Shoreham Incident.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on the wind strength there are quite a few aircraft that can exceed 1000ft by the upwind numbers given 1000m of runway. Agree though that you shouldn't really do it if in any doubt about the circuit traffic, especially as you'll be nose high and even worse forward vis than normal.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well in an incredibly busy airfield like Shoreham, if you blast from standing start to 1100 agl by the end of the runway, without screamimg from the rooftops that you are intending to do that, and all joiners beware, then you are an idiot.
Busy and complex airfields require the utmost respect and awareness from all. In similar threads, where are the UK most dangerous airfields? - Perth, Shorham, White Waltham the list goes on, but if all participants in the circuit and take off/landing phase, do as they should, it makes life a little bit safer for all.
This is no way assumes anything about the circumstances of this tragic accident.
Busy and complex airfields require the utmost respect and awareness from all. In similar threads, where are the UK most dangerous airfields? - Perth, Shorham, White Waltham the list goes on, but if all participants in the circuit and take off/landing phase, do as they should, it makes life a little bit safer for all.
This is no way assumes anything about the circumstances of this tragic accident.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Horsham
Age: 42
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the location of the RV, is it plausible that the RV did join crosswind correctly (flying over the 02 numbers at the end of 20 tracking 110), whilst the DA40 was flying the crosswind leg of the circuit? When the RV turned downwind that may have put it in front of the DA40, which would explain the DA40 losing its prop, and the eyewitness accounts that the RV lost its tail.
I may have misunderstood though - I thought the DA40 was doing circuits and the RV was rejoining, not departing.
A very tragic incident indeed, and a very sad day for Shoreham Airport. My thoughts are with all those involved.
Joel.
I may have misunderstood though - I thought the DA40 was doing circuits and the RV was rejoining, not departing.
A very tragic incident indeed, and a very sad day for Shoreham Airport. My thoughts are with all those involved.
Joel.
Last edited by joelgarabedian; 5th Jul 2011 at 11:09. Reason: Slight tweak
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well in an incredibly busy airfield like Shoreham, if you blast from standing start to 1100 agl by the end of the runway, without screamimg from the rooftops that you are intending to do that, and all joiners beware, then you are an idiot.
You fly Vx (plus the associated flap settings) until reaching 200', then reconfigure and fly Vy until reaching circuit altitude. Although you might, depending on the aircraft, adopt a different climb speed when above 1000'. That's the only take-off profile for which you have actual performance data in your average spamcan. And that's regardless of the length of the runway, circuit altitude or your actual ROC.
In fact, I think you could argue that the "idiot" in this case was the person crossing the upwind end of the runway, while another aircraft was taking off.
(Note: I'm not at all familiar with this accident or the circumstances in general. I just think it's the person performing the crosswind join who should give way to the aircraft taking off, not the other way around. And yes, I've been in this exact situation: Climbing out on upwind, at about 700' AGL, when an aircraft crossed directly in front of me at about 30 feet distance, same level. I can still recall the whites in their eyes.)
Last edited by BackPacker; 5th Jul 2011 at 11:20.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The separation during departure depends on
1) the departing plane not climbing like a bat out of hell, and
2) the crosswind joiner joining at the circuit height and at the right place (over the numbers)
Lookout is good but is never 100%, especially when traffic might be coming from your 3 o'clock or your 9 o'clock.
1) the departing plane not climbing like a bat out of hell, and
2) the crosswind joiner joining at the circuit height and at the right place (over the numbers)
Lookout is good but is never 100%, especially when traffic might be coming from your 3 o'clock or your 9 o'clock.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind that the one thats going to hit you from the same level , is the one thats on a constant bearing, so you dont pick up the visual cues of movement as it is always in the same position in the screen.
at the minute i have not read for certain, who was joining and who was in the circuit, but the circuit aircraft does seem to be close in downwind, possibly glide approach training, but just shooting the breeze, no basis for my opinion whatsoever.
at the minute i have not read for certain, who was joining and who was in the circuit, but the circuit aircraft does seem to be close in downwind, possibly glide approach training, but just shooting the breeze, no basis for my opinion whatsoever.
Last edited by memories of px; 5th Jul 2011 at 11:45.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, I think you could argue that the "idiot" in this case was the person crossing the upwind end of the runway, while another aircraft was taking off.
I was given a crosswind join for 20 a few weeks back when I was still between Littlehampton and Worthing and told to report downwind. I wasn't comfortable with that, so reported Worthing descending to circuit height for crosswind join, then as I was approaching crosswind an aircraft was given take off clearance on 20 so I reported my crosswind position. Better that everyone is aware of position I think.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) the departing plane not climbing like a bat out of hell, and
I just did the calculation for a PA28-161 (the only aircraft for which I have performance data to hand right now) and that aircraft can already reach 200' by the end of the runway, assuming ISA conditions, nil wind and MTOW. Lightly loaded and with a 20kt headwind, 300' by the end of the runway. And that aircraft is by no means a spirited climber.
Anything else with a lower weight or more powerful engine will be able to outclimb a PA28-161. Heck, I think even your TB would reach circuit height by the end of the runway if lightly loaded and flown with the most efficient climb profile. And that's not even considering the fact that the aircraft taking off might have been doing a T&G or go-around.
We're not talking about Extra-300, Pitts Special or RAF tornados take-off performance here. Quite a few relatively normal aircraft are able to reach circuit height by the end of a 1000m runway if the conditions are right.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit harsh, if that is what you've been asked to do by ATC, you can hardly decide to start orbiting deadside because you hear a take off clearance given, you may easily interfere with something else.
I was given a crosswind join for 20 a few weeks back when I was still between Littlehampton and Worthing and told to report downwind. I wasn't comfortable with that, so reported Worthing descending to circuit height for crosswind join, then as I was approaching crosswind an aircraft was given take off clearance on 20 so I reported my crosswind position. Better that everyone is aware of position I think.
Last edited by BackPacker; 5th Jul 2011 at 12:08.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually, unless we're talking class B airspace here, that's *exactly* what you're supposed to do. In anything class C and below, VFR/VFR separation is your responsibility, not that of ATC. If that separation requires an orbit deadside, so be it.
And to be pedantic, what VFR pilots are doing is collision avoidance, not separation.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to be pedantic, what VFR pilots are doing is collision avoidance, not separation.
Class C
[...]
VFR flights separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information about other VFR flights
[...]
VFR flights separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information about other VFR flights
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened, both aeroplanes *should* have been aware of each other at a towered field and should have been keeping a very good look out. If I couldn't see the other traffic I'd deliberately throw in a few more phrases onto the RT like "joining crosswind for 20, over the numbers at 1000" or something to help them as well as me. Likewise when I am coming into an untowered field, I'll report something like "5 miles south at 1500, positioning for base leg join 25". The more pertinent info the better if you ask me.
The DA40 doesn't have any blind spots like the windcreen pillar in the coventry accident and has good vis. I imagine the RV has good vis too.
The DA40 doesn't have any blind spots like the windcreen pillar in the coventry accident and has good vis. I imagine the RV has good vis too.
The midair collision risk is always there as long as two aircraft are airborne in the same bit of airspace.
When I trained at Hamble in 1969 there was a fatal collision between 2 solo students - one was established in the circuit (right hand) and just turning crosswind - the joiner was a little bit wide and sadly they met. One of the recommendations of the report was that right hand circuits at a training airfield were not suitable when a/c with side by side seating were being operated, particularly solo. At the time there was full atc but it was a nice day and they often used "negative" r/t - ie just make the calls and atc would keep an eye out.
I think it's almost impossible to completely eliminate this risk but the answer lies in full and comprehensive training on all aspects of lookout and how to manage the flight (as englishal comments - intelligent use of r/t etc) - if you can't see the other a/c then ask!
Going back to the Hamble days there were often circa 12 in the circuit and probably double that over the IOW doing GH - a training situation which made you very aware of the importance of lookout and clearing airspace during climb/descent etc.
During the days when I did lots of basic instruction I observed that the lookout prior to commencing descent was often neglected - probably because instructors were not demonstrating it and/or insisting on it. Another one is those who descend on the dead side in a straight line - better to be turning so that you are clearing the airspace below and you have a better view of the runway and traffic which you might meet later on when crosswind so that you can adjust so that you don't do so.
When I trained at Hamble in 1969 there was a fatal collision between 2 solo students - one was established in the circuit (right hand) and just turning crosswind - the joiner was a little bit wide and sadly they met. One of the recommendations of the report was that right hand circuits at a training airfield were not suitable when a/c with side by side seating were being operated, particularly solo. At the time there was full atc but it was a nice day and they often used "negative" r/t - ie just make the calls and atc would keep an eye out.
I think it's almost impossible to completely eliminate this risk but the answer lies in full and comprehensive training on all aspects of lookout and how to manage the flight (as englishal comments - intelligent use of r/t etc) - if you can't see the other a/c then ask!
Going back to the Hamble days there were often circa 12 in the circuit and probably double that over the IOW doing GH - a training situation which made you very aware of the importance of lookout and clearing airspace during climb/descent etc.
During the days when I did lots of basic instruction I observed that the lookout prior to commencing descent was often neglected - probably because instructors were not demonstrating it and/or insisting on it. Another one is those who descend on the dead side in a straight line - better to be turning so that you are clearing the airspace below and you have a better view of the runway and traffic which you might meet later on when crosswind so that you can adjust so that you don't do so.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know which of the two (DA40 and RV6) was departing and which one was joining crosswind?
BTW there is no way my TB20 can reach 1100ft by the end of the runway. Well, maybe in 50kt headwind Normally about 300-400ft.
A departure should be protected from crosswind traffic provided the crosswind traffic joins correctly above the numbers and at circuit height.
Obviously an Extra 300 could hit the circuit height over the numbers but one would hope that an E300 pilot would be aware of the less than stellar wisdom of doing that.
BTW there is no way my TB20 can reach 1100ft by the end of the runway. Well, maybe in 50kt headwind Normally about 300-400ft.
A departure should be protected from crosswind traffic provided the crosswind traffic joins correctly above the numbers and at circuit height.
Obviously an Extra 300 could hit the circuit height over the numbers but one would hope that an E300 pilot would be aware of the less than stellar wisdom of doing that.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he talks about "separation" not "collision avoidance".
If you're not separate from each other, you must be joined. Therefore you've collided.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i believe the diamond star joined crosswind at 1100' and the vans was taking off doing a performance climb out to gain height.
Last edited by memories of px; 5th Jul 2011 at 15:55.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad events I have done quite a lot of flying in the USA, and have to say the downwind 45 degree join ( at circuit height) gives you a much better "air picture", as you know exactly where everyone is joining, and at what level. Personally I feel the overhead join & crosswind joins etc can lead to events like this, as you can end up with people flying with big blind spots around them, being slightly off track/height during the join etc...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memories of px
If the Vans was doing a performance climb out then the odds were worse than one in a million, substantially so.
Does anyone know if the DA40 had announced his intentions to join crosswind?
If the Vans was doing a performance climb out then the odds were worse than one in a million, substantially so.
Does anyone know if the DA40 had announced his intentions to join crosswind?