.
DV |
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. |
Originally Posted by Timelord
(Post 10475733)
Indeed. If they were squawking...which they would not have been in the visual circuit. It was all very different back in the day - leader only squawks in a 4-ship etc, but times change. |
Distant Voice wrote:
They were reliant, in the end, on A-A TACAN, which only gave range information. 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. |
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. |
TL - Both were squawking with Mode C, recording an 80ft difference in height at CPA.
|
JTO, thanks, I stand corrected. |
True, but not what I said - 1nm radar trail in a visual circuit is neither radar trail nor a visual circuit.
|
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... |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.