I have refused ONE transit of EMA CAS in the last 2 years - and that was because he called half a mile from the edge of CAS and I was working like a one armed paper hangar.

Yes - you will be told to remain outside in the initial call, so as to stop you blundering in. 9 times out of 10 you will also be told that either you're not YET cleared in or you'll get transit clearance when you get closer. I have data at work that will show the number of refusals is probably less than 0.1% of requested transits.

As far as Brum is concerned - I've asked for transit 7 times (normally 4000ft through the overhead) and got 7 transits in the past year.

I think you owe some people a retraction / apology.

Fantastic Pilot
 

there is alot in this thread i don't understand and to be honest i don't want to when a excellent pilot has gone in such awful circumstances all i want to know is he's gone somewhere safe and is still watching all his friends and family who love and miss him dearly. Am sure the insights to what happened will come out later. But as someone above said JB RIP u were a great guy x x x

Blondechick

Take what you are saying as I am sure everyone here is devastated and shocked by this dreadful accident but the fact of the matter is that those poor people have gone.

That makes the rest of us more aware of the potential for a midair and what we can do or not do to avoid something simular.
it also makes us more aware of where the risk holes are more concentrated and the possibilities of where and how technology can help to make a midair less likely.

Sitting and waiting for some report months down the line on what is obvious (the obvious being that for whatever reason two aircraft did not see each other and collided ) is not going to help us now to avoid a simular occurence.
Remember another collision could occur to any of us posting in this forum tomorrow not months away after some AAIB report. Accidents dont wait for the posting of AAIB reports!

Chatting here even if it achieves nothing but making us more allert to the potential of a midair has to be good surely?

Pace

Pace

Well said. It has certainly reminded me of the importance of an exceptional lookout in any class of airspace.

Just a little about flying a cessna twin, Ive done quite a bit on the Riems 406, at 3 miles he wouldnt have been clean, most likely gear down with app flaps but still at about 120 kts. Its very hard too see anything that close to you with such a high nose attitude and such huge engines (prop line are in line with the aft nose locker) that are pretty much blocking your viz on both side and you wouldnt be able to see anything thing below them. And no RVL a/c are fitted with TCAS. Its just a real same, You guys will really be missed

Oh i totally agree i wasn't having a go. forget it when ever i say anything on here it gets totally out of context! am just going to delete my profile i was just giving my condolences seeing as i know one of the men. and u have a go. have some compassion for people who are grieving ie me

I have been reading this thread with interest, I am not a pilot but married to one who flies out of Coventry - so some of what I have read on here makes slightly worrying reading - I understand your sentiments Blondechick - but I also agree with what Pace is saying - it is important for those who fly to try and make some sense of this and understand the potential for this situation to occur again - In this situation people feel the need to do something and to almost be connected to their fellow aviators and this is the site where that happens. This does not in my very humble opinion detract from the absolute horror and tragedy of what has happened and the fact that there are families and friends grieving at this time. Everyone on here whatever their opinion or seemingly insensitive comments will I am sure be sending their sympathy, heartfelt thoughts and love to those people. Rest assured Blondechick that your friend is at peace and in a safe place.

Got to agree with Chilli Monster, East Midland are very good at giving transits. Can't remember the last time I heard a refusal.

A lot of comment on “see and avoid” on this thread. I am an ex glider pilot and have had the honour of flying 300 hours with an ex member of the Royal Observers in the right hand seat. See and avoid may not be 100% but some people are much better at it than others. The more effort you put in and the more experience you gain trying, the better it will work for you. Nick (my ROC mate) can spot an aircraft, identify type and tell you the threat level very early in an encounter. By seeing what can be done I have improved towards his standard, but I still have a long way to go.

It is also worth investing in an aircraft you can see out off, as some are much harder than others and therefore less safe.

Rod1

One should not forget the statistics though. Flying above 1000ft or in IMC appears to offer virtually total protection. The risk is in low level situations which, for most people, are when taking off or landing, and during those times one's ability to look out is compromised by various factors e.g. nose up attitude during takeoff.

Enroute, the risk is negligible unless one is really crawling in the gutter. I know many pilots do fly low, but they don't have to.

I am not making any comment about the circumstances that led to this tragic accident as i do not have enough information to make any judgements,but I do remember on my very first lesson of my PPL course in Australia my instructor told me the first rule of flying is A.N.C.
Aviate,Navigate.Communicate.and I have always taken that to mean that flying the plane whilst keeping a lookout was a fundamental principle of safe flying,but as I said I am NOT suggesting that the pilots involved in the tragedy were not doing exactly that,it is not for me to judge,others with more knowledge will do that.
All I know is that it is a tragedy and people have lost their lives,and that is the fact we must all remember,regardless of the cause of the accident.
Condolences to the families of those involved.

Newcomer

We understand he was practicing ILS Calibration approaches, these are generally flown to a low go-around gear up.



I'm particularly upset by this accident as Calibration flying is what I spend my time at work doing. Unfortunately some of us have to fly at low level VFR outside of CAS in order to do the job.



Blondechick

I know the thoughts of the aircrew at Teesside are with all at RVL.

My condolences to all involved with this tradgic accident.

As is usually the case with air disasters, I just hope that many lessons are learned by the aviation community, and that the rest of us can go about the rest of our days that little bit safer.

RIP.

SSS

The Pilot of the Rand KR2 has been named as Brian Normington, the details of the Cessna 402 crew are yet to be released.

Rod1

Still bothers me that this collision occurred while one aircraft was flying the ILS and one was making a VFR approach. Fortunately I'm in the position where I don't ever find myself doing an ILS outside of controlled airspace!! You do expect certain protections though surely, particularly at a time when workload can be very high. Lookout may be brief and at random intervals (even with 2 crew) making it very difficult to spot the constant bearing target! At other airfields Tower always passes circuit traffic information so we can attempt to spot them. Normally the VFR traffic is second to us and will have to pick us up visually before they can continue. Frightening that 2 aircraft can be on approach to the same runway both in radio contact with the tower and meet in mid air!! I hate to say it but I do think the IFR traffic should take precedent and VFR traffic should be instructed to follow us when we are both coming in at the same time. One aircraft on instruments, one visually operating, makes sense but those instructions need to come from somewhere....ATC.
Could this just be a horrible set of circumstances where both aircraft were in blind spots to one another? How then can you totally rely on the mark one eyeball? If you are practising an ILS calibration you cannot weave down the approach to look beneath you to the sides!
This is a dreadful accident and I wonder if it may lead to a review of some airspace's around the UK. Any loss of life is dreadful be it 5 in a 402/KR2 or 150 in a 737. Could this lead to GA being moved further out of the way???? Would be a shame but......! The press would have had a field day had it been a 737!

The findings from the AAIB may make quite sobering reading. Sad day indeed.

Any further narrowing of the Birmingham / East Mids gap will have a significant impact on VFR traffic density. The corridor is already very busy with light aircraft and military aircraft, all operating VFR. I hope we can at least get a LARS to help. This is the second fatal mid air in the corridor in the last 12 months. The other was at 1450 ft AGL, so even the “ok above 1000 ft” idea will not necessarily save you.

Rod1

BlondeChick

I was not having a go at you either as you expressed the sentiments very well as to how most probably feel especially if you knew the people and it was close to home.

I used to fly the citation that crashed at Biggin and knew the pilot so I understand where you are coming from.

Often text is misunderstood and my comments were not aimed at you but only to make a point as to why it is important with current pilots to discuss accidents even if by doing so it can come across as cold.

On the face of it this appears to be one of those 1 in a million tragic accidents and we can only take note and be extra aware of that potential.

So thanks for your warmth and take care

Pace

ONEPOSTONLY -
A few points regarding your post,
I believe that the IFR ILS approaches you fly differ from the VFR ILS approaches being flown here. Stay with me on this...
When I first started flying in Inverness I was treated to a discussion with the SATCO about the difference between VFR, IFR and VISUAL approaches. As I understand if you started out IFR and want to make a VISUAL approach then you will still be treated in the eyes of ATC as being an IFR (and still expected to fly the published missed approach if you went around) despite being able to see where you are going.
If you 'cancel IFR' (normally using that phrase) you are now treated as a VFR flight (because you now are!) and seperation now VFR against VFR, ie not given. You are now responsible for see and avoid, although of course FIS may be provided with traffic info given. (if you go around you will be expected to fly a visual circuit by the way).
The relevance of this is that although we believe the 402 (not a 406 by the way, there is quite a difference) was flying practice ILS approaches for CALIBRATION purposes, therefore I believe that the purpose of the two pilots up front was to provide safety pilot look out whilst the other was busy. Remember this is a single crew aircraft and will be flown as such with single crew SOPS, there will be no challenge and response stuff and the HP (or PF if you prefer) will be doing it all. The second pilot in this case was probably also acting in an instructing capacity too as he/she was a CRE/line trainer.
Incidentally it is not unusual for aircraft to fly ILS approaches as VFR traffic for several reasons, most commonly for training OPC LPC stuff. In Inverness we choose to do this when the conditions allow of course, because otherwise the slots available for IFR training (as a pukka IFR flight with seperation) are much harder to get.
I believe this accident would be highly unlikely to happen with larger IFR commercial traffic because that aircraft would retain its IFR status down to the ground and ATC seperation would apply. Of course there is nothing to stop anyone flying across the path of an ILS outside the ATZ, but that is not peculiar to CVT, try Blackpool, Filton, Cambridge, and Cranfield for starters...
I have worked for the Atlantic Group (and spin off companies) for 12 years and have flown over 200 hours in EYES. I am very sad for those affected by this accident.

CRX.

Ps: ATC comment about my understanding of the above is welcome.

Sorry, knew it was a 402, slip of the finger, corrected that ta.

Totally correct, thanks for that. I was thinking with an airliner brain and was thinking ILS at the end of a IFR flight. Didn't think they might have done it after a VFR sortie. So long since I have done it forgotten it happens!!!! Very much stuck in the IFR world it seems!

As you say, there is nothing but "airmanship" to prevent someone flying across the instrument approach path while outside controlled airspace. Just have to hope it prevails!!!

Thanks for that post, cleared a lot up.

Such an unfortunate accident.

SAS wrote: Not what I wrote at all, as you would have realised if you took the time to read it properly, instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

I merely restated the rules under which both of these aircraft were operating, and didn't comment as to whether or not the rules were either sensible or able to be complied with.

You may care to note that I also made an observation regarding the ease of keeping a good lookout, or otherwise, in some types, without making any comment as to the personal skills of any type of pilot. It's a fact that if your flying a paraglider, a glider or some types of microlight, then it's very much easier to keep a good lookout than it is when flying some other types with more restricted visibility. Add in congested skies, occupied by aircraft with widely differing speeds and the inevitable higher workload when flying an approach through the midst of all this and the chance of ANY pilot maintaining a first class lookout is pretty slim.

I'm frankly surprised at the venom that's being directed my way at pointing out what seems to be obvious, and equally amazed at the way that some have opted to deliberately misconstrue my meaning.

VP

I would just like to express my condolences to the families and loved ones affected by this. Coventry Airport is a very special and close knit community and this tragedy will have affected everyone to the core. There is nothing more I can say.

As a former employee of Atlantic, I'd just like to add my condolences to the families and friends of those affected.

AA

Very sad
 

Whilst I've read through the bickering and to'ing and through'ing of "keeping a good lookout" it's still strange that the light aircraft was transiting an active approach ?

I wonder how they strayed there, if it were poor navigation, incorrect altimeter setting.

Very sad.

It wasn't transiting or strayed there, both aircraft were approaching to land at Cov, quote below is AAIB press statement.

10 days ago i was having lunch with 1 of the pilots killed!
A good guy and 100% commited pilot! My condolences to all the families who are grieving.

Radar Cross-Section
 

Generally speaking when we're Calibrating it's done VFR, it allows us to self-position more quickly than being IFR and vectored, it also gives us more flexibility in holding / manouevering and allows air traffic to apply VFR separation with us.

As for the crewing thing, our B200's are "single-pilot" aircraft but we are required to operate 2 crew on precision calibration tasks. There is a lot going on during a calibration with both front-end guys busy looking out, flying, navigating, liasing with air-traffic, co-ordinating with our rear-end NavAid Inspector and of course looking out again! (Hopefully)

Personally i'd be very happy if ALL aircraft (including microlights, balloons and gliders) were required to carry at least Mode 3 A/C transponders and if all aircraft involved in our kind of operation were required to carry TCAS. At present we have a TCAD system which is a lot better than nothing but still not really good enough.

Who said one was transiting? The statement said both were on approach.

Both were working ATC

Am I alone in being slightly unnerved by one or two posts on here from people who seem to suggest that they believed they would automatically have a right of way when flying an ILS approach in class G, above VMC minima?

It has been widely reported that both aircraft were making an approach at the time of this accident (I have no idea as to whether that is wholly correct, but will assume for now that it is). As such, both would seem to be subject to the normal GFR/VFR "give way" rules (neither would have an automatic right of way as being the aircraft "approaching to land" under Rule 17 (6)), irrespective of whether or not one or both were taking advantage of the ILS . Similarly, neither aircraft was under control from an ATC unit, in fact neither could legally have accepted control, had it been offered, as I understand it, as the conditions were better than VMC minima and the accident occurred in class G airspace.

The whole idea of flying ILS approaches in class G, in good vis, gives me the willies, particularly as it seems to becoming more widespread as the budget airlines move out to cheaper satellite airports. I'm in no way associating this with the accident in question, before I get leapt upon once more, just raising the whole issue as to whether it's safe practice to do this.

VP

Before anything else, I offer my condolences to those who lost their lives (or their loved ones and friends) in this accident.

Whilst we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation to know how this happened, there have been many comments out airspace classes and flight rules, many of which appear either incorrect or based on misunderstanding. As I understand the situation, both aircraft were in communication with Coventry ATC.

Although airspace class and flight rules are not entirely irrelevant, there is a very grey area over what ATC has responsibility for in the vicinity of an aerodrome, and particularly the aerodrome controller's responsibilities for managing an orderly flow of air traffic. Make no mistake, the aerodrome controller's job in an environment like Coventry is not easy - whether issues of airspace, flight rules or IFR/commercial flight outside CAS etc. are particularly relevant will no doubt become clearer from the investigation, but if it results in the clarification the grey area of aerodrome control responsibilities it will be no bad thing - for pilots and controllers alike.

This does make me wonder if there could be an element of error on the part of ATC?

2 Aircraft talking to ATC collide on final, see and avoid aside what happened to ATC input?

Here is a picture of the RAND KR-2, she's not much bigger than a 3 axis microlight (400kg MTOW) - hard to see and, by the looks of her, hard to see out of:

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1090630F.jpg

Very sad, but these things will happen without mandating aids such as FLARM or TCAS/ACAS. I remember a trial done by the MOD's DERA (now QinetiQ) in the 90s that said "see and avoid" below 2000ft was about 99% effective if you look 70% outside and 30% on the instruments - bad news if you are the 1%! I believe that the technology to reduce the risk of this occuring again is now available and it's time for us to invest in it - unpalatable as it is to us hard-pressed GA pilots (ie. Lightweight Mode S + TCAS/ACAS or FLARM).

My condolences to the families involved...

LJ

I'd like to know how they arrived at that amazing 99% figure.

You can put four pilots into a 4-seater and fly around under a radar information service, on a gin clear day, and count how many of the reported targets that group of 4 people manage to spot.

It won't be 99%, it won't be even 50%.

Flying alone, on autopilot so hands and eyes free, I manage perhaps 10% - but then I fly higher than GA average, as high as CAS allows, so nearly everybody is below me, against the ground and very hard to spot.

And the majority of reported traffic is 'level unknown' i.e. nontransponding so you have no idea where to look for it vertically, but when you do spot it, it is way down below maybe 95% of the time.

ILS= Instrument landing system
 

Unless you are flying an aircraft with a full FD/AP system capable of flying a coupled approach how are you able to look outside, other than a quick glance?

I think its fair to say that 99% of people flying an ILS expect total protection on an ILS approach, it matters not that the conditions are visual or IMC you are flying a PA.

If the 402 was cleared for the ILS then there should have been no conflicting traffic period, i will leave the rest to the AAIB...........RIP Guys

Flying Officer Kite

"When flying an ILS one does not expect other traffic to be in the vicinity whether VFR or IFR. Hopefully".

Could I commend to you a visit to the radar unit of an aerodrome with IAPs in Class G airspace?


Spitoon

A very sensible comment - as to be expected.


2 s

Amazed how you can state that :( Outside of CAS, then anybody can do what they like, and if you are there, then the rules are "see and be seen" - whether in an LAA homebuilt, or a 747.

I fly from an LAA homebuilt, to an ex-military Jet, ex-Eastern Bloc trainers and public transport airliners. Each have their own "risks", which differ considerably, both for me, and my colleagues / passengers / other airspace users. I do trust others also (apart from the passengers), understand those risks.... and the tragic events of Sunday are hardly unexpected, unique, or unlikely to be repeated. If you want to minimise the risks, then please understand that short of full Radar Control, in CAS, your best defence (but not absolute), is to have your eyes and ears "outside" 80+% of the time. But there's still the 20% or so when it's just not your day... :{

NoD

A truly sad event...
Thoughts with 'S.P.' (and all the others who lost their lives...) you always had a smile and a warm heart...

you will be missed

In an ideal world the ILS should be within the controlled airspace but like quite a few in the UK, it sadly was not. An accident waiting to happen? Hmmm.......

On another note, the amount of traffic reports I recieve on a daily basis with "height unknown" (no transponder or simply not squarking mode C?) is seriously begining to irk me when all the safety groups have been banging on about the requirement to squark mode C (if equipped) or to have a transponder switched on.

Work as a flying instructor for a week and see how many people forget or choose not to switch it on, when they have been told time and time again about it's importance.

VFE.