Mid-Air Collision - Gloucestershire
 

Some very bad news on the BBC News web site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/4540392.stm

One of our Club members was airborne at the time and saw this tragedy happen. He immediately alerted a nearby radar unit, then remained in the vicinity until he knew that the emergency services had been informed. He was very shaken up, having watched the aircraft crash into the disused aerodrome at Moreton-in-Marsh, but was very relieved to see the 2 occupants of the other aeroplane walk away from their forced landing.

Condolences to friends and family of the deceased.

what a Tragedy..
 

I make no other comment on this accident other than to recognise it as a tragedy..so close to Christmas.

As an entirely separate observation (and NOT referring to this accident), how remarkable that the former R.A.F. Moreton in Marsh should claim another flying soul. (The entire former airfield now has many buildings as serves as a fire-service training facility)

For those unfamiliar with Moreton, it had one of the worst weather records in the 40s and 50s resulting in many losses of OCU and operational crews...particularly those on Wellingtons.

Kind regards to all Ppruners bm

I have a problem with the rather sick- making posting of condolences on pprune in this situation:

Sure we all hurt when fellow flyers die for whatever reason:

But posting condolences on here?

The relatives are certainly not scanning pprune right now.

By all means send condolences direct if you know those involved.

Don't know them ?--- point made.

Safe (and vigilant) flying.

Cusco.

Its a tough call Cusco.

Should we post our sympaties or not?

Personally, I would suggest that the family of the deceased would not be looking here, but have other things to do.

Meanwhile, "we", can express our sympathies and hope that the family will understand that these are our genuine expressions.

The family might not be reading, but flying friends may well be.

Tragic ! My condolences to friends and family

Cusco,

A valid observation after all though following the contrived, mawkish, Blair induced "people's princess" trash and the OTT national mourning, flowers, tears etc which devalued genuine condolences and has become an institutionalised farce in UK in my opinion.

However, those above are more than likely fellow aviators who have every right to express their feelings at this time on an aviators forum.

On almost every thread like this recently (and there have been too many this year) some people have felt the need to express condolences, and others have seen it as completely inappropriate to do so. We're all different, and we all react differently to the death of fellow aviators. Can't we just let this be the case? Because the one thing I find inappropriate is when these threads turn into arguments on what should or shouldn't be posted. :(

I agree, let the moderators do the moderating where necessary.

Also agree with Whirlybird.

However, I do disagree with the posters who on similar threads react angrily to anyone who discusses what may have been the cause. We are all (mostly) adults here and are well aware that we won't know the whole story until the investigations are completed. But discussing possible causes IMV, does no harm at all.

For example, a student was killed at EFT(?) earlier this year. A reading of the intial facts 'seems' to suggest she stalled and spun following a go-around with full flaps. Would a discussion of this on PPrune at least not have highlighted this danger, especially to student/new pilots?

I think that reasonable specualtion on causes is reasonable.

As to a "fix", mandatory Mode C with TCAD is the only solution. The Mk1 eyeball being effective in detecting traffic flying a straight line (3D straight) trajectory on a genuine collission course is a myth which refuses the die.

Why not go the whole hog and have Mode S and TCAS?

I can hear the cries of horror already but how can you measure the cost of lives lost in money?

A tragedy indeed. I'm very sorry for the loss and there seems to be little we can learn from the accident to make the rest of us safer pilots.

As for the Cuscos of the world, they'll always spew their venom wherever people will listen. Let's hope he's moved on to another forum for awhile.

Mode S is not required for TCAS to work. All you need is the direction (azimuth) and the flight level.

A Mode C transponder on the target, with some antennae arranged to give direction finding (like an ADF, or a stormscope) gives you that.

Plus mandatory transponders of course.

The extra functionality of Mode S is for ATC purposes; it allows the interrogating radar to select which targets should respond. There is also a return of an aircraft-specific ID but one wouldn't really need that for TCAS.

What Mode S can give you is another way to implement TCAS, using some sort of data transfer facility. I haven't read up on this.

The best system would simply transmit one's GPS position and GPS altitude. Then, no DF antennae are required and the whole thing could be cheap (sub-£1000 say). Of course by the time the usual avionics vendors and their distribution/dealer/installer chain gets their teeth into it it won't be anything like that. But it doesn't have to cost the 10 grand it does at present.

All of which would require the pilot to look in even more....

No new electric kit is needed, except perhaps mandatory transponder areas (the more congested parts of the UK, perhaps) and an effective 24/7 national LARS coverage?

But who would pay for it?

The ever increasing number of highly complex avionic boxes, moving map displays etc positively encourage 'head-in' flying - which is why I prefer a CAA chart and non-moving map GPS which just gives a simple L/R CDI demand, plus numeric data.

Talking to a FIE yesterday, he is constantly dismayed at the poor standards of look out and even basic attitude flying exhibited by many students AND some instructors.

As I was driving back home through Chipping Norton yesterday afternoon, the AAIB low-loader with the sad wreckage went past going the other way. Not nice.

TCAS II is emphatically not the answer in the GA VFR environment; it is primarily an IFR safety system which attempts to provide vertical separation to resolve conflict with other Mode C or Mode S platforms. Mode S v Mode S TCAS also provides co-ordinated Resolution Advisory guidance for both platforms.

Few GA spamcans would be able to meet the climb rates required by TCAS; azimuth collision resolution is not provided by any current TCAS.

Whilst not associating the following remarks in ANY way with the accident in question for which the facts are not known - it seems to me that far too many pilots in the GA community spend too much time with their heads in the cockpit playing with GPS and suchlike and far too little time flying
VFR and actually looking out.

how do you know that beamer? Have you flown with them all and seen the evidence with your own eyes or are you assuming based on anecdotal evidance that your assumption is correct?

There is some tosh that gets posted on this site but that takes the biscuit.

I saw the Cessna involved in the crash on our way to lunch at WW. I have GPS in fact 2 of them and still manage to look out the window.

Perhaps another "fact" is that to many pilots spend to much time with there head in the cockpit looking at a map and stopwatch and trying to work out where the hell they are.........

I agree with bose-x. GA needs to be dragged (kicking and screaming as necessary) into the 20th century. It's the 21st now but let's keep the objective managable...

"All of which would require the pilot to look in even more...."

Beagle, I am sorry but I really disagree. There is no need to look down because the system gives you an audio warning. I have a cockpit full of gear so I know. Cockpit automation allows much more head-up. An autopilot tracking the GPS is the dogs bo*****k and the head-up time is at least 99%. I am not under any illusion of spotting traffic (for reasons I've stated here plenty of times) but the view is usually nice to have :O

Unless, of course, the pilot doesn't know how to use the gear and is fiddling with his knob(s) en route. But that's a whole different issue; it IS possible to buy a plane with all the kit without having training on it (wrong IMV). Most PPL instructors haven't got a clue when it comes to avionics (vast majority of PPL instructors can't even load a route into a GNS430) so it's no suprise they are scared of it. Those instructors that do understand it are, IME invariably, very keen on a pilot knowing it and using it. Cockpit automation -> low pilot workload -> greater safety. The airlines learnt this decades ago, but GA lives on in its 1920s "Humphrey Bogart romantic era of aviation" time warp.

Also the terminology is being used loosely, including my myself. TCAS is the wrong name; there is no need for an advisory action or for automatic resolution (which would imply an engaged autopilot with auto throttle etc etc). The TCAS climb rates are a redherring; a jet flying at 250kTAS will be doing +3000fpm even on a small gradient. One just needs info on traffic that's relevant (according to its extrapolated trajectory).

Radar cover isn't a solution either. Most traffic reported by RIS cannot be seen, no matter how hard you look. So, OCAS, this doesn't really work either unless one takes action early on, but few units will give you an RAS (especially when needed) due to the very generous separation rules required being quite impossible to achieve under conditions of any traffic density, and when you do get an RAS they make you fly anything up to double the distance, with 90 degree left/right etc. I never ask for RAS for that reason; an informal "20 L/R" vector from a radar unit is much better.

I have to agree with Bose X.

My eyes spend much more time outside the cockpit since I got a gps. I no longer have to spend so much time double checking my map & navigation.

dp

From time to time I take some pilots who ask flying in an aircraft with very basic equipment. Despite some of them being (in PPL terms) experienced, they always ask where the attitude indicator or turn coordinator is. They can not seem to understand how we can fly an accurate turn without having some internal indication of bank angle.

All the time, the biggest, clearest horizon is staring them in the face!!!

During PPL training, too much emphasis is done on using xx degrees of bank is turns. This is where the head-in flying starts during critical phases of flight.

For the GST standard, pilots need to maintain an altitude within a 300ft band in smooth air. Why demad that student private pilots keep the altimeter within 50ft of a given level when that requires far more time looking at the altimeter!

Pilots who think and/or say that having a GPS reduces their workload drastically are in the situation of placing far to much reliance on said GPS and are in the unfortunate position of never having learned to navigate properly in the first place. Note that I say navigate and not map read!

Mark 1 eyebal has kept me safe thus far (yes there have been a few close ones) and will continue to do so even at speeds far in excess of the average GA.

What disapoints me most is that when head on to an aircraft we turn right and the other aircraft makes no effort to do their legal requirement. I am sure that pilots do not intentionally break the law or choose to be so lazy that the law is broken, I believe that of the 7 or 8 aircraft I will manoeuvre to avoid between now and the new year flying VFR in the UK, only 1 or 2 will even see us.

-----------

BEagle,

LARS (RIS and RAS) should be limited to IFR flights. Too often we are IFR in class G and can not even get a RIS because of all the VFRs loading the service. VFR pilots should take full responsibility for lookout and not need anyone else to assist them in performing to the basic standard required to hold a PPL.

If that means that some PPLs will not fly on a day where the vis is legal but reduced than that is great. Using RIS as a crutch when flying in marginal conditions (for the speed of the aircraft) is a fools game especially when the radio packs up!

A private pilot who makes the decision to fly based on the availability of an ATS service in class G airspace should not fly. Every VFR flight in class G should be made on the assumption that the flight can be completed VFR without any service (should the need arise).

So sad that most PPLs who obtain a RIS and are told of traffic at 12 O'Clock will always look out the front window directly ahead of the aircraft!

---------

IO540,

You should read the study dome some years back into automation and electronic aids increasing workload on commercial aircraft. IALPA, NASA and I think the CAA all did studies.

You correctly state that workload only reduces when the pilot knows exactly how to use the equipment and it's limitations. Unfortunately from personal experience, few pilots know how to use their GPS units (hand held or panel mounted) to their advantage.

Regards,

DFC

Beagle,

I don't often disagree with you, but I must say I'm quite surprised by your post on this subject. I suspect that you don't fly with TCAS; you certainly don't seem to understand TCAS in the GA environment. RA isn't required, only TA.

"All of which would require the pilot to look in even more...."

No it DOESN'T - properly used, as part of the lookout scan procedure, it gets the pilot's eyes OUTSIDE the cockpit because it alerts him to the fact that there are other aircraft out there that aren't even in visual range yet. It also proves that there are often aircraft very close by and a potential danger to you, that you should be able to see but CAN'T.

I've been operating TCAS equipped GA aircraft for 7 years now and believe me, I feel extremely vulnerable without it because I know what a valuable piece of equipment it is, especially in Class G airspace. If nothing else, it has taught me a salutory lesson on the limitations of the human eyesight.

Please DON'T make the mistake of erroneously urging others to stay in the dark ages!

DFC I am surprised by your comments. I am not reliant on GPS and I would make a small wager that given 2 basic aircraft, no GPS just a map and a stop watch with a timed arrival and spot landing on a complex nav ex I could proably pip you to the post. My navex timings in the last years competitions have been with 3 seconds on average......

I have many hundreds of hours in microlights and am well versed in looking out the window to navigate and control the aircraft.

But at the end of the day, my own aircraft is bristling with kit that I am 100 versed in using and I would not be without especially in marginal weather.

When will people wake up and smell the coffee GPS is not an evil it is just another tool in the box and when used wisely is a life saver.

I do have to say the one thing that I AM very anti is the use of non aviation GPS for navigation. These are just asking for trouble!

Could have been a useful thread, but it's gone the way of 'my gps is better than yours'

Congratulations Bose-X

Your navigation and time-keeping are much to be admired.
Would you care to demonstrate them and join the BPPA(www.bppa.info)
and fly for England in the World Championships in Navigation and Spot landings in Tours France next year?

This is in no way trying to cast aspersions on the unfortunate victims of the Moreton in Marsh accident

but even with the best efforts the lack of vision which one has out of the average high winged aircraft, especially in a turn, scares the **** out of me.

See and be seen? Not in a Cessna single, it's more like looking out of a letter box

DFC - a lot of pompous nonsense about how great you are and how deficient everyone else is. But have you actually got anything worthwhile to add to this thread?

DFC

For all us PPLs who are cluttering up the airwaves requesting RIS in Class G - a senior ATCO who teaches the RT course said that we PPLs should always ask for a RIS rather than an FIS. The service is there to be used by all.

DFC

Nonsense.

"Mark 1 eyebal has kept me safe thus far "

It would do. The stats are such that you could fly blindfolded, outside and also inside CAS, non-radio, on random paths say between 500ft agl and FL100, and you would die of old age before hitting something. In the UK, you would see loads of planes appearing to be awfully close but the odds are massively stacked against contact.

It does happen but rarely, and when it does it is usually where people congregate (near airfields, on nice days preceeded by long periods of poor weather).

So, there is no statistically compelling argument for spending £15k-£25k (as some of my friends have done, in SEPs) on a TCAD-type system. Especially pointless with non-mandatory transponders; one sees well under half the traffic, with the % depending on how high one is.

But if for some reason you do want reliable traffic detection, you have to spend some real money (and make transponders mandatory).

Making transponders mandatory would certainly reduce the likelihood of a mid air collision. It would, after all, ground about 70% of the traffic. I guess that would mean that the remaining 30% would not need to spend the money. Perhaps we should just charge 10,000 a year tax to fly, this would probably save a number of lives!

The tiny number of lives lost to this type of accident will never justify this proposal.

Rod1

"The tiny number of lives lost to this type of accident will never justify this proposal."

I agree.

But that's not the same thing as saying (as others do) that looking out is THE solution :O

A very big distinction.

"It would, after all, ground about 70% of the traffic"

Do you have a reference for this figure?

It's going to happen anyway, a few years from now, but at a more expensive point because a Mode S unit currently can't be put in for under £2500+VAT.

If Mode C had been made mandatory say 10 years ago, every plane would have one (they start at about £1500, about the same as a radio+VOR) and there would be no fuss about it now.

Then, instead of an RIS traffic report

"traffic at 10 o'clock, level unknown"

(almost useless, like the majority of them) one would get

"traffic at 10 o'clock, same level"

Does anybody know if the Moreton-on-Marsh location of the accident was pure coincidence or that it might have had something to do with "sightseeing"? I used to like to show passengers the site at low altitude when I flew out of Oxford. I can totally imagine how this quite impressive set-up might have led to reduced scanning for other planes...

Sorry for the speculation...

DFC, I certainly agree that RIS/RAS should only be requested when needed. How many times on a gin clear day have we heard the droning tones of someone telling their life history to an ATCU before requesting a RIS with an in-flight visibility of 30km...

Always assume that no-one will be able to provide anything other than a FIS when you're flying under VFR - if you can get a RIS in decreasing vis, then fine.

As far as I'm aware, you will only get a RAS if you are flying under IFR.

I'm a great believer in GPS. But horribly overcomplicated multi-function things with gucci eye-candy moving maps you can keep. I'll stick with line on chart, measure track and distance and apply MDR. Then insert route on GPS, cross-check DTK, GS and ETA, look out and enjoy the view with the odd squint at the +/- 1 mile CDI bar. I won't go head-in and over navigate, I'll be enjoying the view with a nice reassurance form the GPS that my ETA is as anticipated.

As for TCAS, the Honeywell CAS 67A ACAS II for General Aviation is a snip at a mere $226,390.00. Maybe ADS-B will be more affordable, but meanwhile you'll have to rely upon the Mark 1 eyeball which does a pretty good job, when all is told.

Well, I don't fly that much in the UK, but when ever I have, and I was within a Lars area, I have always requested a RIS, irrespective of the weather conditions.

If I was to have a mid air, and to survive, but someone else was to die, you can imagine how bad I would feel. Then imagine I later discovered that the local Lars unit were sat there twiddling their thumbs because no one was bothered to call them and ask for a service?

I very much recognise the limitations of the eyeball. A RIS is something else there to help me, and I'll take advantage of it if it's available. If the controller is too busy they will tell me. If they are not too busy, then I've just added to the safety of my flight, and others in the area.

dp

IO540

Right now there is no solution for gliders, the vast majority of microlights, balloons, paras, hangliders and many PFA aircraft. All of the above have either no electrical system or non which will support currant technology transponders. Several of the above groups have negotiated exemptions from the Mode S implementation so no it will never be all airspace users. The “low power” mode S solution is on its third supplier and is not yet finished, so no way could this have happened 10 years ago.

The original mode S emissions tests were done on large metal aircraft. Recent tests on fabric and composite aircraft have found that emissions are several times the EU H&S limit. This report came form one of the Scandinavian countries and is now being looked at by EASA. PFA expectation is all fabric and composite aircraft will be excepted, but this has a long way to go yet.

Rod1

I don't want to get into the debate on the GPS "head up/head down" scenario (although you only have to listen to any number of Commercial Examiners to get the best idea of which way they lean) but with regard to discussing hypothesising on the causes of an accident all I would say is that a couple of weeks ago I was fortunate to be given a tour of the AAIB facility at Farnborough.

Of the various accidents we saw, and we were all either Commercial Pilots or industry long-in-the-tooth-ites, we must have had a hit rate of about 5% on the causes.

Also, over the years I've had exposure to the aftermath of two aircraft accidents - neither of which were times I relished. Speculation was an absolute sh*t to be completely honest and did nothing but damage reputations and introduce rumours which were subsequently proved to be complete horsesh*t. Whilst we were lucky in that they weren't fatal, the reputations of a number of good pilots were judged unfairly - and sadly the media only tend to be interested on day one - they don't really care when the report comes out and the blame is apportioned to something failing.

Anyway, perhaps it's not a great argument, but it's certainly something which I think we should bear in mind when posting on here post-accident.

Personally, I'd prefer to leave it up to the experts at the AAIB - I'd suggest that we'd learn more from their findings and recommendations than various theories expressed by "experts" (and "non-experts") hiding behind the veil of anonymity on here.

"Always assume that no-one will be able to provide anything other than a FIS when you're flying under VFR "

Firstly, what use is an FIS? "Seven aircraft known in your area". Nobody has a clue where they might be. Then there are the twenty others who aren't talking to this frequency. Plus another thirty who aren't talking to anybody. I am sure that if everybody flying called up London Info, the system would collapse instantly. I never bother with talking to a non-radar FIS, though I always tune in for a listening watch, in case I have to make a mayday call.

Secondly, IMHO it's worth talking to any radar unit because they then have your verified level and they pass your details to other traffic which is IFR, perhaps in IMC.

Very different abroad though; in France one tends to get an FIS which is a sort-of watered down RIS. Plus radio contact can be more or less mandatory (Greece). So one can't generalise because some people do fly abroad....

I think RAS is only for OCAS, and nowadays is offered only to IFR flights.

Daifly - I don't doubt you for a moment but I also think that many fatal GA accident analysis is guesswork. I've read loads of AAIB reports and it's clear they often don't really know. No CVR, no FDR. Just a radar trace every X seconds. Especially structural failure cases (arguably the most disturbing to a serious IFR pilot; mid-airs are a largely statistical numbers game) - no record of preceeding control movements. A lot of it is like watching Walking with Dinosaurs and hearing how many times a day they had sex.

Turniphead, I was going to join the BPPA but with all of the Air Rally's and the microlight comps(though not as many these days) I am not sure we could fit it in. Maybe next season!

But my challenge does stand!

Oh flippin' 'eck, it's gone exactly the same way the rest have gone. I knew it would and is why I abhor the opinionated drivel that always excretes from certain people when a fatality occurs.

A young man died and the thread started (as most of them do) with a series of condolences and "carefully chosen words". I could have gone to Ladbrokes and put my last Euro on the fact that by page three all of the comraderie would have dissolved into a "what I think is..." competition.

Once again, I have said before and I reiterate here, if I meet my maker in an aviation related accident I urge you all not to start speculating and squabbling. It is not what I would want.

Cusco - I do believe you were right earlier on.

Monocock, there has been just one speculative comment on the possible cause of the accident - and even that has thankfully been ignored.

The rest of the thread has mainly been a discussion between those who want more ATCU involvement and electric gizmos, and those who believe in traditional freedoms with minimal distractions.

At least, that's how I read it.

I was referring to the 7 or 8 posts at the top of this page.