The Coventry Incident - the ONLY thread?
Pompey till I die
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad
Whilst I've read through the bickering and to'ing and through'ing of "keeping a good lookout" it's still strange that the light aircraft was transiting an active approach ?
I wonder how they strayed there, if it were poor navigation, incorrect altimeter setting.
Very sad.
I wonder how they strayed there, if it were poor navigation, incorrect altimeter setting.
Very sad.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn't transiting or strayed there, both aircraft were approaching to land at Cov, quote below is AAIB press statement.
19 August 2008
PRESS STATEMENT
Mid-air collision involving a Cessna 402C aircraft
and a Rand KR-2 aircraft near Coventry Airport on 17 August 2008
Mid-air collision involving a Cessna 402C aircraft
and a Rand KR-2 aircraft near Coventry Airport on 17 August 2008
On 17 August 2008, at approximately 1138 hrs local time, a twin-engine Cessna 402C
aircraft and a single-engine Rand KR-2 aircraft were involved in a mid-air collision near
Coombe Abbey in Warwickshire. The four occupants of the Cessna 402C and the pilot
of the Rand KR-2 were fatally injured. Both aircraft were approaching to land at
Coventry Airport at the time of the collision.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch were notified of the accident at 1205 hrs and
accident investigators were on site later the same day to examine the wreckage of both
aircraft and to commence a field investigation examining all aspects of both aircraft
operation.
The wreckage from both aircraft will be recovered to the AAIB’s facility at Farnborough
for more detailed examination.
An AAIB Field investigation is now underway and an accident report will be released in
due course.
aircraft and a single-engine Rand KR-2 aircraft were involved in a mid-air collision near
Coombe Abbey in Warwickshire. The four occupants of the Cessna 402C and the pilot
of the Rand KR-2 were fatally injured. Both aircraft were approaching to land at
Coventry Airport at the time of the collision.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch were notified of the accident at 1205 hrs and
accident investigators were on site later the same day to examine the wreckage of both
aircraft and to commence a field investigation examining all aspects of both aircraft
operation.
The wreckage from both aircraft will be recovered to the AAIB’s facility at Farnborough
for more detailed examination.
An AAIB Field investigation is now underway and an accident report will be released in
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar Cross-Section
Someone mentioned earlier about the visibility of a "microlight" (as it was then assumed to be) on radar.
A few years ago I was working with a Middle-East Government and a N.American company on "Low-Altitude and Low Radar Cross-Section incursion detection" The website for the "light" shows around 200kg empty weight -yes, the engine is probably a fair proportion of that weight but on its own it would have presented a very poor radar X-section and the chances of it being seen reliably by a "regular" (civil or military) radar would not be good.
(Off-topic, but for interest, we were using a 2-metre Doppler-shift type of detection which did not give az-el information, but would be set out in about 1-km "sectors" to allow suitable aerial/missile interception to be launched. A principle that Boeing and I both discovered at around the same time many years ago - but they patented it!)
Maybe there's an argument for "tinfoil" to be incorporated in the GRP panels of such "very-lights"? Just my 2 dirhams worth?
A few years ago I was working with a Middle-East Government and a N.American company on "Low-Altitude and Low Radar Cross-Section incursion detection" The website for the "light" shows around 200kg empty weight -yes, the engine is probably a fair proportion of that weight but on its own it would have presented a very poor radar X-section and the chances of it being seen reliably by a "regular" (civil or military) radar would not be good.
(Off-topic, but for interest, we were using a 2-metre Doppler-shift type of detection which did not give az-el information, but would be set out in about 1-km "sectors" to allow suitable aerial/missile interception to be launched. A principle that Boeing and I both discovered at around the same time many years ago - but they patented it!)
Maybe there's an argument for "tinfoil" to be incorporated in the GRP panels of such "very-lights"? Just my 2 dirhams worth?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally speaking when we're Calibrating it's done VFR, it allows us to self-position more quickly than being IFR and vectored, it also gives us more flexibility in holding / manouevering and allows air traffic to apply VFR separation with us.
As for the crewing thing, our B200's are "single-pilot" aircraft but we are required to operate 2 crew on precision calibration tasks. There is a lot going on during a calibration with both front-end guys busy looking out, flying, navigating, liasing with air-traffic, co-ordinating with our rear-end NavAid Inspector and of course looking out again! (Hopefully)
Personally i'd be very happy if ALL aircraft (including microlights, balloons and gliders) were required to carry at least Mode 3 A/C transponders and if all aircraft involved in our kind of operation were required to carry TCAS. At present we have a TCAD system which is a lot better than nothing but still not really good enough.
As for the crewing thing, our B200's are "single-pilot" aircraft but we are required to operate 2 crew on precision calibration tasks. There is a lot going on during a calibration with both front-end guys busy looking out, flying, navigating, liasing with air-traffic, co-ordinating with our rear-end NavAid Inspector and of course looking out again! (Hopefully)
Personally i'd be very happy if ALL aircraft (including microlights, balloons and gliders) were required to carry at least Mode 3 A/C transponders and if all aircraft involved in our kind of operation were required to carry TCAS. At present we have a TCAD system which is a lot better than nothing but still not really good enough.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I've read through the bickering and to'ing and through'ing of "keeping a good lookout" it's still strange that the light aircraft was transiting an active approach ?
I wonder how they strayed there, if it were poor navigation, incorrect altimeter setting.
Very sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I've read through the bickering and to'ing and through'ing of "keeping a good lookout" it's still strange that the light aircraft was transiting an active approach ?
I wonder how they strayed there, if it were poor navigation, incorrect altimeter setting.
Very sad.
Am I alone in being slightly unnerved by one or two posts on here from people who seem to suggest that they believed they would automatically have a right of way when flying an ILS approach in class G, above VMC minima?
It has been widely reported that both aircraft were making an approach at the time of this accident (I have no idea as to whether that is wholly correct, but will assume for now that it is). As such, both would seem to be subject to the normal GFR/VFR "give way" rules (neither would have an automatic right of way as being the aircraft "approaching to land" under Rule 17 (6)), irrespective of whether or not one or both were taking advantage of the ILS . Similarly, neither aircraft was under control from an ATC unit, in fact neither could legally have accepted control, had it been offered, as I understand it, as the conditions were better than VMC minima and the accident occurred in class G airspace.
The whole idea of flying ILS approaches in class G, in good vis, gives me the willies, particularly as it seems to becoming more widespread as the budget airlines move out to cheaper satellite airports. I'm in no way associating this with the accident in question, before I get leapt upon once more, just raising the whole issue as to whether it's safe practice to do this.
VP
It has been widely reported that both aircraft were making an approach at the time of this accident (I have no idea as to whether that is wholly correct, but will assume for now that it is). As such, both would seem to be subject to the normal GFR/VFR "give way" rules (neither would have an automatic right of way as being the aircraft "approaching to land" under Rule 17 (6)), irrespective of whether or not one or both were taking advantage of the ILS . Similarly, neither aircraft was under control from an ATC unit, in fact neither could legally have accepted control, had it been offered, as I understand it, as the conditions were better than VMC minima and the accident occurred in class G airspace.
The whole idea of flying ILS approaches in class G, in good vis, gives me the willies, particularly as it seems to becoming more widespread as the budget airlines move out to cheaper satellite airports. I'm in no way associating this with the accident in question, before I get leapt upon once more, just raising the whole issue as to whether it's safe practice to do this.
VP
Guest
Posts: n/a
Before anything else, I offer my condolences to those who lost their lives (or their loved ones and friends) in this accident.
Whilst we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation to know how this happened, there have been many comments out airspace classes and flight rules, many of which appear either incorrect or based on misunderstanding. As I understand the situation, both aircraft were in communication with Coventry ATC.
Although airspace class and flight rules are not entirely irrelevant, there is a very grey area over what ATC has responsibility for in the vicinity of an aerodrome, and particularly the aerodrome controller's responsibilities for managing an orderly flow of air traffic. Make no mistake, the aerodrome controller's job in an environment like Coventry is not easy - whether issues of airspace, flight rules or IFR/commercial flight outside CAS etc. are particularly relevant will no doubt become clearer from the investigation, but if it results in the clarification the grey area of aerodrome control responsibilities it will be no bad thing - for pilots and controllers alike.
Whilst we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation to know how this happened, there have been many comments out airspace classes and flight rules, many of which appear either incorrect or based on misunderstanding. As I understand the situation, both aircraft were in communication with Coventry ATC.
Although airspace class and flight rules are not entirely irrelevant, there is a very grey area over what ATC has responsibility for in the vicinity of an aerodrome, and particularly the aerodrome controller's responsibilities for managing an orderly flow of air traffic. Make no mistake, the aerodrome controller's job in an environment like Coventry is not easy - whether issues of airspace, flight rules or IFR/commercial flight outside CAS etc. are particularly relevant will no doubt become clearer from the investigation, but if it results in the clarification the grey area of aerodrome control responsibilities it will be no bad thing - for pilots and controllers alike.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This does make me wonder if there could be an element of error on the part of ATC?
2 Aircraft talking to ATC collide on final, see and avoid aside what happened to ATC input?
2 Aircraft talking to ATC collide on final, see and avoid aside what happened to ATC input?
Here is a picture of the RAND KR-2, she's not much bigger than a 3 axis microlight (400kg MTOW) - hard to see and, by the looks of her, hard to see out of:
Very sad, but these things will happen without mandating aids such as FLARM or TCAS/ACAS. I remember a trial done by the MOD's DERA (now QinetiQ) in the 90s that said "see and avoid" below 2000ft was about 99% effective if you look 70% outside and 30% on the instruments - bad news if you are the 1%! I believe that the technology to reduce the risk of this occuring again is now available and it's time for us to invest in it - unpalatable as it is to us hard-pressed GA pilots (ie. Lightweight Mode S + TCAS/ACAS or FLARM).
My condolences to the families involved...
LJ
Very sad, but these things will happen without mandating aids such as FLARM or TCAS/ACAS. I remember a trial done by the MOD's DERA (now QinetiQ) in the 90s that said "see and avoid" below 2000ft was about 99% effective if you look 70% outside and 30% on the instruments - bad news if you are the 1%! I believe that the technology to reduce the risk of this occuring again is now available and it's time for us to invest in it - unpalatable as it is to us hard-pressed GA pilots (ie. Lightweight Mode S + TCAS/ACAS or FLARM).
My condolences to the families involved...
LJ
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a trial done by the MOD's DERA (now QinetiQ) in the 90s that said "see and avoid" below 2000ft was about 99% effective if you look 70% outside and 30% on the instruments
You can put four pilots into a 4-seater and fly around under a radar information service, on a gin clear day, and count how many of the reported targets that group of 4 people manage to spot.
It won't be 99%, it won't be even 50%.
Flying alone, on autopilot so hands and eyes free, I manage perhaps 10% - but then I fly higher than GA average, as high as CAS allows, so nearly everybody is below me, against the ground and very hard to spot.
And the majority of reported traffic is 'level unknown' i.e. nontransponding so you have no idea where to look for it vertically, but when you do spot it, it is way down below maybe 95% of the time.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS= Instrument landing system
Unless you are flying an aircraft with a full FD/AP system capable of flying a coupled approach how are you able to look outside, other than a quick glance?
I think its fair to say that 99% of people flying an ILS expect total protection on an ILS approach, it matters not that the conditions are visual or IMC you are flying a PA.
If the 402 was cleared for the ILS then there should have been no conflicting traffic period, i will leave the rest to the AAIB...........RIP Guys
I think its fair to say that 99% of people flying an ILS expect total protection on an ILS approach, it matters not that the conditions are visual or IMC you are flying a PA.
If the 402 was cleared for the ILS then there should have been no conflicting traffic period, i will leave the rest to the AAIB...........RIP Guys
Flying Officer Kite
"When flying an ILS one does not expect other traffic to be in the vicinity whether VFR or IFR. Hopefully".
Could I commend to you a visit to the radar unit of an aerodrome with IAPs in Class G airspace?
Spitoon
A very sensible comment - as to be expected.
2 s
"When flying an ILS one does not expect other traffic to be in the vicinity whether VFR or IFR. Hopefully".
Could I commend to you a visit to the radar unit of an aerodrome with IAPs in Class G airspace?
Spitoon
A very sensible comment - as to be expected.
2 s
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 402 was cleared for the ILS then there should have been no conflicting traffic period,
Outside of CAS, then anybody can do what they like, and if you are there, then the rules are "see and be seen" - whether in an LAA homebuilt, or a 747.I fly from an LAA homebuilt, to an ex-military Jet, ex-Eastern Bloc trainers and public transport airliners. Each have their own "risks", which differ considerably, both for me, and my colleagues / passengers / other airspace users. I do trust others also (apart from the passengers), understand those risks.... and the tragic events of Sunday are hardly unexpected, unique, or unlikely to be repeated. If you want to minimise the risks, then please understand that short of full Radar Control, in CAS, your best defence (but not absolute), is to have your eyes and ears "outside" 80+% of the time. But there's still the 20% or so when it's just not your day...
NoD
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an ideal world the ILS should be within the controlled airspace but like quite a few in the UK, it sadly was not. An accident waiting to happen? Hmmm.......
On another note, the amount of traffic reports I recieve on a daily basis with "height unknown" (no transponder or simply not squarking mode C?) is seriously begining to irk me when all the safety groups have been banging on about the requirement to squark mode C (if equipped) or to have a transponder switched on.
Work as a flying instructor for a week and see how many people forget or choose not to switch it on, when they have been told time and time again about it's importance.
VFE.
On another note, the amount of traffic reports I recieve on a daily basis with "height unknown" (no transponder or simply not squarking mode C?) is seriously begining to irk me when all the safety groups have been banging on about the requirement to squark mode C (if equipped) or to have a transponder switched on.
Work as a flying instructor for a week and see how many people forget or choose not to switch it on, when they have been told time and time again about it's importance.
VFE.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think its fair to say that 99% of people flying an ILS expect total protection on an ILS approach, it matters not that the conditions are visual or IMC you are flying a PA.
If the 402 was cleared for the ILS then there should have been no conflicting traffic period
If the 402 was cleared for the ILS then there should have been no conflicting traffic period