Mid-Air Collision - Gloucestershire
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid-Air Collision - Gloucestershire
One of our Club members was airborne at the time and saw this tragedy happen. He immediately alerted a nearby radar unit, then remained in the vicinity until he knew that the emergency services had been informed. He was very shaken up, having watched the aircraft crash into the disused aerodrome at Moreton-in-Marsh, but was very relieved to see the 2 occupants of the other aeroplane walk away from their forced landing.
Condolences to friends and family of the deceased.
Condolences to friends and family of the deceased.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what a Tragedy..
I make no other comment on this accident other than to recognise it as a tragedy..so close to Christmas.
As an entirely separate observation (and NOT referring to this accident), how remarkable that the former R.A.F. Moreton in Marsh should claim another flying soul. (The entire former airfield now has many buildings as serves as a fire-service training facility)
For those unfamiliar with Moreton, it had one of the worst weather records in the 40s and 50s resulting in many losses of OCU and operational crews...particularly those on Wellingtons.
Kind regards to all Ppruners bm
As an entirely separate observation (and NOT referring to this accident), how remarkable that the former R.A.F. Moreton in Marsh should claim another flying soul. (The entire former airfield now has many buildings as serves as a fire-service training facility)
For those unfamiliar with Moreton, it had one of the worst weather records in the 40s and 50s resulting in many losses of OCU and operational crews...particularly those on Wellingtons.
Kind regards to all Ppruners bm
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a problem with the rather sick- making posting of condolences on pprune in this situation:
Sure we all hurt when fellow flyers die for whatever reason:
But posting condolences on here?
The relatives are certainly not scanning pprune right now.
By all means send condolences direct if you know those involved.
Don't know them ?--- point made.
Safe (and vigilant) flying.
Cusco.
Sure we all hurt when fellow flyers die for whatever reason:
But posting condolences on here?
The relatives are certainly not scanning pprune right now.
By all means send condolences direct if you know those involved.
Don't know them ?--- point made.
Safe (and vigilant) flying.
Cusco.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a tough call Cusco.
Should we post our sympaties or not?
Personally, I would suggest that the family of the deceased would not be looking here, but have other things to do.
Meanwhile, "we", can express our sympathies and hope that the family will understand that these are our genuine expressions.
Should we post our sympaties or not?
Personally, I would suggest that the family of the deceased would not be looking here, but have other things to do.
Meanwhile, "we", can express our sympathies and hope that the family will understand that these are our genuine expressions.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tragic ! My condolences to friends and family
Cusco,
A valid observation after all though following the contrived, mawkish, Blair induced "people's princess" trash and the OTT national mourning, flowers, tears etc which devalued genuine condolences and has become an institutionalised farce in UK in my opinion.
However, those above are more than likely fellow aviators who have every right to express their feelings at this time on an aviators forum.
Cusco,
A valid observation after all though following the contrived, mawkish, Blair induced "people's princess" trash and the OTT national mourning, flowers, tears etc which devalued genuine condolences and has become an institutionalised farce in UK in my opinion.
However, those above are more than likely fellow aviators who have every right to express their feelings at this time on an aviators forum.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On almost every thread like this recently (and there have been too many this year) some people have felt the need to express condolences, and others have seen it as completely inappropriate to do so. We're all different, and we all react differently to the death of fellow aviators. Can't we just let this be the case? Because the one thing I find inappropriate is when these threads turn into arguments on what should or shouldn't be posted. 
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I agree, let the moderators do the moderating where necessary.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also agree with Whirlybird.
However, I do disagree with the posters who on similar threads react angrily to anyone who discusses what may have been the cause. We are all (mostly) adults here and are well aware that we won't know the whole story until the investigations are completed. But discussing possible causes IMV, does no harm at all.
For example, a student was killed at EFT(?) earlier this year. A reading of the intial facts 'seems' to suggest she stalled and spun following a go-around with full flaps. Would a discussion of this on PPrune at least not have highlighted this danger, especially to student/new pilots?
However, I do disagree with the posters who on similar threads react angrily to anyone who discusses what may have been the cause. We are all (mostly) adults here and are well aware that we won't know the whole story until the investigations are completed. But discussing possible causes IMV, does no harm at all.
For example, a student was killed at EFT(?) earlier this year. A reading of the intial facts 'seems' to suggest she stalled and spun following a go-around with full flaps. Would a discussion of this on PPrune at least not have highlighted this danger, especially to student/new pilots?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that reasonable specualtion on causes is reasonable.
As to a "fix", mandatory Mode C with TCAD is the only solution. The Mk1 eyeball being effective in detecting traffic flying a straight line (3D straight) trajectory on a genuine collission course is a myth which refuses the die.
As to a "fix", mandatory Mode C with TCAD is the only solution. The Mk1 eyeball being effective in detecting traffic flying a straight line (3D straight) trajectory on a genuine collission course is a myth which refuses the die.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Missouri, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tragedy indeed. I'm very sorry for the loss and there seems to be little we can learn from the accident to make the rest of us safer pilots.
As for the Cuscos of the world, they'll always spew their venom wherever people will listen. Let's hope he's moved on to another forum for awhile.
As for the Cuscos of the world, they'll always spew their venom wherever people will listen. Let's hope he's moved on to another forum for awhile.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode S is not required for TCAS to work. All you need is the direction (azimuth) and the flight level.
A Mode C transponder on the target, with some antennae arranged to give direction finding (like an ADF, or a stormscope) gives you that.
Plus mandatory transponders of course.
The extra functionality of Mode S is for ATC purposes; it allows the interrogating radar to select which targets should respond. There is also a return of an aircraft-specific ID but one wouldn't really need that for TCAS.
What Mode S can give you is another way to implement TCAS, using some sort of data transfer facility. I haven't read up on this.
The best system would simply transmit one's GPS position and GPS altitude. Then, no DF antennae are required and the whole thing could be cheap (sub-£1000 say). Of course by the time the usual avionics vendors and their distribution/dealer/installer chain gets their teeth into it it won't be anything like that. But it doesn't have to cost the 10 grand it does at present.
A Mode C transponder on the target, with some antennae arranged to give direction finding (like an ADF, or a stormscope) gives you that.
Plus mandatory transponders of course.
The extra functionality of Mode S is for ATC purposes; it allows the interrogating radar to select which targets should respond. There is also a return of an aircraft-specific ID but one wouldn't really need that for TCAS.
What Mode S can give you is another way to implement TCAS, using some sort of data transfer facility. I haven't read up on this.
The best system would simply transmit one's GPS position and GPS altitude. Then, no DF antennae are required and the whole thing could be cheap (sub-£1000 say). Of course by the time the usual avionics vendors and their distribution/dealer/installer chain gets their teeth into it it won't be anything like that. But it doesn't have to cost the 10 grand it does at present.
All of which would require the pilot to look in even more....
No new electric kit is needed, except perhaps mandatory transponder areas (the more congested parts of the UK, perhaps) and an effective 24/7 national LARS coverage?
But who would pay for it?
The ever increasing number of highly complex avionic boxes, moving map displays etc positively encourage 'head-in' flying - which is why I prefer a CAA chart and non-moving map GPS which just gives a simple L/R CDI demand, plus numeric data.
Talking to a FIE yesterday, he is constantly dismayed at the poor standards of look out and even basic attitude flying exhibited by many students AND some instructors.
As I was driving back home through Chipping Norton yesterday afternoon, the AAIB low-loader with the sad wreckage went past going the other way. Not nice.
TCAS II is emphatically not the answer in the GA VFR environment; it is primarily an IFR safety system which attempts to provide vertical separation to resolve conflict with other Mode C or Mode S platforms. Mode S v Mode S TCAS also provides co-ordinated Resolution Advisory guidance for both platforms.
Few GA spamcans would be able to meet the climb rates required by TCAS; azimuth collision resolution is not provided by any current TCAS.
No new electric kit is needed, except perhaps mandatory transponder areas (the more congested parts of the UK, perhaps) and an effective 24/7 national LARS coverage?
But who would pay for it?
The ever increasing number of highly complex avionic boxes, moving map displays etc positively encourage 'head-in' flying - which is why I prefer a CAA chart and non-moving map GPS which just gives a simple L/R CDI demand, plus numeric data.
Talking to a FIE yesterday, he is constantly dismayed at the poor standards of look out and even basic attitude flying exhibited by many students AND some instructors.
As I was driving back home through Chipping Norton yesterday afternoon, the AAIB low-loader with the sad wreckage went past going the other way. Not nice.
TCAS II is emphatically not the answer in the GA VFR environment; it is primarily an IFR safety system which attempts to provide vertical separation to resolve conflict with other Mode C or Mode S platforms. Mode S v Mode S TCAS also provides co-ordinated Resolution Advisory guidance for both platforms.
Few GA spamcans would be able to meet the climb rates required by TCAS; azimuth collision resolution is not provided by any current TCAS.
Whilst not associating the following remarks in ANY way with the accident in question for which the facts are not known - it seems to me that far too many pilots in the GA community spend too much time with their heads in the cockpit playing with GPS and suchlike and far too little time flying
VFR and actually looking out.
VFR and actually looking out.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how do you know that beamer? Have you flown with them all and seen the evidence with your own eyes or are you assuming based on anecdotal evidance that your assumption is correct?
There is some tosh that gets posted on this site but that takes the biscuit.
I saw the Cessna involved in the crash on our way to lunch at WW. I have GPS in fact 2 of them and still manage to look out the window.
Perhaps another "fact" is that to many pilots spend to much time with there head in the cockpit looking at a map and stopwatch and trying to work out where the hell they are.........
There is some tosh that gets posted on this site but that takes the biscuit.
I saw the Cessna involved in the crash on our way to lunch at WW. I have GPS in fact 2 of them and still manage to look out the window.
Perhaps another "fact" is that to many pilots spend to much time with there head in the cockpit looking at a map and stopwatch and trying to work out where the hell they are.........
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with bose-x. GA needs to be dragged (kicking and screaming as necessary) into the 20th century. It's the 21st now but let's keep the objective managable...
"All of which would require the pilot to look in even more...."
Beagle, I am sorry but I really disagree. There is no need to look down because the system gives you an audio warning. I have a cockpit full of gear so I know. Cockpit automation allows much more head-up. An autopilot tracking the GPS is the dogs bo*****k and the head-up time is at least 99%. I am not under any illusion of spotting traffic (for reasons I've stated here plenty of times) but the view is usually nice to have
Unless, of course, the pilot doesn't know how to use the gear and is fiddling with his knob(s) en route. But that's a whole different issue; it IS possible to buy a plane with all the kit without having training on it (wrong IMV). Most PPL instructors haven't got a clue when it comes to avionics (vast majority of PPL instructors can't even load a route into a GNS430) so it's no suprise they are scared of it. Those instructors that do understand it are, IME invariably, very keen on a pilot knowing it and using it. Cockpit automation -> low pilot workload -> greater safety. The airlines learnt this decades ago, but GA lives on in its 1920s "Humphrey Bogart romantic era of aviation" time warp.
Also the terminology is being used loosely, including my myself. TCAS is the wrong name; there is no need for an advisory action or for automatic resolution (which would imply an engaged autopilot with auto throttle etc etc). The TCAS climb rates are a redherring; a jet flying at 250kTAS will be doing +3000fpm even on a small gradient. One just needs info on traffic that's relevant (according to its extrapolated trajectory).
Radar cover isn't a solution either. Most traffic reported by RIS cannot be seen, no matter how hard you look. So, OCAS, this doesn't really work either unless one takes action early on, but few units will give you an RAS (especially when needed) due to the very generous separation rules required being quite impossible to achieve under conditions of any traffic density, and when you do get an RAS they make you fly anything up to double the distance, with 90 degree left/right etc. I never ask for RAS for that reason; an informal "20 L/R" vector from a radar unit is much better.
"All of which would require the pilot to look in even more...."
Beagle, I am sorry but I really disagree. There is no need to look down because the system gives you an audio warning. I have a cockpit full of gear so I know. Cockpit automation allows much more head-up. An autopilot tracking the GPS is the dogs bo*****k and the head-up time is at least 99%. I am not under any illusion of spotting traffic (for reasons I've stated here plenty of times) but the view is usually nice to have
Unless, of course, the pilot doesn't know how to use the gear and is fiddling with his knob(s) en route. But that's a whole different issue; it IS possible to buy a plane with all the kit without having training on it (wrong IMV). Most PPL instructors haven't got a clue when it comes to avionics (vast majority of PPL instructors can't even load a route into a GNS430) so it's no suprise they are scared of it. Those instructors that do understand it are, IME invariably, very keen on a pilot knowing it and using it. Cockpit automation -> low pilot workload -> greater safety. The airlines learnt this decades ago, but GA lives on in its 1920s "Humphrey Bogart romantic era of aviation" time warp.
Also the terminology is being used loosely, including my myself. TCAS is the wrong name; there is no need for an advisory action or for automatic resolution (which would imply an engaged autopilot with auto throttle etc etc). The TCAS climb rates are a redherring; a jet flying at 250kTAS will be doing +3000fpm even on a small gradient. One just needs info on traffic that's relevant (according to its extrapolated trajectory).
Radar cover isn't a solution either. Most traffic reported by RIS cannot be seen, no matter how hard you look. So, OCAS, this doesn't really work either unless one takes action early on, but few units will give you an RAS (especially when needed) due to the very generous separation rules required being quite impossible to achieve under conditions of any traffic density, and when you do get an RAS they make you fly anything up to double the distance, with 90 degree left/right etc. I never ask for RAS for that reason; an informal "20 L/R" vector from a radar unit is much better.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From time to time I take some pilots who ask flying in an aircraft with very basic equipment. Despite some of them being (in PPL terms) experienced, they always ask where the attitude indicator or turn coordinator is. They can not seem to understand how we can fly an accurate turn without having some internal indication of bank angle.
All the time, the biggest, clearest horizon is staring them in the face!!!
During PPL training, too much emphasis is done on using xx degrees of bank is turns. This is where the head-in flying starts during critical phases of flight.
For the GST standard, pilots need to maintain an altitude within a 300ft band in smooth air. Why demad that student private pilots keep the altimeter within 50ft of a given level when that requires far more time looking at the altimeter!
Pilots who think and/or say that having a GPS reduces their workload drastically are in the situation of placing far to much reliance on said GPS and are in the unfortunate position of never having learned to navigate properly in the first place. Note that I say navigate and not map read!
Mark 1 eyebal has kept me safe thus far (yes there have been a few close ones) and will continue to do so even at speeds far in excess of the average GA.
What disapoints me most is that when head on to an aircraft we turn right and the other aircraft makes no effort to do their legal requirement. I am sure that pilots do not intentionally break the law or choose to be so lazy that the law is broken, I believe that of the 7 or 8 aircraft I will manoeuvre to avoid between now and the new year flying VFR in the UK, only 1 or 2 will even see us.
-----------
BEagle,
LARS (RIS and RAS) should be limited to IFR flights. Too often we are IFR in class G and can not even get a RIS because of all the VFRs loading the service. VFR pilots should take full responsibility for lookout and not need anyone else to assist them in performing to the basic standard required to hold a PPL.
If that means that some PPLs will not fly on a day where the vis is legal but reduced than that is great. Using RIS as a crutch when flying in marginal conditions (for the speed of the aircraft) is a fools game especially when the radio packs up!
A private pilot who makes the decision to fly based on the availability of an ATS service in class G airspace should not fly. Every VFR flight in class G should be made on the assumption that the flight can be completed VFR without any service (should the need arise).
So sad that most PPLs who obtain a RIS and are told of traffic at 12 O'Clock will always look out the front window directly ahead of the aircraft!
---------
IO540,
You should read the study dome some years back into automation and electronic aids increasing workload on commercial aircraft. IALPA, NASA and I think the CAA all did studies.
You correctly state that workload only reduces when the pilot knows exactly how to use the equipment and it's limitations. Unfortunately from personal experience, few pilots know how to use their GPS units (hand held or panel mounted) to their advantage.
Regards,
DFC
All the time, the biggest, clearest horizon is staring them in the face!!!
During PPL training, too much emphasis is done on using xx degrees of bank is turns. This is where the head-in flying starts during critical phases of flight.
For the GST standard, pilots need to maintain an altitude within a 300ft band in smooth air. Why demad that student private pilots keep the altimeter within 50ft of a given level when that requires far more time looking at the altimeter!
Pilots who think and/or say that having a GPS reduces their workload drastically are in the situation of placing far to much reliance on said GPS and are in the unfortunate position of never having learned to navigate properly in the first place. Note that I say navigate and not map read!
Mark 1 eyebal has kept me safe thus far (yes there have been a few close ones) and will continue to do so even at speeds far in excess of the average GA.
What disapoints me most is that when head on to an aircraft we turn right and the other aircraft makes no effort to do their legal requirement. I am sure that pilots do not intentionally break the law or choose to be so lazy that the law is broken, I believe that of the 7 or 8 aircraft I will manoeuvre to avoid between now and the new year flying VFR in the UK, only 1 or 2 will even see us.
-----------
BEagle,
LARS (RIS and RAS) should be limited to IFR flights. Too often we are IFR in class G and can not even get a RIS because of all the VFRs loading the service. VFR pilots should take full responsibility for lookout and not need anyone else to assist them in performing to the basic standard required to hold a PPL.
If that means that some PPLs will not fly on a day where the vis is legal but reduced than that is great. Using RIS as a crutch when flying in marginal conditions (for the speed of the aircraft) is a fools game especially when the radio packs up!
A private pilot who makes the decision to fly based on the availability of an ATS service in class G airspace should not fly. Every VFR flight in class G should be made on the assumption that the flight can be completed VFR without any service (should the need arise).
So sad that most PPLs who obtain a RIS and are told of traffic at 12 O'Clock will always look out the front window directly ahead of the aircraft!
---------
IO540,
You should read the study dome some years back into automation and electronic aids increasing workload on commercial aircraft. IALPA, NASA and I think the CAA all did studies.
You correctly state that workload only reduces when the pilot knows exactly how to use the equipment and it's limitations. Unfortunately from personal experience, few pilots know how to use their GPS units (hand held or panel mounted) to their advantage.
Regards,
DFC