Mid Air at Leicester Aerodrome

[Paully617]

Never a good thing to hear.

BBC news are reporting this.......

A red monoplane had just taken off from Leicester Airport and a yellow biplane was due to land, having taken off in the Nottingham area, when the crash happened.

Thoughts are with all parties involved at this difficult time.

[rans6andrew]

thanks paully617.

If that info had been posted earlier it would have saved many of us much worry, my friend at Leicester has a blue monoplane.

Rans6....

[Pull what]

A fatal accident like this is always very sad and, as bose-x says, let's not deal in speculation.The investigation will be thorough and will go some way to finding the cause.

With respect the problem is with investigations they take quite a long while and by that time interest wanes and the lesson, if any, to be learned is eroded(in my opinion). You have only to see on here the number of posts that are made when an accident happens and the subsequent few that are made when the enquiry results are published. While I agree it is wrong to speculate, it is not wrong to remind everyone of the need to always prioritise lookout in an around an airfield circuit as well as increasing situational awareness by listening out and forming a picture of the airfield traffic.

[Fox Four]

Rans, ASN have already released the G code of the accident aircraft to maybe put your worries on hold.

I'm not posting the full address, you know where to look. Too many press viewing this post I'm sure.....

[Ds3]

ASN also provide further detail on the other aircraft involved, which goes some way to confirming my suspicions as to it's identity.

[LookingNorth]

Originally Posted by Fox Four

Rans, ASN have already released the G code of the accident aircraft to maybe put your worries on hold.

No, they've guessed at it. And unless the aircraft they've guessed it is has made major strides towards the completion of its restoration, they've got it wrong.

[peterh337]

With respect the problem is with investigations they take quite a long while and by that time interest wanes and the lesson, if any, to be learned is eroded(in my opinion). You have only to see on here the number of posts that are made when an accident happens and the subsequent few that are made when the enquiry results are published.

I agree 100%.

The "problem" with midairs is that the lesson to be learnt is always the same: keep a lookout. Yet everybody knows that a lookout doesn't work very well - largely because a target which is on a genuine collision course is stationary in both pilots' field of view. So there is no real solution. The best one can do is slant the statistics in your favour i.e. a combination of:

- do not hang around in the circuit

- do not fly below say 2500ft

- In Class G fly at "odd" altitudes like 2300, 2700, 3300, 3700 etc feet

- fly on weekdays rather than weekends

- fly above the clouds if possible (almost never seen anybody else up there)

- if going to hugely busy aviation events held at free-for-all airfields, fly there the day before the hordes

I booked all my IR lessons for weekdays for this reason. But sure enough we still had an airprox, when a twin flew straight through the final approach track, at just the right altitude...

[S-Works]

I don't disagree that accidents should be discussed and lessons learned from them. i am a great advocate of this.

However we should show respect for those involved and spare a thought for the families. The postings had been made on here before the victim was even removed from the wreckage.

There is nothing that will stop people speculating, it's human nature. By all means discuss but show some respect for the deceased and the family and bear in mind what the survivors are going through.

[chipmeisterc]

Slight thread drift..how effective are PCAS systems within a close proximity flying enviroment such as the circuit? Anyone who owns one care to comment? (Thinking of getting one)

[Rod1]

There is some info on this accident at;

Aviation Safety Network >

If any of it is not accurate feel free to let them know.


I am happy to get involved discussing mid-air’s but as I knew the person involved will be leaving this until after he is named.

Rod1

[davidatter708]

ASN is wrong again. The aircraft registration there belongs to one that is currently being rebuilt and is in pieces

David

[2high2fastagain]

Chip - have sent you a PM on my experiences with and thoughts on PCAS. Not posting details here to avoid prompting thread drift. 2h2fa

[SFCC]

davidatter is correct.

The type is correct but the identity of the aeroplane isn't.

[piperarcher]

Slight thread drift..how effective are PCAS systems within a close proximity flying enviroment such as the circuit? Anyone who owns one care to comment? (Thinking of getting one)

My thoughts go out to the people and relatives of those involved in the collision.

I own a standalone Zaon MRX (the c £300 one). While it definitely reports some aircraft, in my experience there are a number of planes that arent detected - ones within the thresholds I have set with regard to alerting - and I mostly assume that is due to those aircraft not having transponders switched on. There are certainly quite a few aircraft I have visually seen, which are not picked up by the PCAS. To that end, I do by best to maintain a good lookout, and try to use traffic services where possible. I wouldnt rely just on the PCAS.

[Rod1]

Having had a number of off forum questions on collision avoidance…

The following is generic, does not relate to this specific accident and is relevant to VFR only.

Firstly, we are far from bystanders when it comes to collision avoidance. Basic things like keeping the canopy clean, moving your head during your scan and spending more time looking all help. When it comes to see and avoid, it is not perfect, but it can work. Assisted see and avoid is reckoned to be 7 to 8 times more effective (AAIB). A device in the cockpit which says “alert, look out the window you fool” counts as an assist. I have the basic PCAS box and in the cruse it is very good at doing this.

Collision avoidance boxes in use in typical SEP aircraft usually tell you there is another aircraft near you. The problem is that in a high work load environment like joining at a busy airfield we expect other traffic to be nearby and we carry on as normal and ignore the box, which is after all telling us what we already know, there are other aircraft about. The only tec which does this differently is FLARM (short for flight alarm). Flarm was originally designed for gliders and it contains clever software which predicts your aircrafts track and that of other nearby aircraft and only gives a full alert if you are actually going to hit, or get very very close. Flarm has dramatically decreased collisions in Europe and is being used more and more in the UK. Devices like Powerflarm, which I am going to be running tests on for the LAA and Flyer in the not too distant future, should do this for a power pilot.

The downside, you both have to have one for it to work. In the Case of Powerflarm it will detect mode A/C, Mode S, ADSB as well as send and receive Flarm. Powerflarm is portable and does not require any certification or approval for use in C of A aircraft.

The LAA recently did an analysis of all the collisions going back some years and for “GA” the risk is not surprisingly proportionate to traffic density so a busy airfield or fly in is max risk.

Rod1

[peterh337]

If Powerflarm did a product which gives azimuth info on Mode C targets, and it was capable of being mounted reasonably neatly (while still maintaining the pretence of being "non-permanent") they would have a real winner, because the next solution up is about £15000.

I spoke to their head of design at Friedrichshafen this year but he didn't seem at all interested in doing anything like that.

I offered him some R&D tips on detecting the direction of microwave radiation using well known radar guided missile technology that's been around for decades, to the extent of it even being openly displayed in exhibitions (which I think is what Zaon use, in some form) but he still wasn't interested

I would actually spend the 15k if it wasn't for the ~ 2 months of downtime and having the plane almost completely dismantled.

[S-Works]

great devices, but unfortunatly they require that everyone has a transponder with Mode C. We are a very long way from this and I fear that having one installed at this stage is more likely to install a false sense of security.

[Rod1]

“great devices, but unfortunatly they require that everyone has a transponder with Mode C. We are a very long way from this and I fear that having one installed at this stage is more likely to install a great devices, but unfortunatly they require that everyone has a transponder with Mode C. We are a very long way from this and I fear that having one installed at this stage is more likely to install a false sense of security..”

Firstly, when the risk is at its height, the transponder solutions (for GA) are unlikely to help, you need Flarm. Flarm does not require a transponder.

Secondly, about 50% of the things you are likely to hit have a transponder. The opportunity to make your see and avoid 8 times more effective 50% of the time could be considered money well spent provided you understand the limitations. Far from giving me a false sense of security my Pcas has shown me just how bad my lookout was.

Rod1

[S-Works]

Doesent flarm require everyone else so to be so equipped?

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking them, just pointing out that unless you make carriage of them mandatory you are not going to achieve much more than we have now. I have a Zaeon unit attached to a 496 and as with your experience of Flarm it has made me more aware of how much I did not see but I wonder if that's relevant?

[fwjc]

ASN remains in-accurate. Please can the poster of the link to the site remove it. It's clearly in bad taste to go publishing stuff that is plainly wrong, risking causing further harm and distress to those involved.