Risk of Mid-Air Collision At Navigational Beacons
 

Dear All,


Lovely day on Saturday in the south. The world and his wife were out flying, or so it seemed.

As I was returning to Elstree about lunchtime, at BNN got very close to a PA 28 who clearly hadn't seen me, then saw 3 further planes all approaching the beacon within 2 mins. Congestion is of course made worse with the TMA at 2400 ft in the choke spots around London.

Thinking about this later, I wonder why I, and many pilots plot courses to "beacon hop" when going from A to B, and have forgotten to use our dead reckoning techniques , or can't be bothered to put in loads of waypoints on our GPS's. There always will be a greater traffic density around VOR's and really it would be good airmanship, in VMC conditions not to slavishly follow them.

What do others think / do ?

LF

I agree with you, in VMC I'm always looking out..and try to fly well left or right..but then maybe everyone else is doing the same.....:eek:

Much the same reason why VRP's were changed from Visual Reporting Points to Visual Reference Point.

Whatever happened to scudding the coast at 500'? On a VFR flight, what enjoyment does one get from beacon bashing?

Not only beacons.
Have noticed quite a bit of traffic on a route and began thinking why ?
Concluded that the pilots are flying a direct route between 2 points using GPS...... I never fly the direct line, always off track and never at '000's of feet.

LF:Perhaps because (a) radio nav is much more accurate and reliable than dead reckoning/pilotage when you're flying over an area you're not familiar with and (b) we don't have a GPS or (c) we reckon that looking out of the window for the inevitable other traffic is safer than squinting into the cockpit at a tiny screen which is obscured by the glare from the sun?
I reckon well-prepared use of radio nav when flying around underneath the LTMA or any other place where there's a high risk of airspace infringement is a sound and sensible strategy. If you've planned it, plogged it and set it up properly it gives you a really solid basis from which you can use your spare resources to (a) confirm your position by ref to map and ground features and (b) look out for other traffic. When you get close to a beacon you can (a) offset a little to minimise collision risk and (b) devote most of your effort to lookout.
NS

Whatever happened to scudding the coast at 500'? On a VFR flight, what enjoyment does one get from beacon bashing?

That is so true....but probably a bit difficult if you are going from Sywell to Duxford.:)

I flew from north of Colchester to Goodwood a couple of months ago and on the way down I was "constantly checking that I'm threading the needle" through restricted airspace, talking to anyone who'll listen and so on...

On the way back, straight to the coast, turned left, lovely view past Brighton, Newhaven et al. then left again at Dover, over Whitstable. Then, for the crack, right before Southend, round the coast up to the River Stour and home.

Just the way the fighters did in WW2....only a bit slower...:)

Well said NS.

I generally always try to fly beacon to beacon, thats what they are there for!!!!

GPS or conventional RNAV with line drawn on the chart and a PLOG (my PLOG is actually drawn on the chart for VFR). Using the beacons from the GPS data base or using the conventional equipment reduces the risks of entering way-points into the GPS or the mistakes made by dead reckoning pilotage which is good airman-ship and reduces the risk of infringement.

I did scud run at 900ftf all the way home from Marcq en Barouil yesterday with a stop at Calais then across the channel still at 900ft to DVR-LAM then home in the Chipmink. It was amazing how many people had to ask me for the type code!

We use beacons, airports and VRPs because they are convenient.

When planning a route it is far easier to route between such identifiers, whether it be entering them in the GPS of dialing them up on the VOR.

Using other navigational marks would reduce the risk of collision at these choke points but it would be a pain.

It is however worth having a strategy for reducing the risk of collision.

Firstly, there is no need to fly over the navigational mark. Inevitably if you consider a typical route the beacons represent turning points at which you make some change in direction. Given that is what you are going to do, anticipate the change and simply cut the corner - you will be surprised if there is a significant change in direction how much you can cut the corner by.

Secondly fly up to the base of the TMA, that way the bu**ers can only get you from below or the same level.

Thirdly, always request a RIS.

Fourthly invest in a collision avoidance product.

Fuji:Not sure I agree with that. You get best visibility of conflicting traffic by having them skylined which means being below them. Mind you, doesn't work if everyone tries to do it! But of course your strategy has the same flaw. Plus you put yourself at greater risk of inadvertent vertical infingement of CAS.
NS

NS

It is interesting from experience how often the other aircraft are below you if you are just under the base of CAS, probably becasue they are also worried about infringing.

However, I do agree accurate control of height is important if within a 100 feet of the base.

If you fly very close to the base of CAS, there's another consideration: wake vortex. Here in NL, the Amsterdam TMA starts at 1500', and is used to vector CAS around for Schiphol at 2000'. Wake vortices can drift down 700' to 1000' below the flight path. Here, the informal advice, when flying underneath the Amsterdam TMA, is to stay below 1300' to be safe.

Still, in aviation we're lucky that we can separate in the vertical, and we are (almost) never at the same altitude as the beacon itself. I have heard numerous stories about yachties who use buoys as their waypoints, put them in the GPS and then slave the GPS to the autopilot while they sip coffee in the cabin. Inevitably, the autopilot does exactly what the GPS tells it to do - sail directly into the buoy!

Could suggest a rather old fashioned fifth strategy of keep a good lookout ?

Also baffles me why so many light aircraft route directly over an airfield thereby, like using beacons, increasing the probability of a collision quite significantly.

When was the last time a mid-air collision occurred at a beacon?

What are the Airprox statistics like around beacons?

I use VORs and airfields for convenience, and keep a continual scan going, but I also prefer to talk to ATC as well as listen out. I do tend to avoid "common" altitudes.

I am not one of the folks who prefer to keep radio silence outside CAS, and it continues to surprise me that here are so many out there. Some say they listen out, but this is so selfish. If you claim to listen out, you are thus expecting to hear something of benefit to you. It is only common safety sense to speak as well, so that others may have an inkling of where your aircraft may be.

With the introduction last week of the new Farnborough LARS right the way across to Detling and down to the South coast, we should all be making proper use of this excellent enhancement to flight safety. There is no excuse in my book for failing to use it when it covers Class G airspace which gets very congested on sunny days. And I have no involvement in ATC or CAA, just a healthy regard for my own wellbeing in the air.

You could and have - but the evidence and expert opinion suggests it does not work - it is jsut a good con.

Lysander

Yes, I couldnt agree more. As another example I am always amazed by those who refuse to "sign in" on a FIS but happily listen out.

BNN is also a very good waypoint because of Bovingdon airfield so whether you are beacon hopping on not you are bound to get planes massing there, who can blame them considering in bad vis the expanse of built up areas seem to merge into one and there is so much airspace around. Flying at random heights is a good idea and switching you landing light on will help you be spotted.

Ive take to flying slight off track near beacons when hand flying or occasionally going into heading mode when using the AP. Using the keep it to your left idea (when airspace permits).

Good point about the landing lights - BUT has anyone seen someone because of it?

I used this on Friday when flying across the Benson Zone - had been told someone was on a reciprical course at same height so I switched the landing light on and looked very hard - couldnt see a thing :* I just hope they saw my light. I also tend to turn it off and then on again every so often since I (perhaps wrongly) think that the brain is better at picking up the "change" more than just the intensity.

PS. I also agree about the FIS - although lately getting a word in edge ways can be difficult around here.

Around BNN, Northolt and, or Luton provide a very good RIS. Northolt especially! I highly recomend them!

We are never going to always see aircraft around us, but getting the best possible service from an ATC unit can make it a whole lot easier.

You don't need GPS to fly a straight line track. I flew Benson to Sibson the other day - there was no need to do anything else, so we went direct. That's how I was taught - dogleg only if you have to. Dead reckoning all the way.

Tim

In the UK, in good visibility, visual navigation is dead easy...IF you are in practice. I suspect that "IF" is often the problem. :(