Mid-Air Collision - Gloucestershire
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
Beagle,
I don't often disagree with you, but I must say I'm quite surprised by your post on this subject. I suspect that you don't fly with TCAS; you certainly don't seem to understand TCAS in the GA environment. RA isn't required, only TA.
"All of which would require the pilot to look in even more...."
No it DOESN'T - properly used, as part of the lookout scan procedure, it gets the pilot's eyes OUTSIDE the cockpit because it alerts him to the fact that there are other aircraft out there that aren't even in visual range yet. It also proves that there are often aircraft very close by and a potential danger to you, that you should be able to see but CAN'T.
I've been operating TCAS equipped GA aircraft for 7 years now and believe me, I feel extremely vulnerable without it because I know what a valuable piece of equipment it is, especially in Class G airspace. If nothing else, it has taught me a salutory lesson on the limitations of the human eyesight.
Please DON'T make the mistake of erroneously urging others to stay in the dark ages!
I don't often disagree with you, but I must say I'm quite surprised by your post on this subject. I suspect that you don't fly with TCAS; you certainly don't seem to understand TCAS in the GA environment. RA isn't required, only TA.
"All of which would require the pilot to look in even more...."
No it DOESN'T - properly used, as part of the lookout scan procedure, it gets the pilot's eyes OUTSIDE the cockpit because it alerts him to the fact that there are other aircraft out there that aren't even in visual range yet. It also proves that there are often aircraft very close by and a potential danger to you, that you should be able to see but CAN'T.
I've been operating TCAS equipped GA aircraft for 7 years now and believe me, I feel extremely vulnerable without it because I know what a valuable piece of equipment it is, especially in Class G airspace. If nothing else, it has taught me a salutory lesson on the limitations of the human eyesight.
Please DON'T make the mistake of erroneously urging others to stay in the dark ages!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC I am surprised by your comments. I am not reliant on GPS and I would make a small wager that given 2 basic aircraft, no GPS just a map and a stop watch with a timed arrival and spot landing on a complex nav ex I could proably pip you to the post. My navex timings in the last years competitions have been with 3 seconds on average......
I have many hundreds of hours in microlights and am well versed in looking out the window to navigate and control the aircraft.
But at the end of the day, my own aircraft is bristling with kit that I am 100 versed in using and I would not be without especially in marginal weather.
When will people wake up and smell the coffee GPS is not an evil it is just another tool in the box and when used wisely is a life saver.
I do have to say the one thing that I AM very anti is the use of non aviation GPS for navigation. These are just asking for trouble!
I have many hundreds of hours in microlights and am well versed in looking out the window to navigate and control the aircraft.
But at the end of the day, my own aircraft is bristling with kit that I am 100 versed in using and I would not be without especially in marginal weather.
When will people wake up and smell the coffee GPS is not an evil it is just another tool in the box and when used wisely is a life saver.
I do have to say the one thing that I AM very anti is the use of non aviation GPS for navigation. These are just asking for trouble!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: london
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations Bose-X
Your navigation and time-keeping are much to be admired.
Would you care to demonstrate them and join the BPPA(www.bppa.info)
and fly for England in the World Championships in Navigation and Spot landings in Tours France next year?
Your navigation and time-keeping are much to be admired.
Would you care to demonstrate them and join the BPPA(www.bppa.info)
and fly for England in the World Championships in Navigation and Spot landings in Tours France next year?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Witney
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is in no way trying to cast aspersions on the unfortunate victims of the Moreton in Marsh accident
but even with the best efforts the lack of vision which one has out of the average high winged aircraft, especially in a turn, scares the **** out of me.
See and be seen? Not in a Cessna single, it's more like looking out of a letter box
but even with the best efforts the lack of vision which one has out of the average high winged aircraft, especially in a turn, scares the **** out of me.
See and be seen? Not in a Cessna single, it's more like looking out of a letter box
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
For all us PPLs who are cluttering up the airwaves requesting RIS in Class G - a senior ATCO who teaches the RT course said that we PPLs should always ask for a RIS rather than an FIS. The service is there to be used by all.
For all us PPLs who are cluttering up the airwaves requesting RIS in Class G - a senior ATCO who teaches the RT course said that we PPLs should always ask for a RIS rather than an FIS. The service is there to be used by all.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Nonsense.
"Mark 1 eyebal has kept me safe thus far "
It would do. The stats are such that you could fly blindfolded, outside and also inside CAS, non-radio, on random paths say between 500ft agl and FL100, and you would die of old age before hitting something. In the UK, you would see loads of planes appearing to be awfully close but the odds are massively stacked against contact.
It does happen but rarely, and when it does it is usually where people congregate (near airfields, on nice days preceeded by long periods of poor weather).
So, there is no statistically compelling argument for spending Ł15k-Ł25k (as some of my friends have done, in SEPs) on a TCAD-type system. Especially pointless with non-mandatory transponders; one sees well under half the traffic, with the % depending on how high one is.
But if for some reason you do want reliable traffic detection, you have to spend some real money (and make transponders mandatory).
Nonsense.
"Mark 1 eyebal has kept me safe thus far "
It would do. The stats are such that you could fly blindfolded, outside and also inside CAS, non-radio, on random paths say between 500ft agl and FL100, and you would die of old age before hitting something. In the UK, you would see loads of planes appearing to be awfully close but the odds are massively stacked against contact.
It does happen but rarely, and when it does it is usually where people congregate (near airfields, on nice days preceeded by long periods of poor weather).
So, there is no statistically compelling argument for spending Ł15k-Ł25k (as some of my friends have done, in SEPs) on a TCAD-type system. Especially pointless with non-mandatory transponders; one sees well under half the traffic, with the % depending on how high one is.
But if for some reason you do want reliable traffic detection, you have to spend some real money (and make transponders mandatory).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making transponders mandatory would certainly reduce the likelihood of a mid air collision. It would, after all, ground about 70% of the traffic. I guess that would mean that the remaining 30% would not need to spend the money. Perhaps we should just charge 10,000 a year tax to fly, this would probably save a number of lives!
The tiny number of lives lost to this type of accident will never justify this proposal.
Rod1
The tiny number of lives lost to this type of accident will never justify this proposal.
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The tiny number of lives lost to this type of accident will never justify this proposal."
I agree.
But that's not the same thing as saying (as others do) that looking out is THE solution
A very big distinction.
"It would, after all, ground about 70% of the traffic"
Do you have a reference for this figure?
It's going to happen anyway, a few years from now, but at a more expensive point because a Mode S unit currently can't be put in for under Ł2500+VAT.
If Mode C had been made mandatory say 10 years ago, every plane would have one (they start at about Ł1500, about the same as a radio+VOR) and there would be no fuss about it now.
Then, instead of an RIS traffic report
"traffic at 10 o'clock, level unknown"
(almost useless, like the majority of them) one would get
"traffic at 10 o'clock, same level"
I agree.
But that's not the same thing as saying (as others do) that looking out is THE solution
A very big distinction.
"It would, after all, ground about 70% of the traffic"
Do you have a reference for this figure?
It's going to happen anyway, a few years from now, but at a more expensive point because a Mode S unit currently can't be put in for under Ł2500+VAT.
If Mode C had been made mandatory say 10 years ago, every plane would have one (they start at about Ł1500, about the same as a radio+VOR) and there would be no fuss about it now.
Then, instead of an RIS traffic report
"traffic at 10 o'clock, level unknown"
(almost useless, like the majority of them) one would get
"traffic at 10 o'clock, same level"
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know if the Moreton-on-Marsh location of the accident was pure coincidence or that it might have had something to do with "sightseeing"? I used to like to show passengers the site at low altitude when I flew out of Oxford. I can totally imagine how this quite impressive set-up might have led to reduced scanning for other planes...
Sorry for the speculation...
Sorry for the speculation...
DFC, I certainly agree that RIS/RAS should only be requested when needed. How many times on a gin clear day have we heard the droning tones of someone telling their life history to an ATCU before requesting a RIS with an in-flight visibility of 30km...
Always assume that no-one will be able to provide anything other than a FIS when you're flying under VFR - if you can get a RIS in decreasing vis, then fine.
As far as I'm aware, you will only get a RAS if you are flying under IFR.
I'm a great believer in GPS. But horribly overcomplicated multi-function things with gucci eye-candy moving maps you can keep. I'll stick with line on chart, measure track and distance and apply MDR. Then insert route on GPS, cross-check DTK, GS and ETA, look out and enjoy the view with the odd squint at the +/- 1 mile CDI bar. I won't go head-in and over navigate, I'll be enjoying the view with a nice reassurance form the GPS that my ETA is as anticipated.
As for TCAS, the Honeywell CAS 67A ACAS II for General Aviation is a snip at a mere $226,390.00. Maybe ADS-B will be more affordable, but meanwhile you'll have to rely upon the Mark 1 eyeball which does a pretty good job, when all is told.
Always assume that no-one will be able to provide anything other than a FIS when you're flying under VFR - if you can get a RIS in decreasing vis, then fine.
As far as I'm aware, you will only get a RAS if you are flying under IFR.
I'm a great believer in GPS. But horribly overcomplicated multi-function things with gucci eye-candy moving maps you can keep. I'll stick with line on chart, measure track and distance and apply MDR. Then insert route on GPS, cross-check DTK, GS and ETA, look out and enjoy the view with the odd squint at the +/- 1 mile CDI bar. I won't go head-in and over navigate, I'll be enjoying the view with a nice reassurance form the GPS that my ETA is as anticipated.
As for TCAS, the Honeywell CAS 67A ACAS II for General Aviation is a snip at a mere $226,390.00. Maybe ADS-B will be more affordable, but meanwhile you'll have to rely upon the Mark 1 eyeball which does a pretty good job, when all is told.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, I certainly agree that RIS/RAS should only be requested when needed. How many times on a gin clear day have we heard the droning tones of someone telling their life history to an ATCU before requesting a RIS with an in-flight visibility of 30km...
If I was to have a mid air, and to survive, but someone else was to die, you can imagine how bad I would feel. Then imagine I later discovered that the local Lars unit were sat there twiddling their thumbs because no one was bothered to call them and ask for a service?
I very much recognise the limitations of the eyeball. A RIS is something else there to help me, and I'll take advantage of it if it's available. If the controller is too busy they will tell me. If they are not too busy, then I've just added to the safety of my flight, and others in the area.
dp
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Right now there is no solution for gliders, the vast majority of microlights, balloons, paras, hangliders and many PFA aircraft. All of the above have either no electrical system or non which will support currant technology transponders. Several of the above groups have negotiated exemptions from the Mode S implementation so no it will never be all airspace users. The “low power” mode S solution is on its third supplier and is not yet finished, so no way could this have happened 10 years ago.
The original mode S emissions tests were done on large metal aircraft. Recent tests on fabric and composite aircraft have found that emissions are several times the EU H&S limit. This report came form one of the Scandinavian countries and is now being looked at by EASA. PFA expectation is all fabric and composite aircraft will be excepted, but this has a long way to go yet.
Rod1
Right now there is no solution for gliders, the vast majority of microlights, balloons, paras, hangliders and many PFA aircraft. All of the above have either no electrical system or non which will support currant technology transponders. Several of the above groups have negotiated exemptions from the Mode S implementation so no it will never be all airspace users. The “low power” mode S solution is on its third supplier and is not yet finished, so no way could this have happened 10 years ago.
The original mode S emissions tests were done on large metal aircraft. Recent tests on fabric and composite aircraft have found that emissions are several times the EU H&S limit. This report came form one of the Scandinavian countries and is now being looked at by EASA. PFA expectation is all fabric and composite aircraft will be excepted, but this has a long way to go yet.
Rod1
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't want to get into the debate on the GPS "head up/head down" scenario (although you only have to listen to any number of Commercial Examiners to get the best idea of which way they lean) but with regard to discussing hypothesising on the causes of an accident all I would say is that a couple of weeks ago I was fortunate to be given a tour of the AAIB facility at Farnborough.
Of the various accidents we saw, and we were all either Commercial Pilots or industry long-in-the-tooth-ites, we must have had a hit rate of about 5% on the causes.
Also, over the years I've had exposure to the aftermath of two aircraft accidents - neither of which were times I relished. Speculation was an absolute sh*t to be completely honest and did nothing but damage reputations and introduce rumours which were subsequently proved to be complete horsesh*t. Whilst we were lucky in that they weren't fatal, the reputations of a number of good pilots were judged unfairly - and sadly the media only tend to be interested on day one - they don't really care when the report comes out and the blame is apportioned to something failing.
Anyway, perhaps it's not a great argument, but it's certainly something which I think we should bear in mind when posting on here post-accident.
Personally, I'd prefer to leave it up to the experts at the AAIB - I'd suggest that we'd learn more from their findings and recommendations than various theories expressed by "experts" (and "non-experts") hiding behind the veil of anonymity on here.
Of the various accidents we saw, and we were all either Commercial Pilots or industry long-in-the-tooth-ites, we must have had a hit rate of about 5% on the causes.
Also, over the years I've had exposure to the aftermath of two aircraft accidents - neither of which were times I relished. Speculation was an absolute sh*t to be completely honest and did nothing but damage reputations and introduce rumours which were subsequently proved to be complete horsesh*t. Whilst we were lucky in that they weren't fatal, the reputations of a number of good pilots were judged unfairly - and sadly the media only tend to be interested on day one - they don't really care when the report comes out and the blame is apportioned to something failing.
Anyway, perhaps it's not a great argument, but it's certainly something which I think we should bear in mind when posting on here post-accident.
Personally, I'd prefer to leave it up to the experts at the AAIB - I'd suggest that we'd learn more from their findings and recommendations than various theories expressed by "experts" (and "non-experts") hiding behind the veil of anonymity on here.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Always assume that no-one will be able to provide anything other than a FIS when you're flying under VFR "
Firstly, what use is an FIS? "Seven aircraft known in your area". Nobody has a clue where they might be. Then there are the twenty others who aren't talking to this frequency. Plus another thirty who aren't talking to anybody. I am sure that if everybody flying called up London Info, the system would collapse instantly. I never bother with talking to a non-radar FIS, though I always tune in for a listening watch, in case I have to make a mayday call.
Secondly, IMHO it's worth talking to any radar unit because they then have your verified level and they pass your details to other traffic which is IFR, perhaps in IMC.
Very different abroad though; in France one tends to get an FIS which is a sort-of watered down RIS. Plus radio contact can be more or less mandatory (Greece). So one can't generalise because some people do fly abroad....
I think RAS is only for OCAS, and nowadays is offered only to IFR flights.
Daifly - I don't doubt you for a moment but I also think that many fatal GA accident analysis is guesswork. I've read loads of AAIB reports and it's clear they often don't really know. No CVR, no FDR. Just a radar trace every X seconds. Especially structural failure cases (arguably the most disturbing to a serious IFR pilot; mid-airs are a largely statistical numbers game) - no record of preceeding control movements. A lot of it is like watching Walking with Dinosaurs and hearing how many times a day they had sex.
Firstly, what use is an FIS? "Seven aircraft known in your area". Nobody has a clue where they might be. Then there are the twenty others who aren't talking to this frequency. Plus another thirty who aren't talking to anybody. I am sure that if everybody flying called up London Info, the system would collapse instantly. I never bother with talking to a non-radar FIS, though I always tune in for a listening watch, in case I have to make a mayday call.
Secondly, IMHO it's worth talking to any radar unit because they then have your verified level and they pass your details to other traffic which is IFR, perhaps in IMC.
Very different abroad though; in France one tends to get an FIS which is a sort-of watered down RIS. Plus radio contact can be more or less mandatory (Greece). So one can't generalise because some people do fly abroad....
I think RAS is only for OCAS, and nowadays is offered only to IFR flights.
Daifly - I don't doubt you for a moment but I also think that many fatal GA accident analysis is guesswork. I've read loads of AAIB reports and it's clear they often don't really know. No CVR, no FDR. Just a radar trace every X seconds. Especially structural failure cases (arguably the most disturbing to a serious IFR pilot; mid-airs are a largely statistical numbers game) - no record of preceeding control movements. A lot of it is like watching Walking with Dinosaurs and hearing how many times a day they had sex.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turniphead, I was going to join the BPPA but with all of the Air Rally's and the microlight comps(though not as many these days) I am not sure we could fit it in. Maybe next season!
But my challenge does stand!
But my challenge does stand!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh flippin' 'eck, it's gone exactly the same way the rest have gone. I knew it would and is why I abhor the opinionated drivel that always excretes from certain people when a fatality occurs.
A young man died and the thread started (as most of them do) with a series of condolences and "carefully chosen words". I could have gone to Ladbrokes and put my last Euro on the fact that by page three all of the comraderie would have dissolved into a "what I think is..." competition.
Once again, I have said before and I reiterate here, if I meet my maker in an aviation related accident I urge you all not to start speculating and squabbling. It is not what I would want.
Cusco - I do believe you were right earlier on.
A young man died and the thread started (as most of them do) with a series of condolences and "carefully chosen words". I could have gone to Ladbrokes and put my last Euro on the fact that by page three all of the comraderie would have dissolved into a "what I think is..." competition.
Once again, I have said before and I reiterate here, if I meet my maker in an aviation related accident I urge you all not to start speculating and squabbling. It is not what I would want.
Cusco - I do believe you were right earlier on.
Monocock, there has been just one speculative comment on the possible cause of the accident - and even that has thankfully been ignored.
The rest of the thread has mainly been a discussion between those who want more ATCU involvement and electric gizmos, and those who believe in traditional freedoms with minimal distractions.
At least, that's how I read it.
The rest of the thread has mainly been a discussion between those who want more ATCU involvement and electric gizmos, and those who believe in traditional freedoms with minimal distractions.
At least, that's how I read it.