Shoreham Incident.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be fair to say that if the lookout had been different in either aeroplane the iincident may not have happened.
If it was runway 20 with a left hand pattern in use I would be interested to learn from any 'Shoreham-ites' on here a couple of points.
Firstly the Shoreham Airport website has a picture of the preferred tracks of the circuit patterns. How close to these are the pilots supposed to adhere? (There must be a bit of leeway)
Secondly, runway 20L has a noise abatement right turn after take off until reaching the coast. How rigidly is this enforced? Are there any shortcuts?
If it was runway 20 with a left hand pattern in use I would be interested to learn from any 'Shoreham-ites' on here a couple of points.
Firstly the Shoreham Airport website has a picture of the preferred tracks of the circuit patterns. How close to these are the pilots supposed to adhere? (There must be a bit of leeway)
Secondly, runway 20L has a noise abatement right turn after take off until reaching the coast. How rigidly is this enforced? Are there any shortcuts?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pooleys 2011 - Shoreham EGKA
Pooley's Guide 2011 - Shoreham EGKA
Extract :-
JOINING : Unless otherwise instructed by ATC, aircraft joining the circuit will overfly the aerodrome maintaining 2000ft aal, until instructed to descend to circuit height on dead-side of runway in use, and join the circuit by crossing the upwind end. Pilots should note that helicopters operate both 'liveside' and 'deadside' in the ATZ up to 600ft aal.
Joining aircraft on the crosswind leg are expected to position ""over the upwind end of the runway in use"", and then fit into the visual circuit.
I cannot see any mention of Noise Abatement proceedures on this particular page.
Extract :-
JOINING : Unless otherwise instructed by ATC, aircraft joining the circuit will overfly the aerodrome maintaining 2000ft aal, until instructed to descend to circuit height on dead-side of runway in use, and join the circuit by crossing the upwind end. Pilots should note that helicopters operate both 'liveside' and 'deadside' in the ATZ up to 600ft aal.
Joining aircraft on the crosswind leg are expected to position ""over the upwind end of the runway in use"", and then fit into the visual circuit.
I cannot see any mention of Noise Abatement proceedures on this particular page.
Last edited by Jetblu; 10th Jul 2011 at 09:26. Reason: Add
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pooleys 2011 - Shoreham EGKA
I found this on the Shoreham Airport website Flying and Pilot Information - Shoreham Airport
DEPARTURE RUNWAY 20 - AIRCRAFT MUST MAKE A 10 DEGREE TURN TO THE RIGHT AT THE RAILWAY LINE FOR NOISE ABATEMENT, UNTIL REACHING THE COAST THEN A FURTHER LEFT OR RIGHT TURN AS REQUIRED.
Pooley's Guide 2011 - Shoreham EGKA
Extract :-
JOINING : Unless otherwise instructed by ATC, aircraft joining the circuit will overfly the aerodrome maintaining 2000ft aal, until instructed to descend to circuit height on dead-side of runway in use, and join the circuit by crossing the upwind end. Pilots should note that helicopters operate both 'liveside' and 'deadside' in the ATZ up to 600ft aal.
Joining aircraft on the crosswind leg are expected to position ""over the upwind end of the runway in use"", and then fit into the visual circuit.
I cannot see any mention of Noise Abatement proceedures on this particular page.
Extract :-
JOINING : Unless otherwise instructed by ATC, aircraft joining the circuit will overfly the aerodrome maintaining 2000ft aal, until instructed to descend to circuit height on dead-side of runway in use, and join the circuit by crossing the upwind end. Pilots should note that helicopters operate both 'liveside' and 'deadside' in the ATZ up to 600ft aal.
Joining aircraft on the crosswind leg are expected to position ""over the upwind end of the runway in use"", and then fit into the visual circuit.
I cannot see any mention of Noise Abatement proceedures on this particular page.
DEPARTURE RUNWAY 20 - AIRCRAFT MUST MAKE A 10 DEGREE TURN TO THE RIGHT AT THE RAILWAY LINE FOR NOISE ABATEMENT, UNTIL REACHING THE COAST THEN A FURTHER LEFT OR RIGHT TURN AS REQUIRED.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: West Sussex,England
Age: 57
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pooleys flight guide only give joining and not departure info, I believe the question is did the DA40 join the crosswind in the correct position, I'm guessing not when looking at the debris field.
Interesting that you used the pooleys flight guide to look this up as the romours are that the instructors where from pooleys flight training, stress only a romour.
Interesting that you used the pooleys flight guide to look this up as the romours are that the instructors where from pooleys flight training, stress only a romour.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brighton
Age: 73
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im interested to know other pilots opinion on my comment below
As we all know with all circuit flying their are high risk areas that need an extra look out
The main one is joining cross wind and possibly colliding with someone flying circuits who is down wind.
However at Shoreham there is another factor to consider,,,,,
When departing 20 and intending to fly east nearly all pilots turn NOT onto a heading of 110deg but follow the
coastline which is appox 80deg.
So its possible to climb into circuit traffic ?????
As we all know with all circuit flying their are high risk areas that need an extra look out
The main one is joining cross wind and possibly colliding with someone flying circuits who is down wind.
However at Shoreham there is another factor to consider,,,,,
When departing 20 and intending to fly east nearly all pilots turn NOT onto a heading of 110deg but follow the
coastline which is appox 80deg.
So its possible to climb into circuit traffic ?????
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a place where I dont have to fly for food.
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys
Can someone please explain to me why opinions appear to be leaning towards the da40?
With comments like who was looking out of the da40, the g1000 is like a video game, where was the da40, was he in the correct place doing the correct join?
There are no facts and there wont be until a full investigation has taken place. From looking at the damage on the Da40 I would say after the collision they have done a good job in controlling the aircraft and landing it on a runway.
No one has even asked how experienced they were in the da40?
The answer is very.
Can someone please explain to me why opinions appear to be leaning towards the da40?
With comments like who was looking out of the da40, the g1000 is like a video game, where was the da40, was he in the correct place doing the correct join?
There are no facts and there wont be until a full investigation has taken place. From looking at the damage on the Da40 I would say after the collision they have done a good job in controlling the aircraft and landing it on a runway.
No one has even asked how experienced they were in the da40?
The answer is very.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: West Sussex,England
Age: 57
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen the same aircraft, agreed immediately after the incident I'm sure the pilot used all his experience to get the aircraft back on the ground and well done to him. In a way lucky it was a DA40 and has a good glide on it.
Though with the failure rate of the DA40 I'm sure this is something that all DA pilots have to practises -- glide approaches!
Though in the circumstances they held thier nerve and got it safely on the ground.
Guess you noted where the blue paint was?
Though with the failure rate of the DA40 I'm sure this is something that all DA pilots have to practises -- glide approaches!
Though in the circumstances they held thier nerve and got it safely on the ground.
Guess you noted where the blue paint was?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a way lucky it was a DA40 and has a good glide on it.
Mind you, I'm very impressed with the DA40 airframe (slightly less though with the engines they originally fitted) but the glide performance isn't as stellar as you might expect by looking at the wings and knowing its sailplane heritage.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though with the failure rate of the DA40 I'm sure this is something that all DA pilots have to practises -- glide approaches!
I have flown the DA40XL which has a Lycoming engine and powerflow exhaust and will cruise at 150 KTAS and has no such engine issues. A beautiful aeroplane especially when equipped with G1000 with Synthetic vision and traffic.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure there is any evidence there in flight failure rate is any worse that Lycos is there? (Says he who has actually had one fail in flight, but fortunately I had another at the time 
).
).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not statistically waterproof, but in the almost six years that I've been a member of my club, we've had four in-flight failures of the 1.7 Thielerts (three of which ended up in a field) and zero Lycomings/Continentals failures.
At least, those are the in-flight failures that I know about. I've also had a "computer says no" situation with the DA-40 at Duxford, leading to an abandoned flight. But I don't know how many other diesel or avgas flights were abandoned due to start/runup failures or 'computer says no'.
Our fleet consists of 2 Robin Ecoflyers (with the 1.7 Thielert, now all upgraded to the 2.0), 1 DA-40 TDI (with the 1.7 Thielert, now sold, unfortunately), 3 other avgas Robins, 5 avgas PA28-161s, 2 avgas C172s, 3 avgas C152s and a few other, avgas powered aircraft.
But the odd thing is that none of the four failures had anything in common. Here's what I remember the failures were:
- 1 failure of an oil spray nozzle leading to a lack of cooling of the piston head.
- 1 failure of the gearbox (slip ring or something like that)
- 1 failure of the electric wiring to the fuel pump
- 1 FADEC test button short-circuiting in-flight, leading to a then-unknown FADEC failure mode, which was reason enough for the pilot to make a precautionary landing at an airfield.
At least, those are the in-flight failures that I know about. I've also had a "computer says no" situation with the DA-40 at Duxford, leading to an abandoned flight. But I don't know how many other diesel or avgas flights were abandoned due to start/runup failures or 'computer says no'.
Our fleet consists of 2 Robin Ecoflyers (with the 1.7 Thielert, now all upgraded to the 2.0), 1 DA-40 TDI (with the 1.7 Thielert, now sold, unfortunately), 3 other avgas Robins, 5 avgas PA28-161s, 2 avgas C172s, 3 avgas C152s and a few other, avgas powered aircraft.
But the odd thing is that none of the four failures had anything in common. Here's what I remember the failures were:
- 1 failure of an oil spray nozzle leading to a lack of cooling of the piston head.
- 1 failure of the gearbox (slip ring or something like that)
- 1 failure of the electric wiring to the fuel pump
- 1 FADEC test button short-circuiting in-flight, leading to a then-unknown FADEC failure mode, which was reason enough for the pilot to make a precautionary landing at an airfield.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vino collapso - its a training airfield, circuit size varies, sea breezes might dictate the use of 20, when the upper wind suggests 02 - pilots are responsible for visual separation that means lookout. lined up yesterday and watched an aircraft join crosswind, we found it hard to believe you could hit him, at least not in a trainer. back on the ground we watched several aircraft join crosswind, some over the numbers, some wider, and as another mentioned on here, some peoples crosswind climb parallels the coast, if you had a performance SE aircraft, would you fly out to sea if you didnt have to?. like most accidents, it wont be one thing that caused it, but like the swiss cheese, when all the holes line up.........
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeway on the circuit pattern
I've flown at Shoreham for ten years or so and I have heard on a few rare occasions pilots departing on R20 requesting, and being granted by ATC, "an early (or immediate) left turn". I think I have occasionally also heard ATC requesting pilots to do the same thing presumably for assisting with traffic management - but I can't recall specific examples of the latter.
I have never asked for one myself and indeed I've noticed that it tends to be experienced, or confident-sounding, pilots who do and who seem to me to want to be en route east, or north east, from Shoreham as efficiently as possible.
I have sat in the right seat on one such departure where the (experienced) PIC did just this and the track took us past the tower and along the railway line and over the Adur recreation ground, as we turned and climbed eastwards.
The other thing when doing this, which makes sense, is to climb quickly because once over the River Adur (in a matter of seconds on such a departure) you are over a large and densely built up area where a decent height for safety and noise abatement is a good idea. This rational motive for a speedy climb, in my mind, is more likely than some of the the alternatives suggested in this thread.
Finally, it is very easy to envisage the track of such a departure being, for a time, precisely in line with the crosswind leg of an aircraft carrying out an accurately executed crosswind join for R20.
I have never asked for one myself and indeed I've noticed that it tends to be experienced, or confident-sounding, pilots who do and who seem to me to want to be en route east, or north east, from Shoreham as efficiently as possible.
I have sat in the right seat on one such departure where the (experienced) PIC did just this and the track took us past the tower and along the railway line and over the Adur recreation ground, as we turned and climbed eastwards.
The other thing when doing this, which makes sense, is to climb quickly because once over the River Adur (in a matter of seconds on such a departure) you are over a large and densely built up area where a decent height for safety and noise abatement is a good idea. This rational motive for a speedy climb, in my mind, is more likely than some of the the alternatives suggested in this thread.
Finally, it is very easy to envisage the track of such a departure being, for a time, precisely in line with the crosswind leg of an aircraft carrying out an accurately executed crosswind join for R20.
Finally, it is very easy to envisage the track of such a departure being, for a time, precisely in line with the crosswind leg of an aircraft carrying out an accurately executed crosswind join for R20.
2 s
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Away with the fairys ?
Quote:- Since when was Pooley's the ultimate authority? AIP perhaps?
By default Poolys, is the authoritative document for the average UK GA pilot, some use some lower quality publications and a few use the much better Jepps. However I don't see. Anyone with the UK air pilot in the cockpit.
However this accident has very little to do with documentation and a lot to do with lookout.
Years ago when I was training my instructor was paranoid about lookout, he got the habit making sure that an ME109 was not going to drill 20mm holes in him but as he said hitting another aircraft will make you just as dead as an encounter will the ME109.
I will not try to blame anyone for this collision but can't help thinking that just a little more lookout by all the pilots involved might have turned this into a
non-event.
Over recent years I have noted that an increasing number of aircraft seem to pass me by without even a slight change of course, could this be because of all
the kit that is now fitted to light aircraft keeping pilots eyes in the cockpit rather than looking out?
By default Poolys, is the authoritative document for the average UK GA pilot, some use some lower quality publications and a few use the much better Jepps. However I don't see. Anyone with the UK air pilot in the cockpit.
However this accident has very little to do with documentation and a lot to do with lookout.
Years ago when I was training my instructor was paranoid about lookout, he got the habit making sure that an ME109 was not going to drill 20mm holes in him but as he said hitting another aircraft will make you just as dead as an encounter will the ME109.
I will not try to blame anyone for this collision but can't help thinking that just a little more lookout by all the pilots involved might have turned this into a
non-event.
Over recent years I have noted that an increasing number of aircraft seem to pass me by without even a slight change of course, could this be because of all
the kit that is now fitted to light aircraft keeping pilots eyes in the cockpit rather than looking out?
By default Poolys, is the authoritative document for the average UK GA pilot, some use some lower quality publications and a few use the much better Jepps. However I don't see. Anyone with the UK air pilot in the cockpit.
However this accident has very little to do with documentation...
2 s
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A crosswind join should be flown overhead the upwind numbers, not a mile or two upwind of them.
You don't need to read the AIP or whatever to know that.
That's the issue here.
You don't need to read the AIP or whatever to know that.
That's the issue here.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 sheds
This is the difference between picking the knats sh!t out of pepper on a forum and practical aviation, it don't matter diddly squat what is in the AP if it is not the document available to the crew of an aircraft.
All the published documentation in the world will not absolve the commander of an aircraft from ensuring the safety of that aircraft and keeping a good lookout is essential to the safety of the aircraft.
I am not in a position to say if rules were breached (or not) in this case but I do know that if one of the pilots had seen the other it is highly likely that the aircraft would not have hit each other.
The bottom line is that good airmanship is the back stop that ensures safety when all the other safety systems have failed.
All the published documentation in the world will not absolve the commander of an aircraft from ensuring the safety of that aircraft and keeping a good lookout is essential to the safety of the aircraft.
I am not in a position to say if rules were breached (or not) in this case but I do know that if one of the pilots had seen the other it is highly likely that the aircraft would not have hit each other.
The bottom line is that good airmanship is the back stop that ensures safety when all the other safety systems have failed.