Shoreham Incident.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC procedures
An Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) has the characteristics of the airspace in which it is located. The Shoreham ATZ is located within an area of Class G uncontrolled airspace. Therefore, ATC are not required to provide separation between VFR traffic.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (MATS 1), Section 2 defines the responsibilities of the Aerodrome ATCO as:
‘2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;’
Responsibility for collision avoidance, therefore, rests with the pilot(s) in command.
An Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) has the characteristics of the airspace in which it is located. The Shoreham ATZ is located within an area of Class G uncontrolled airspace. Therefore, ATC are not required to provide separation between VFR traffic.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (MATS 1), Section 2 defines the responsibilities of the Aerodrome ATCO as:
‘2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;’
Responsibility for collision avoidance, therefore, rests with the pilot(s) in command.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 14th Jun 2012 at 18:14.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Shoreham
Age: 65
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did they hit?
Reading the aaib report it looks like the DA40 had the RV in its 2 oclock position for about 45 seconds. With two experienced pilots on board I would have hoped that one of them would have seen it, or perhaps they were still flying on instruments and not looking out of the cockpit
Firefly Bob wrote:
Is that a demand that can ever be answered? First of all, you'd need a significant number of accidents to work from. Secondly, you'd need to account for differences in pilot training and familiarity with procedures when you were defining your populations for each group.
Are you building a Luciole?
Have asked this before but where is the statistical evidence that the US 45 deg join is "safer" than an OHJ?
We might all have some sort of subjective feelings about which is safer but until someone can show me stats on airproxes/collisions in the circuit for different types of join, I am yet to be convinced.
We might all have some sort of subjective feelings about which is safer but until someone can show me stats on airproxes/collisions in the circuit for different types of join, I am yet to be convinced.
Are you building a Luciole?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would anyone like to read that AAIB report on page 6 (of the PDF; fig 3) and compare the RV's track with the published Shoreham circuit pattern ?
Not suggesting who (or anybody) might be in the wrong place, but the two are quite different in how far out over the water one should climb before turning left to join downwind.
Not suggesting who (or anybody) might be in the wrong place, but the two are quite different in how far out over the water one should climb before turning left to join downwind.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peterh337
The AAIB view appears to be that the Shoreham diagrams are "generic diagrams", not navigational maps to use to refer to ground features / tracks. With one exception, and that is the 20 degree turn after takeoff on 1 runway.
I do note that the published tracks, if indeed they are intended tracks, are so far from Shoreham they take you outside the ATZ
NoD
The AAIB view appears to be that the Shoreham diagrams are "generic diagrams", not navigational maps to use to refer to ground features / tracks. With one exception, and that is the 20 degree turn after takeoff on 1 runway.
I do note that the published tracks, if indeed they are intended tracks, are so far from Shoreham they take you outside the ATZ
NoD
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would anyone like to read that AAIB report on page 6 (of the PDF; fig 3) and compare the RV's track with the published Shoreham circuit pattern ?
Not suggesting who (or anybody) might be in the wrong place, but the two are quite different in how far out over the water one should climb before turning left to join downwind.
Not suggesting who (or anybody) might be in the wrong place, but the two are quite different in how far out over the water one should climb before turning left to join downwind.
The RED track seems to show
1 - A staight out departure with a teardrop (to the left) turn back to SHM to commence instrument practice(as per the detail of practice instrument training)
2 - What appears to be appears to be two trips around the hold (at about the published distance, which of course is considerably outside the ATZ)
3 - Exiting the hold, on the NDB 20 outbound (with a base turn that is significantly too tight)
4 - Regaining the inbound track to SHM then breaking off to the right for some airwork (all consistent with normal procedures and the AAIB detail)
5 - Airwork to the West
6 - A crosswind rejoin, pretty much along the track line previously used by the RV
7 - One dot beyond the collision point, then a turn to the airport with loss of radar contact halfway there.
The Blue track (the RV) shows
1 - the general handling to the West
2 - A crosswind join over the numbers (i.e. the correct location)
3 - A pattern where the downwind leg looks about 1/2 KM closer to field than that published, but in all other respects consistent with the track.
4 - A departure (the T&G) with a turn commencing 1/2km or less earlier than the track published
5 - A downwind slightly inside of the published track
6 - A loss of track at the collision
All looks pretty much as per published procedures and the circuits seem to be slightly inside the referenced tracks.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 22nd Jun 2012 at 13:25.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISTM that had the RV come out further over the beach (on the runway track) then a) that would have destroyed the constant-aspect feature which formed such a big part of this accident and b) he might have had a better chance of spotting the DA40 on his LH side.
Of course "nobody" likes to fly any distance over the sea.
In general, I find it much easier to look for circuit traffic when well away from the circuit. Once in the circuit, you have to watch various things and lookout is hard unless somebody is more or less straight ahead, or within a +/- 45 or so degree arc left/right.
Of course "nobody" likes to fly any distance over the sea.
In general, I find it much easier to look for circuit traffic when well away from the circuit. Once in the circuit, you have to watch various things and lookout is hard unless somebody is more or less straight ahead, or within a +/- 45 or so degree arc left/right.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting the very detailed radar information that is available from the NATS head, and yet no radar in the tower at Shoreham.
Its a hobby horse of mine but the last time I asked its £100K plus annual fees to place a repeater in the tower although the "real" cost is far far less.
Whether Shoreham would want a repeater and whether they could make use of the data I dont know - but I do know they certainly couldnt afford one at these rates. In contrast Calais does have a repeater and it seems to me chatting to the ATCO it is a very useful tool.
Its interesting that no comment is made in the report with regards to whether the availability of this data could considerably enhance safety.
Its a hobby horse of mine but the last time I asked its £100K plus annual fees to place a repeater in the tower although the "real" cost is far far less.
Whether Shoreham would want a repeater and whether they could make use of the data I dont know - but I do know they certainly couldnt afford one at these rates. In contrast Calais does have a repeater and it seems to me chatting to the ATCO it is a very useful tool.
Its interesting that no comment is made in the report with regards to whether the availability of this data could considerably enhance safety.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peterh337 yes of course. The cost of a radar qualification is probably not that great; the cost of a radar feed prohibitive. It's not going to happen.
However as I understand matters the investigators will put on record their recommendations which if implemented could reduce the chances of a similiar accident often without direct regard to cost. It would be interesting to know if a radar feed had been available the chances of the accident would have been reduced? If it would have been reduced the reporter has missed an opportunity to draw attention to Nats failing to enhance safety by making it unviable to share data other than amoung the vary largest airports.
I use onboard traffic and as long as the circuit traffic is transponding this sort of accident would be very unlikely. I don't doubt with the availability of a radar feed the atcos traffic awareness would be greatly enhanced.
However as I understand matters the investigators will put on record their recommendations which if implemented could reduce the chances of a similiar accident often without direct regard to cost. It would be interesting to know if a radar feed had been available the chances of the accident would have been reduced? If it would have been reduced the reporter has missed an opportunity to draw attention to Nats failing to enhance safety by making it unviable to share data other than amoung the vary largest airports.
I use onboard traffic and as long as the circuit traffic is transponding this sort of accident would be very unlikely. I don't doubt with the availability of a radar feed the atcos traffic awareness would be greatly enhanced.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 22nd Jun 2012 at 22:47.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worthing
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode S traffic alert
Well here is a thought. As NATS charge a stupid fee for what amounts to a data feed for a computer to display a radar image, how about a mode S receiver for the control tower. This could snoop on the mode s replies from aircraft with a suitable transponder and produce an alert if they were conflicting. As an alternative I wonder if NATS could have a link to shoreham and instead of sending a radar image, just send conflict alerts. If a suitable threshold for these could be set then the tower would get an alert if a dangerous situation was developing. As this was not displaying a radar image I would imagine that it would not need a radar qualified controller and would enhance safety.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Shoreham
Age: 65
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the G1000
I do wonder if the pilots were to busy pressing buttons on the G1000 or looking at the instruments when in the circuit. I do find it difficult to imagine that they did not see the other aircraft for about 45 seconds especially as there were two qualified pilots in the cockpit who should have been looking out.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This technology exists but I think that ATC would need a quick release window pane in the tower, to jump out of if anybody saw them use it 
In this case, however, I don't see any ground based surveillance technology would have helped. TCAS in either aircraft (and Mode C or S in the other) - yes.
In this case, however, I don't see any ground based surveillance technology would have helped. TCAS in either aircraft (and Mode C or S in the other) - yes.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The equipment under discussion, which is used by Aerodrome Controllers in VCRs, is called an Aerodrome Traffic Monitor (ATM).
Peter wrote:
Here is the first paragraph in MATS Part 1 about the ATM, with my bold text:
A google search for CAP 493 will find you the whole document. The relevant section is Section 17 of Chapter 1.
Peter wrote:
However you would also need radar qualified ATCOs which is another salary increment.
17 Aerodrome Traffic Monitor (ATM)
17.1 An ATM is provided at certain aerodromes to assist in achieving maximum runway utilisation and aerodrome capacity. Operation of an ATM is not associated with a particular rating and must not be used as an ATS surveillance system to provide Approach Radar Services.
17.1 An ATM is provided at certain aerodromes to assist in achieving maximum runway utilisation and aerodrome capacity. Operation of an ATM is not associated with a particular rating and must not be used as an ATS surveillance system to provide Approach Radar Services.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
ATC procedures
An Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) has the characteristics of the airspace in which it is located. The Shoreham ATZ is located within an area of Class G uncontrolled airspace. Therefore, ATC are not required to provide separation between VFR traffic.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (MATS 1), Section 2 defines the responsibilities of the Aerodrome ATCO as:
‘2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;’
Responsibility for collision avoidance, therefore, rests with the pilot(s) in command.
Air Traffic Control in Uncontrolled Airspace?
ATC procedures
An Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) has the characteristics of the airspace in which it is located. The Shoreham ATZ is located within an area of Class G uncontrolled airspace. Therefore, ATC are not required to provide separation between VFR traffic.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (MATS 1), Section 2 defines the responsibilities of the Aerodrome ATCO as:
‘2.1 Aerodrome Control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: a) aircraft flying in, and in the vicinity of, the ATZ;’
Responsibility for collision avoidance, therefore, rests with the pilot(s) in command.
Air Traffic Control in Uncontrolled Airspace?
As for radar display in the tower: I worked TWR with radar display for the twr controller from 2002 to 2009. At two airports with a majority of VFR operations, including light aircraft and helos, both MIL and CIV.
One year we did not have radar info available for "twr traffic altitudes" due to failure of one of two sensors. That was a hard year.
Even if you spend 90% of the time head up, looking out, there are situations where a radar display with SSR info is valuable. Traffic blocked by the tower roof, and traffic hidden by surrounding terrain. (For the not so flat parts of the world)
We did not use civ overhead joins, but often MIL break pattern for light training aircraft. Break turn allways hidden by the tower roof. Radar was nice to have then.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody told me the Kinetik box shows position of all Mode S traffic.
How does that work, for aircraft with Elementary Mode S which is not permitted to radiate that data? Non-EU reg Mode S aircraft will probably be radiating it (because the "Elementary" v. "Enhanced" Mode S is a purely European invention) but an EU reg banned it for local reg ones.
Such a box would benefit ATC situational awareness but - like London Information which has similar unofficial radar access - they would still not be able to legally make a radio call to an aircraft which they thought would benefit from the information.
How does that work, for aircraft with Elementary Mode S which is not permitted to radiate that data? Non-EU reg Mode S aircraft will probably be radiating it (because the "Elementary" v. "Enhanced" Mode S is a purely European invention) but an EU reg banned it for local reg ones.
Such a box would benefit ATC situational awareness but - like London Information which has similar unofficial radar access - they would still not be able to legally make a radio call to an aircraft which they thought would benefit from the information.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they would still not be able to legally make a radio call to an aircraft which they thought would benefit from the information.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure... what I meant to say is that they would not be allowed to make a radio call which revealed they can see where somebody is, using "radar".
They would have to be discreet in how they use it.
The sooner we have ADS-B the sooner this will be possible to do properly, and the regs on radar visibility by non authorised ATC/AFIS personnel will de facto fall by the wayside, which will be good for everybody.
They would have to be discreet in how they use it.
The sooner we have ADS-B the sooner this will be possible to do properly, and the regs on radar visibility by non authorised ATC/AFIS personnel will de facto fall by the wayside, which will be good for everybody.
