Mid air over Hertfordshire
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While there are some interesting discussions going on here, I can't help feeling that this is going a little over the top. Such accidents as this are horrendous, of course. We do seem to have had quite a few recently, which is worrying. But it's still very very few. It hasn't suddenly become incredibly much more dangerous up there. So while it's natural that an accident such as this should make us think, and it's good that we should all consider the best way to stay safe, let's keep a sense of perspective. Flying will never be 100% safe. More training, good lookout, Mode S, RIS, TCAS, flying at 2324 feet...none of those will guarantee safety.
I'm not suggesting complacency, just a sense of proportion. And an acceptance of the risks involved - if we don't like it, maybe we should stay on the ground. And how many people do you think were killed in road accidents last weekend........?
I'm not suggesting complacency, just a sense of proportion. And an acceptance of the risks involved - if we don't like it, maybe we should stay on the ground. And how many people do you think were killed in road accidents last weekend........?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not suggesting complacency, just a sense of proportion. And an acceptance of the risks involved - if we don't like it, maybe we should stay on the ground. And how many people do you think were killed in road accidents last weekend........?
- Michael
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite - there is too much emphasis on technology solving a problem.
When you think of the numbers of lo-tech machines about, not falling out of the skies or banging into each other.
Wasn't Teneriffe a bang that happened under ATC control?? Similarly the Swiss crash.
I'm with Whirlybird on this.
When you think of the numbers of lo-tech machines about, not falling out of the skies or banging into each other.
Wasn't Teneriffe a bang that happened under ATC control?? Similarly the Swiss crash.
I'm with Whirlybird on this.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't Teneriffe a bang that happened under ATC control?? Similarly the Swiss crash.
I believe the conclusion was that the Swiss crash could have been avoided if one of the crews had followed the correct procedure and obeyed the TCAS rather than ATC.
Apologies if I've got it wrong but it seems a circular argument.
Tenerife
KLM: "KL4805 is now ready for takeoff. We're waiting for our ATC clearance."
ATC: "KL4805. You are cleared to the Papa beacon. Climb to and maintain Flight Level 90. Right turn after takeoff. Proceed with heading 040 until intercepting the 325 radial from Las Palmas VOR."
This clearance is for after they are airborne and is not takeoff clearance. As First Officer Meurs began to read back the ATC's message, Van Zanten released his foot from the brakes and began advancing the throttles for takeoff.
KLM: "Roger, sir, we are cleared to the Papa beacon, Flight Level 90 until intercepting the 325. We're now at takeoff."
The ATC clearly believed that this meant the KLM was at takeoff position, awaiting clearance, at the end of the runway:
ATC: "OK. Standby for takeoff. I will call you."
Pan Am: "We are still taxiing down the runway!"
Tragically, the KLM only heard the "OK" but never heard the rest of what the ATC said
ATC: "KL4805. You are cleared to the Papa beacon. Climb to and maintain Flight Level 90. Right turn after takeoff. Proceed with heading 040 until intercepting the 325 radial from Las Palmas VOR."
This clearance is for after they are airborne and is not takeoff clearance. As First Officer Meurs began to read back the ATC's message, Van Zanten released his foot from the brakes and began advancing the throttles for takeoff.
KLM: "Roger, sir, we are cleared to the Papa beacon, Flight Level 90 until intercepting the 325. We're now at takeoff."
The ATC clearly believed that this meant the KLM was at takeoff position, awaiting clearance, at the end of the runway:
ATC: "OK. Standby for takeoff. I will call you."
Pan Am: "We are still taxiing down the runway!"
Tragically, the KLM only heard the "OK" but never heard the rest of what the ATC said
You seem to be saying "I'm not very good at spotting other traffic so I'm not going to bother looking any more".
Have I misunderstood you?
Have I misunderstood you?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. the Tenerife incident, that is why en-route clearances are now passed as "After departure..."
Back on thread...from someone who has only had 20 hrs flying in light aircraft, I find it most difficult to pick out grey aircraft against a grey background, how about compulsory flourescent paint schemes? Or is VFR maybe archaic in todays high density fast (compared to the old days anyway) traffic situation.
As for the military's suggestion don't fly between 1000' and 2000' that's a non-starter for VFR flight most days in the UK. Below 1000' and you're dicing with the fast jet jockeys and Rule 5, above 2000' you're usually skirting the cloud base.
Back on thread...from someone who has only had 20 hrs flying in light aircraft, I find it most difficult to pick out grey aircraft against a grey background, how about compulsory flourescent paint schemes? Or is VFR maybe archaic in todays high density fast (compared to the old days anyway) traffic situation.
As for the military's suggestion don't fly between 1000' and 2000' that's a non-starter for VFR flight most days in the UK. Below 1000' and you're dicing with the fast jet jockeys and Rule 5, above 2000' you're usually skirting the cloud base.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Close. I'm saying "We're not very good at spotting other traffic so we'd better have a plan that's a bit more constructive than 'must try harder next time'".
Sorry, but we are going to have to agress to disagree on this one. My view is that if humans can only spot a aircraft 50% of the time, then the more time spent looking out, the more chance we have of seeing other traffic.
When flying VFR in an SEP, there is no reason to spend more than 10% of your time looking inside.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point wasn't a criticism of anyone, esp ATC.
My usage of ATCOs is mostly under a FIS - that means that they pass me information if they have it. Note that they do not have it all. Neither do I.
On an airfield I would assume that I will follow commands as they are likely to have a better view than me.
There have been situations in the air where ATCOs have given instructions to me which I am unable to comply with. I am driving the thing, and if I screw up the CAA will hit me, not them.
There are situations, such as when someone on the ground shouts 'Stop', or when an ATCO says 'go around', you will follow the instruction - you are daft if you don't.
However, if they say 'nothing known to conflict......' that doesn't mean there is nothing about.
My point is purely that accidents and misunderstandings will happen regardless of ATC or technology. We've just got to try to minimise the possibilities.
My usage of ATCOs is mostly under a FIS - that means that they pass me information if they have it. Note that they do not have it all. Neither do I.
On an airfield I would assume that I will follow commands as they are likely to have a better view than me.
There have been situations in the air where ATCOs have given instructions to me which I am unable to comply with. I am driving the thing, and if I screw up the CAA will hit me, not them.
There are situations, such as when someone on the ground shouts 'Stop', or when an ATCO says 'go around', you will follow the instruction - you are daft if you don't.
However, if they say 'nothing known to conflict......' that doesn't mean there is nothing about.
My point is purely that accidents and misunderstandings will happen regardless of ATC or technology. We've just got to try to minimise the possibilities.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about compulsory flourescent paint schemes
You don't hear of many mid airs involving Banner towers after all....
EA
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boomerangben
I very much doubt that anyone spends more than 10% of their time "playing with the GPS" (or whatever people who navigate using "non approved" methods get accused of).
I don't think there is an answer which can be presently and immediately implemented. What could have been done, say 10 years ago, was to have made Mode C mandatory. Transponder technology is mostly 1970s/1980s and low power transponders suitable for gliders and such would have been developed way back then. There would have been huge fuss of course, appropriate to any occassion when a GA pilot is asked to spend more than £10
but the fuss would have died out by now.
And then, somebody who wants reliable traffic warnings could buy a traffic warning system. The prices of those would in turn have come down a bit, perhaps down to £5k.
The remaining pilots would have to look out of the window, or just keep their fingers crossed; either is probably equally effective.
I very much doubt that anyone spends more than 10% of their time "playing with the GPS" (or whatever people who navigate using "non approved" methods get accused of).
I don't think there is an answer which can be presently and immediately implemented. What could have been done, say 10 years ago, was to have made Mode C mandatory. Transponder technology is mostly 1970s/1980s and low power transponders suitable for gliders and such would have been developed way back then. There would have been huge fuss of course, appropriate to any occassion when a GA pilot is asked to spend more than £10
but the fuss would have died out by now.And then, somebody who wants reliable traffic warnings could buy a traffic warning system. The prices of those would in turn have come down a bit, perhaps down to £5k.
The remaining pilots would have to look out of the window, or just keep their fingers crossed; either is probably equally effective.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not having a go at the microlight pilots, and I too felt very sad when I heard about this.
I had my first flying lesson on the 11 july 1974, 30 years this Sunday and in several thousand hours I have had 3 airprox incidents, 2 in Northern Ireland and 1 at POL VOR in all three cases I was receiving a flight information service and the other aircraft were talking to some other ATC, Aldergrove radar did not see the first 2 and Leeds did not see the 3rd (about 2 years ago).
We all need to look out the window as much as possible, with practice you will spot more aircraft.
Tony
I had my first flying lesson on the 11 july 1974, 30 years this Sunday and in several thousand hours I have had 3 airprox incidents, 2 in Northern Ireland and 1 at POL VOR in all three cases I was receiving a flight information service and the other aircraft were talking to some other ATC, Aldergrove radar did not see the first 2 and Leeds did not see the 3rd (about 2 years ago).
We all need to look out the window as much as possible, with practice you will spot more aircraft.
Tony
Last edited by TonyR; 7th Jul 2004 at 16:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cucumber Heaven
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As whirlybird said x posts back, flying will never be 100% safe and to be honest, that may well be one of its attractions. It gives a chance to pit yourself against nature and yourself in the same way as riding/driving a motorbike/car at 120mph does (on private roads only of course ).
Having said that, there are a few things that people can do to make themselves safer : Things like not flying at the regular 2000 feet as used by so many ppl's is one, switching landing lights on when for some reason visibility starts to deteriorate being another because you may not see the other plane, but anything that you can do to help him see you will help. This still relies on pilots keeping a good lookout and I dont always think that they all do. Equally, too many have a poor radio manner, ignore danger areas and when given a height to fly by ATC, seem unable to stick to it.
Can't wait for my next flight
). Having said that, there are a few things that people can do to make themselves safer : Things like not flying at the regular 2000 feet as used by so many ppl's is one, switching landing lights on when for some reason visibility starts to deteriorate being another because you may not see the other plane, but anything that you can do to help him see you will help. This still relies on pilots keeping a good lookout and I dont always think that they all do. Equally, too many have a poor radio manner, ignore danger areas and when given a height to fly by ATC, seem unable to stick to it.
Can't wait for my next flight
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being seen
I own a helicopter school in the USA. I also fly a helicopter over here sometimes. We try to fly 500 - 1000' agl all the time to stay away from light aircraft. The visability in our Bell 47's is good so we invariably spot aircraft before they spot us. Many, many, times we take avoiding action when clearly the aircraft did not see us. We have HISL's and leave the nav and landing light on all the time, pointing forwards. What worries me is being hit from behind. We are cruising at 75-85kts so are usually slower than other aircraft. I try not to think about it all the time but it does cross my mind now and again.
I don't know what else we can do to minimise the chances of a collision particulary from behind.
I'm not knocking airplane pilots; I fly them too. Before anyone mentions the 500' rule, there is no such thing for helicopters in the USA so we can fly as low as we like.
Regards,
Chopperpilot47
I don't know what else we can do to minimise the chances of a collision particulary from behind.
I'm not knocking airplane pilots; I fly them too. Before anyone mentions the 500' rule, there is no such thing for helicopters in the USA so we can fly as low as we like.
Regards,
Chopperpilot47
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It maybe a daft question, but why can't strobe lights be made bright enough to see during the strongest daylight conditions?
And isn't the most conspicuous colour for an aircraft supposed to be black?
Dave.
And isn't the most conspicuous colour for an aircraft supposed to be black?
Dave.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try where possible to fly just below 2000ft on the basis that aircraft at the same height and above will be above the horizon and may be seen against a light background. Not many pilots seem to like flying that low either.
Or above 3500 as less aircraft seem to be below this height.
2 pairs of eyes, especially another pilot does also seems to help.
Mike
Or above 3500 as less aircraft seem to be below this height.
2 pairs of eyes, especially another pilot does also seems to help.
Mike
Dave wrote: "It maybe a daft question, but why can't strobe lights be made bright enough to see during the strongest daylight conditions?
And isn't the most conspicuous colour for an aircraft supposed to be black?"
Strobe lights can be made very powerful indeed, but then that may cause problems from them being too bright under certain conditions. Also, they require a fair bit of electrical power, which is something that the average microlight (or quite a few light aircraft) doesn't have in abundance.
As for paint schemes, I was involved in the air ranges high conspicuity colour scheme trials about twenty odd years ago. Prior to that we had always painted things we wanted to see clearly flourescent orange or yellow. We discovered that high contrast was the key, and a mix of black and white was far and a away the best scheme for flight over all terrains, including the sea. The RAF did a similar trial for the training fleet, with the result that they changed their aircraft over to black, as this shows up best when looking against the sky (range requirements meant that often we wanted to see things against the ground or sea as well). I can vouch for the fact that all black isn't very good if you're looking down at them beneath you flying up the glens though!
And isn't the most conspicuous colour for an aircraft supposed to be black?"
Strobe lights can be made very powerful indeed, but then that may cause problems from them being too bright under certain conditions. Also, they require a fair bit of electrical power, which is something that the average microlight (or quite a few light aircraft) doesn't have in abundance.
As for paint schemes, I was involved in the air ranges high conspicuity colour scheme trials about twenty odd years ago. Prior to that we had always painted things we wanted to see clearly flourescent orange or yellow. We discovered that high contrast was the key, and a mix of black and white was far and a away the best scheme for flight over all terrains, including the sea. The RAF did a similar trial for the training fleet, with the result that they changed their aircraft over to black, as this shows up best when looking against the sky (range requirements meant that often we wanted to see things against the ground or sea as well). I can vouch for the fact that all black isn't very good if you're looking down at them beneath you flying up the glens though!
Last edited by VP959; 7th Jul 2004 at 19:40.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't Teneriffe a bang that happened under ATC control??
Maybe you mean not 747 / 747 ground collision, but the much earlier Dan Air 727 given a confusing and non-standard hold entry (IIRC) and flew into a mountain in cloud? Such things are exremely rare - unheard of in UK AFAIK.
It's irrelevant anyway. Radar vectoring with seperation of all GA is impractical unless we all become IR pilots with suitably equipped aeroplanes.
Technology won't make mid-airs impossible - until perhaps when the day dawns that we all fly 'hands off' behind autopilots that communicate with each other. No attraction in that for me, or many other aviators methinks.
But as Whirley says, the most important thing is that, although this is an awful tragedy - keep it in proportion. Aeroplanes are NOT regularly falling out of the sky due mid airs. Thankfully, it's a very rare occurence.
And, most important of all - keep those eyes and necks swivelling. The radar-protected airline pilot can afford to be 'eyes in'. We can't.
SSD
Maybe you mean not 747 / 747 ground collision, but the much earlier Dan Air 727 given a confusing and non-standard hold entry (IIRC) and flew into a mountain in cloud? Such things are exremely rare - unheard of in UK AFAIK.
It's irrelevant anyway. Radar vectoring with seperation of all GA is impractical unless we all become IR pilots with suitably equipped aeroplanes.
Technology won't make mid-airs impossible - until perhaps when the day dawns that we all fly 'hands off' behind autopilots that communicate with each other. No attraction in that for me, or many other aviators methinks.
But as Whirley says, the most important thing is that, although this is an awful tragedy - keep it in proportion. Aeroplanes are NOT regularly falling out of the sky due mid airs. Thankfully, it's a very rare occurence.
And, most important of all - keep those eyes and necks swivelling. The radar-protected airline pilot can afford to be 'eyes in'. We can't.
SSD
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oxfordshire. U.K.
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few minor observations on this very sad occasion ...
1/ Quadrantial flying in VFR/VMC if at all possible. (UK). (Won't stop speed difference / overtaking accidents though). Take a friend - doubles the lookout.
2/ Flying "Just Off" the levels "everyone else" will be using - +/-100 ft - If people can fly this accurately (!)
3/ The gliding and microlight folks - and plenty of the GA community too - can't come up with "only" £ 5 K for new transponder kit. You can buy an aeroplane (or a large part of one) for that !.
4/ To (glass) glider pilots - take a roll of aluminium foil up with you - it will really increase your radar return !. (I was told this by my old PPL instructor - Possibly an old wive's tale - any ATCOs know ?).
5/ Why can't we expect good LARS coverage ?. Where does all that duty on the AVGAS go ?.
D129
1/ Quadrantial flying in VFR/VMC if at all possible. (UK). (Won't stop speed difference / overtaking accidents though). Take a friend - doubles the lookout.
2/ Flying "Just Off" the levels "everyone else" will be using - +/-100 ft - If people can fly this accurately (!)
3/ The gliding and microlight folks - and plenty of the GA community too - can't come up with "only" £ 5 K for new transponder kit. You can buy an aeroplane (or a large part of one) for that !.
4/ To (glass) glider pilots - take a roll of aluminium foil up with you - it will really increase your radar return !. (I was told this by my old PPL instructor - Possibly an old wive's tale - any ATCOs know ?).
5/ Why can't we expect good LARS coverage ?. Where does all that duty on the AVGAS go ?.
D129