incident at EMA (midair over Leicestershire)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it is popular to criticize see and avoid, but it is THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, and the less we try to make it work, the more it will kill us.
See and avoid has got more than half a chance with slow traffic.
Ideally, I think it is the combination of the two.
A CAS is a very useful bit of kit in my mind - with the audible warning there is no need for it to distract you in any way from keeping a good look out, so I would suggest you do both.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod has right on the nose, don't become lazy and rely on the technology. I have every gadget known to man including collision avoidance but that does not stop me having my eyes glued outside the window. The automatics make noise if there is something for me to look at, the rest of the time it's eyeballs peeled.
I guess it's why I spend so much time in the airways even on short trips, it's more relaxing being told what to do!
I guess it's why I spend so much time in the airways even on short trips, it's more relaxing being told what to do!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tragic accident near EMA
"see and avoid, is THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN"
The best protection is TCAS plus Mk1 eyeball.
gliders, balloons and string and basket types will always be invisible to ATC and TCAS equiped aircraft. Planning to cruise at a higher level gets you away from most of them most of the time.
The more times it saves my bacon the more I love my TCAS.
US$15K very well spent IMHO.
(I also love my eyeballs and keep 'em well peeled!)
SB
The best protection is TCAS plus Mk1 eyeball.
gliders, balloons and string and basket types will always be invisible to ATC and TCAS equiped aircraft. Planning to cruise at a higher level gets you away from most of them most of the time.
The more times it saves my bacon the more I love my TCAS.
US$15K very well spent IMHO.
(I also love my eyeballs and keep 'em well peeled!)
SB
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg, when you say "my" syllabus is that your personal one? Maybe my AOPA syllabus needing an update but the one I have does not mention emergency avoiding action.
Our skills test involves taking the examiner to photograph a house and an emergency avoid turn.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“See and avoid is great but why fly at 1800 feet in an area where there is a lot of aerial activity?”
One of the aircraft was probably flying at 1800ft, straight and level (less than 1500 ft above the ground), the other was probably climbing through the level and traveling at about 65kn.
Just a clarification about my “only game in town” comment. I have no problem with people fitting electronic wizardry, I was making the point that most of the traffic in the area of the accident would not have shown up. With this in mind, the only way to spot the vast majority of collision threats is see and avoid. In my flying, I would think 80 - 90% of the potential threats are not going to have an Xponder, but I fully accept that different mission profiles would have different mixes of threat.
One other point is radio frequencies. If it had been me (less than 60 sec from takeoff to 1800ft from the strip height of 350ft in my machine), I would have been on safety com and probably broadcasting my intentions to “Yeatsall traffic”. I would then have switched to either T,hill, EMA or Brum depending what I was planning. Some of the other strip residents use the gliding frequency for Cross Hays as it represents the closest threat. It is therefore extremely unlikely that even if both aircraft were radio equipped, that one would have learned about the other from a direct radio call.
Rod1
One of the aircraft was probably flying at 1800ft, straight and level (less than 1500 ft above the ground), the other was probably climbing through the level and traveling at about 65kn.
Just a clarification about my “only game in town” comment. I have no problem with people fitting electronic wizardry, I was making the point that most of the traffic in the area of the accident would not have shown up. With this in mind, the only way to spot the vast majority of collision threats is see and avoid. In my flying, I would think 80 - 90% of the potential threats are not going to have an Xponder, but I fully accept that different mission profiles would have different mixes of threat.
One other point is radio frequencies. If it had been me (less than 60 sec from takeoff to 1800ft from the strip height of 350ft in my machine), I would have been on safety com and probably broadcasting my intentions to “Yeatsall traffic”. I would then have switched to either T,hill, EMA or Brum depending what I was planning. Some of the other strip residents use the gliding frequency for Cross Hays as it represents the closest threat. It is therefore extremely unlikely that even if both aircraft were radio equipped, that one would have learned about the other from a direct radio call.
Rod1
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good points ROD
AIB by the way have mentioned possible problems with low sun. The para a/c was heard on R/T to say the incident happened at 1800 feet.
You can put forward all sorts of 'hindsight' arguments but the basic airmanship of lookout has to be the major consideration of a VMC collision.
I know it is wrong to speculate but I do not believe it is speculation to say we all need to improve our attention to lookout and perhaps to the way we plan VFR flights
AIB by the way have mentioned possible problems with low sun. The para a/c was heard on R/T to say the incident happened at 1800 feet.
You can put forward all sorts of 'hindsight' arguments but the basic airmanship of lookout has to be the major consideration of a VMC collision.
I know it is wrong to speculate but I do not believe it is speculation to say we all need to improve our attention to lookout and perhaps to the way we plan VFR flights
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One BIG problem the UK has is the way VFR traffic is squashed down with virtually no prospect of getting on top of CAS (not saying this is the case in this accident, but I have observed it many a time and it could explain why someone wouldwant to fly so low). For example, fly south along the south coast south Bournemouth and Southampton and you are limited to <2000' in places....so is everyone else, going any direction. You can't get on top, above Solent is Class A. And the nearer you get to London, the worse it gets.
The difference in other places is that CAS has a defined upper limit, even the big, important CAS, so you can go right over the top without a) busting CAS or b) a clearance. It'd be so great to take off, climb to 10,000 and fly right across England without having to worry hitting someone else who is squeezed into the same 2000' (realsitically 500' - very few fly less than 1500') vertical slice of space. You could also implement proper VFR cruising levels, which is not possible at the moment.
It'd certainly make life safer for everyone(and safety is what it is all about).
The difference in other places is that CAS has a defined upper limit, even the big, important CAS, so you can go right over the top without a) busting CAS or b) a clearance. It'd be so great to take off, climb to 10,000 and fly right across England without having to worry hitting someone else who is squeezed into the same 2000' (realsitically 500' - very few fly less than 1500') vertical slice of space. You could also implement proper VFR cruising levels, which is not possible at the moment.
It'd certainly make life safer for everyone(and safety is what it is all about).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg..
The low sun at the weekend was probably 90% of the cause of this accident and no amount of planning, map locations, wizadry, comms and anything else that people go on about are gonna make the slightest difference....
Nasty sun position, unfortunate heading, unfortunate height, unfortunate place - equals a rare accident that we seem to have encountered.
It is difficult to see a different outcome of the AAIB - but we shall all wait and see.....
I personally disagree with the CAS comments - the less we keep going on about them and the more we concentrate on our flying skills the better. There are less GA aircraft bumbling around our skies now than 10 years ago - and like hundreds of other GA / Professional flyers who frequent this forum will testify - the more that people bleat on about regulating us back to behind the hangar doors the quicker it will happen.
I thoroughly enjoy flying a Super Cub or Stearman non radio, non GPS, and at 500 agl or lower (str5) visiting farm strips or landing on a deserted beach, or taking one of our company helicopters to a hotel......
Please can we stop trying to speed up regulation that we dont need..! or am i in the minority?
The low sun at the weekend was probably 90% of the cause of this accident and no amount of planning, map locations, wizadry, comms and anything else that people go on about are gonna make the slightest difference....
Nasty sun position, unfortunate heading, unfortunate height, unfortunate place - equals a rare accident that we seem to have encountered.
It is difficult to see a different outcome of the AAIB - but we shall all wait and see.....
I personally disagree with the CAS comments - the less we keep going on about them and the more we concentrate on our flying skills the better. There are less GA aircraft bumbling around our skies now than 10 years ago - and like hundreds of other GA / Professional flyers who frequent this forum will testify - the more that people bleat on about regulating us back to behind the hangar doors the quicker it will happen.
I thoroughly enjoy flying a Super Cub or Stearman non radio, non GPS, and at 500 agl or lower (str5) visiting farm strips or landing on a deserted beach, or taking one of our company helicopters to a hotel......
Please can we stop trying to speed up regulation that we dont need..! or am i in the minority?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nasty sun position, unfortunate heading, unfortunate height, unfortunate place - equals a rare accident that we seem to have encountered.
It is up to others to fill in their own blanks
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>>While this is correct I merely pose the question, why fly at 1800 ft in an area which has a large amount of non radio traffic when the FIR is clear to FL045?
It is up to others to fill in their own blanks<<<<
Perhaps this was so that the pilot could remain in clear sight of ground features?? By all accounts the vis wasn't good
It is up to others to fill in their own blanks<<<<
Perhaps this was so that the pilot could remain in clear sight of ground features?? By all accounts the vis wasn't good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may well be correct.
The last time I flew in zero forward vis inversion haze I found that while in the inversion only flying very low around 500ft proved any use but was just not practical.
The last time I flew in zero forward vis inversion haze I found that while in the inversion only flying very low around 500ft proved any use but was just not practical.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg,
Do you intend to come back to earth any time soon??? - Can i ask the last time you flew a Luscombe? the poor little things get a nose bleed if they go over 2000ft, other than climbing over granite with snow on, in France or Switzerland - and using the wind to help - your unlikely to find one above 2000 so the open FIR up to 45 is about as much use as "titty's on a fish" to a Luscombe, and the last time you were flying GA in class G in "Zero Vis" - For an, and i assume here, a full ATPL/IR sky god you say some funny things...?
500ft very low ----- er dont think so!!! you need to get out more
light banter not personal - please dont take so....
Do you intend to come back to earth any time soon??? - Can i ask the last time you flew a Luscombe? the poor little things get a nose bleed if they go over 2000ft, other than climbing over granite with snow on, in France or Switzerland - and using the wind to help - your unlikely to find one above 2000 so the open FIR up to 45 is about as much use as "titty's on a fish" to a Luscombe, and the last time you were flying GA in class G in "Zero Vis" - For an, and i assume here, a full ATPL/IR sky god you say some funny things...?
500ft very low ----- er dont think so!!! you need to get out more
light banter not personal - please dont take so....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one, i am back now!!!
I normally sit at 350-370 so please belive me that 500ft is very low to me!
But i was referring to the para a/c not the Luscombe so you see if you stayed in more and read the posts you would know that.
By the way I could imagine that'Tittys on a fish' could be extemely useful to the right fish but lets not carp about it
I normally sit at 350-370 so please belive me that 500ft is very low to me!
But i was referring to the para a/c not the Luscombe so you see if you stayed in more and read the posts you would know that.
By the way I could imagine that'Tittys on a fish' could be extemely useful to the right fish but lets not carp about it