Thoughts on reducing risk of mid-airs.

[RansS9]

Today (14/6/09) a mid-air collision between an RAF Grob and a Glider claimed the lives of two people. How can we reduce the risk of mid-airs?
In the UK ,on a fine weather weekend, daytime VFR flying constrained by cloudbase and the plethora of controlled airspace can get very congested.

--education (awareness of choke points, look out techniques, limitations of visual scans)
--aircraft colour (? dark is better)
--parachute / BRS (money / weight?)
--mode S ?!?--in the context of daytime VFR I suspect the mandatory installation of, and use of, a flashing light beacon would be vastly more useful and significantly less expensive.

Your thoughts appreciated.
TIM

[IO540]

Based on the stats, the best way is to fly high.

Most midairs seem to happen 1000ft or lower.

A large % of PPL pilots fly low; 1000-2000ft. Presumably the view is better.

[LondonJ]

a second explanation why a lot of mid-airs occur sub-1000ft is that they tend to happen near airfields, an obvious choke point, especially around circuit height. Purely conjecture though

[Fuji Abound]

• Use good visual scanning techniques. Most people aren’t even close to having a good scan,
• Always obtain a traffic service if on offer,
• Fly as high as you can,
• Avoid obvious choke points, flying over beacons, skirting around zones,
• Buy a PCAS unit,
• Avoid operating just below the cloud base,
• Listen out for gliders and check the map for any en route segment to establish where they might be,
• When following distinct line features keep them on the correct side. A surprising number of pilots actually do,
• Be incredibly aware in the circuit that traffic may not be where you expect,
• Use your landing light other than just for landing,
• Listen out for other traffic, build a mental image of where the traffic is and consider adjusting your own level to ensure vertical separation.

[bookworm]

-in the context of daytime VFR I suspect the mandatory installation of, and use of, a flashing light beacon would be vastly more useful and significantly less expensive.

Most aircraft already have a "flashing light beacon" and many have high intensity strobes. They don't seem to help much. The human eye just isn't good enough at spotting aircraft on a constant bearing at a range that's sufficient to do something about it.

The answer is in electronic enhancement of visual acquisition. Mode S datalinks (1090ES) provide one means for that, and already have broad adoption as a technology. Other possibilities exist, but there's a chicken-and-egg problem: such technologies are only effective if a high proportion of users are equipped with them. I'd like to see a low-power low-cost 1090ES datalink solution, but it seems to be a long time coming if the burden of the usual approvals remains.

[fireflybob]

It was published in 1994 but there's quite a good book called "Avoiding Mid Air Collisions" - just checked and it's available on Amazon.

Statistically the chances of a mid air in the open FIR are quite low (you might have a close air prox that's another matter) but I believe the main confliction point is essentially the runway and the extension of that is the circuit so correct discipline and a good lookout amongst other things go a long way to mitigate the risks.

[jonburf]

1) Dont think radio comms directed at others are not for you to listen too. Listen learn about your surroundings and what others are doing around you.
2) When approaching a aerodrome with a limited radio capabillity. when their busy, there may be local traffic that they arent aware of.
3) Try to avoid area's where there is intensive training.
4) Be forward. if u see sombody coming near. radio 'visual with converging traffic' or similar.
5) Make sure you'r going the correct way and not putting yourself in harms way.

enjoy flying.

jonburf

[RansS9]

Your of course right... alot of people fly between 1000-2000ft because of the view.
The view in question being the ground; a stipulation of the basic PPL-A/ NPPL they hold. People fly higher because they either like clouds or they are droning on somewhere and want to get out of the weather; get there faster; or more fuel efficiently. For the majority of recreational flyers the view of the ground from above is one of the reasons they do it. Flying bigh being a highly expensive irrelevance.

As far as the widespread installation and USAGE of beacons in the light aircraft fleet (inc gliders ,microlights, LSA's) I'm not so sure. It is for the very problem of constant aspect, non-moving, potentially colliding targets that a FLASHING beacon might give some protection...admittedly based on no research evidence that I'm awatre of.

TIM

[Keygrip]

I would say many people fly low because they lack the common sense or tarining to think for themselves.....and climb when weather and airspace permit.

Better comms range, better glide range, longer S&R time, less fuel, less traffic and obstacles to bump into.

[flybymike]

But one simply gets so dizzy up there above 2k

[LH2]

How can we reduce the risk of mid-airs?

Reflective vests anyone?


(coat, etc.)

[ClippedCub]

The plane that's on a collision course is the one that doesn't traverse, i.e., move left or right, or up or down in your perspective. It merely gets bigger. Makes it hard to see since your eye isn't sensing movement. I like to waggle my wings occasionally when I'm around traffic, but changing course slightly, periodically, would be better.

[IO540]

Your of course right... alot of people fly between 1000-2000ft because of the view.
The view in question being the ground; a stipulation of the basic PPL-A/ NPPL they hold. People fly higher because they either like clouds or they are droning on somewhere and want to get out of the weather; get there faster; or more fuel efficiently. For the majority of recreational flyers the view of the ground from above is one of the reasons they do it. Flying bigh being a highly expensive irrelevance.

I am not talking about flying at 10,000ft above the clouds etc. And almost nobody intentionally flies in cloud because it is usually rough.

Let's say the cloudbase is 3000ft.

If you fly at 2500ft then your chances of a midair are (wild guess - there is no midair data from this high) 100x or 1000x lower than it would be at 1000ft, but your view is still pretty damn good. Better in fact because you can see further. As Keygrip says, the radio works a lot better too.

And if you fly at 2300 or 2700ft then you avoid those who have been trained to fly at 2000ft (most of the UK PPL population) or 2500ft (the rest of the UK PPL population trying to comply with the quad rules)

You can't have it both ways i.e. fly at 1000ft for a good view of everybody's garden, and also avoid most of the traffic, when everybody is playing the same game.

If the cloudbase is lower e.g. 1500ft then there is far less traffic about anyway.

The circuit will always remain a dangerous place, and apart from keeping a lookout there isn't much one can do. Just get out of there as fast as possible. A lot of midairs have happened in the circuit.

There is a problem with flying higher: gliders are often found near the base of clouds, well above most GA traffic, so flying at 2500ft under a 3000ft cumulus cloudbase on a hot day may not be that safe. But one can avoid known gliding sites.

The rest of the time, airspace permitting, one can go above the cloud where there is practically nobody, and it is perfectly smooth, but one needs to plan and execute the flight as fully IFR if doing that.

[gla-lax]

'm surprised that no one has said that the new air traffic services that came out in march just might have a say in what caused the accident.

[Final 3 Greens]

I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy.

[doubleu-anker]

ClippedCub

You beat me to it. Yes agreed and I do the same, and move around change course etc., if and when i can.

It is the constant relative bearing, of your potentual collison partner, that can be extremely hard to detect.

[athonite]

The use of landing lights would make a difference as follows:

(a) On departure and arrival while below 1500ft (including circiuts)

(b) When advised of or aware of conflicting traffic

(c) When transiting 'choke points', en-route VORs, VRPs

(d) In areas where miltary traffic is operating

(e) In poor visibility or wx

I have always been under impression that there is a culture of avoiding the use of landing lights within UK flying schools, which is down to the cost of replacement landing light bulbs.

However, I was once told by an engineer that landing lights had a long life while they are being cooled by an airflow, perhaps someone can clarify this.

[BEagle]

How can we reduce the risk of mid-airs?

Less time 'eyes-in' looking at gucci GPS moving maps.

More time 'eyes-out' looking for threats.

[10W]

'm surprised that no one has said that the new air traffic services that came out in march just might have a say in what caused the accident.

How do you work that one out ?

I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy.

Or just ban aviation. That would be a much simpler answer.

[ANOpax]

F3G

I'm sure your comment was either tongue in cheek or a troll;

"I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy."

But in case anyone was contemplating taking your comment seriously, the fuel that goes into an aerotow is taxed and the fuel that goes into a winch launch is also taxed.

Back on topic, the suggestions for collision avoidance contained in the "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous" thread would also seem to be germane to this thread too.