Thoughts on reducing risk of mid-airs.
 

Today (14/6/09) a mid-air collision between an RAF Grob and a Glider claimed the lives of two people. How can we reduce the risk of mid-airs?
In the UK ,on a fine weather weekend, daytime VFR flying constrained by cloudbase and the plethora of controlled airspace can get very congested.

--education (awareness of choke points, look out techniques, limitations of visual scans)
--aircraft colour (? dark is better)
--parachute / BRS (money / weight?)
--mode S ?!?--in the context of daytime VFR I suspect the mandatory installation of, and use of, a flashing light beacon would be vastly more useful and significantly less expensive.

Your thoughts appreciated.
TIM

Based on the stats, the best way is to fly high.

Most midairs seem to happen 1000ft or lower.

A large % of PPL pilots fly low; 1000-2000ft. Presumably the view is better.

a second explanation why a lot of mid-airs occur sub-1000ft is that they tend to happen near airfields, an obvious choke point, especially around circuit height. Purely conjecture though :)

Most aircraft already have a "flashing light beacon" and many have high intensity strobes. They don't seem to help much. The human eye just isn't good enough at spotting aircraft on a constant bearing at a range that's sufficient to do something about it.

The answer is in electronic enhancement of visual acquisition. Mode S datalinks (1090ES) provide one means for that, and already have broad adoption as a technology. Other possibilities exist, but there's a chicken-and-egg problem: such technologies are only effective if a high proportion of users are equipped with them. I'd like to see a low-power low-cost 1090ES datalink solution, but it seems to be a long time coming if the burden of the usual approvals remains.

It was published in 1994 but there's quite a good book called "Avoiding Mid Air Collisions" - just checked and it's available on Amazon.

Statistically the chances of a mid air in the open FIR are quite low (you might have a close air prox that's another matter) but I believe the main confliction point is essentially the runway and the extension of that is the circuit so correct discipline and a good lookout amongst other things go a long way to mitigate the risks.

1) Dont think radio comms directed at others are not for you to listen too. Listen learn about your surroundings and what others are doing around you.
2) When approaching a aerodrome with a limited radio capabillity. when their busy, there may be local traffic that they arent aware of.
3) Try to avoid area's where there is intensive training.
4) Be forward. if u see sombody coming near. radio 'visual with converging traffic' or similar.
5) Make sure you'r going the correct way and not putting yourself in harms way.

enjoy flying.

jonburf

Your of course right... alot of people fly between 1000-2000ft because of the view.
The view in question being the ground; a stipulation of the basic PPL-A/ NPPL they hold. People fly higher because they either like clouds or they are droning on somewhere and want to get out of the weather; get there faster; or more fuel efficiently. For the majority of recreational flyers the view of the ground from above is one of the reasons they do it. Flying bigh being a highly expensive irrelevance.

As far as the widespread installation and USAGE of beacons in the light aircraft fleet (inc gliders ,microlights, LSA's) I'm not so sure. It is for the very problem of constant aspect, non-moving, potentially colliding targets that a FLASHING beacon might give some protection...admittedly based on no research evidence that I'm awatre of.

TIM

I would say many people fly low because they lack the common sense or tarining to :mad: think for themselves.....and climb when weather and airspace permit.

Better comms range, better glide range, longer S&R time, less fuel, less traffic and obstacles to bump into.

But one simply gets so dizzy up there above 2k

Reflective vests anyone?


(coat, etc.)

The plane that's on a collision course is the one that doesn't traverse, i.e., move left or right, or up or down in your perspective. It merely gets bigger. Makes it hard to see since your eye isn't sensing movement. I like to waggle my wings occasionally when I'm around traffic, but changing course slightly, periodically, would be better.

I am not talking about flying at 10,000ft above the clouds etc. And almost nobody intentionally flies in cloud because it is usually rough.

Let's say the cloudbase is 3000ft.

If you fly at 2500ft then your chances of a midair are (wild guess - there is no midair data from this high) 100x or 1000x lower than it would be at 1000ft, but your view is still pretty damn good. Better in fact because you can see further. As Keygrip says, the radio works a lot better too.

And if you fly at 2300 or 2700ft then you avoid those who have been trained to fly at 2000ft (most of the UK PPL population) or 2500ft (the rest of the UK PPL population trying to comply with the quad rules) ;)

You can't have it both ways i.e. fly at 1000ft for a good view of everybody's garden, and also avoid most of the traffic, when everybody is playing the same game.

If the cloudbase is lower e.g. 1500ft then there is far less traffic about anyway.

The circuit will always remain a dangerous place, and apart from keeping a lookout there isn't much one can do. Just get out of there as fast as possible. A lot of midairs have happened in the circuit.

There is a problem with flying higher: gliders are often found near the base of clouds, well above most GA traffic, so flying at 2500ft under a 3000ft cumulus cloudbase on a hot day may not be that safe. But one can avoid known gliding sites.

The rest of the time, airspace permitting, one can go above the cloud where there is practically nobody, and it is perfectly smooth, but one needs to plan and execute the flight as fully IFR if doing that.

'm surprised that no one has said that the new air traffic services that came out in march just might have a say in what caused the accident.

I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy.

ClippedCub

You beat me to it. Yes agreed and I do the same, and move around change course etc., if and when i can.

It is the constant relative bearing, of your potentual collison partner, that can be extremely hard to detect.

The use of landing lights would make a difference as follows:

(a) On departure and arrival while below 1500ft (including circiuts)

(b) When advised of or aware of conflicting traffic

(c) When transiting 'choke points', en-route VORs, VRPs

(d) In areas where miltary traffic is operating

(e) In poor visibility or wx

I have always been under impression that there is a culture of avoiding the use of landing lights within UK flying schools, which is down to the cost of replacement landing light bulbs.

However, I was once told by an engineer that landing lights had a long life while they are being cooled by an airflow, perhaps someone can clarify this.

Less time 'eyes-in' looking at gucci GPS moving maps.

More time 'eyes-out' looking for threats.

How do you work that one out ? :rolleyes:

Or just ban aviation. That would be a much simpler answer. :rolleyes:

F3G

I'm sure your comment was either tongue in cheek or a troll;

"I think the gummint should ban gliders, as they don't pay fuel tax and thus don't contribute to the economy."

But in case anyone was contemplating taking your comment seriously, the fuel that goes into an aerotow is taxed and the fuel that goes into a winch launch is also taxed.

Back on topic, the suggestions for collision avoidance contained in the "Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous" thread would also seem to be germane to this thread too.

Final 3 Greens, I'm working on the assumption that you are being facetious.. (I hope)

As for yesterdays collision, local cloudbase was around 5000' QNH, the glider was most likely 3500-5000 (based on day conditions when I passed throug 30 mins later and a detailed conversation with one of the pilots who saw the collision).

Unfortunately, I don't think any of the suggestions above other than a good lookout would have stopped yesterdays incident.

Both aircraft were white for stuctural reasons (i.e. to stop GRP getting too hot), both were VFR outside controlled airspace. Neither aircraft would be talking to traffic advisory services, nor would they have been much use given the quantity of GA and gliders transiting through the Brize-Benson gap at that time.

There is more to add but I don't want to say anything that might be construed as suggesting blame.

Unfortunately it's one of those incidents where the only way to prevent it is a solid lookout on the part of both parties....

From a controller's point of view: take an appropriate service and make sure you understand what the terms of that service are. I'm frequently amazed by pilots who just reply "roger" to everything and I'm certain they don't really take in what I'm saying to them.

Once I passed traffic information to an aircraft outside controlled airspace along these lines (good VMC):

There was plenty of time to turn or change level as I had given plenty of warning of the unknown traffic, but the pilot seemed intent on getting as close to it as possible. This has happened to me more than once.

I suppose the point of my post is that although keeping your eyes out of the window is the most important, an ATC service can be a big help for avoiding collisions, infringements etc but it is important to remember who is responsible for what under the service you are getting. Also that being in receipt of an ATC service does not make you immune from conflicts and you still have to put some effort in yourself.

I'd be interested to hear what the private flying fraternity thinks of the new services outside controlled airspace. I've certainly noticed from my end a lot of people who used to take a FIS are now taking Traffic or Deconfliction services, which I think is a step towards safer skies.

reducing risks of mid-airs
 

Fuji Abound on page one had excellent tips for avoiding mid-airs.

LOOKOUT LOOKOUT LOOKOUT! That's number one lesson, and every other lesson thereafter at our gliding club, if Blogs tries to start a turn without a proper scan, we block the controls.

Too many gadgets in the cockpit. Helicopter flew over our wire launch at 600 feet AGL, apologised later because his head was inside, consulting his moving map!

So PLAN your flight, fly your plan, spend less time looking inside.

To avoid that swarm of gliders going cross country this past weekend, keep track of the weather. If the weather is c...p, gliders won't be going cross country, they may be practicing takeoffs, landings, circuits at the local sites. But on a day with cu all over the sky, gliders are everywhere and anywhere, all white, sometimes in gaggles, sometimes flying in a competition that has been NOTAMed. In which case up to 50 gliders may be following the designated triangular course. Usually working the height band from 2,000' to near cloud base. Under 2,000' we get nervous and start looking for a field.

Unfortunately there are choke points where controlled air space forces GA and gliders into fairly narrow corridors. Special care here, please.

If you can wear a parachute, do so. And know how to use it. You never know, it might save your life.

:hmm:

Or...

Less time eyes in peering at charts and trying to compare that with ground features

More time eyes out looking for threats instead of peering at the ground.

To add to Mary's words of wizdom, you can get the Lasham view of the forecast for gliding from their website:

LashamWeather.co.uk

And you can sign up to receive it by email whenever one is issued, which isn't every day by any means.

There isn't an archive of old forecasts there, but if I remember correctly yesterday's forecast was for a possible 'the day of the year' - and the flights posted subsequently suggest that indeed it was, with the longest being over 800k and many flights of 300k and more. Certainly a day to expect lots of gaggles, plus lots of gliders flying along under cloud streets.

It may be obvious to you which way to turn to increase separation, but it's not necessarily obvious to the pilot. "12 o'clock" is a 30 degree wide sector, and a turn away may just make things worse. What's more helpful from a traffic point of view is knowing which side the target is likely to pass. That allows a manoeuvre to increase separation.

In the example given, I think that "12 o'clock" and "opposite direction" are enough of a clue that a turn in either direction would be a better option than remaing on the current heading.

I dont undersatnd why the British controllers will tell you about traffic but will not say antyhing about which way to turn to miss it. Why is this such a problem?

Ask for a deconfliction service and (provided you get it ) they will tell you which way to turn.

gla-Quote..'m surprised that no one has said that the new air traffic services that came out in march just might have a say in what caused the accident.unquote

What sort of a statement is that???????/ all these collisions have taken place in class G see and be seen airspace..........the only sure way to help to prevent a collision ATC wise would be that every aircraft flying would recieve some form of radar service.....as you well know that is totally unpracticle and with the UK's radar coverage below 2000ft very limited it I am affraid down to the mark one eyeball!!!!

Colour is quite important in seeing other aircraft.
White is very often more difficult to pick out in the sky than a darker colour,I'm not advocating that every aircraft is re-painted a dark colour,but maybe it should be a consideration when re-spraying or the choice from new.
I fly a dark coloured aircraft and friends say it is much easier to see than white aircraft ,for example.
Lister

White aircraft amaze me...

I was walking along the beach the other day with light aircraft going over a few thou' above from the local airport. I could not spot one of them, until a Duchess when over. This particular Duchess had blue wingtips and tail, and I could clearly see these blue bits. The rest was which and impossible to see - it was like 3 bits of dark blue zooming across the sky.

Why do people have white aeroplanes? Surely a black one is the best colour or if you don't like black, how about dark blue.

Luckily my aeroplane is dark blue and red, and I have a Zaon box linked to my GPS and transpond Mode C, but it wouldn't help me avoid a glider.

Unfortunately composite can and will be damaged due to heating by solar rays.

My glider has orange wingtips and the difference is huge... it goes from the slightly-warm of the white gelcoat to impossible-to-keep-a-hand-on of the orange strips.

I wonder how hot it could become if it was darker!

However darker colors can be considered for the undercarriage.

Cirrus spent a fortune getting some fancy colours, such as crimson, approved for their aircraft, but they have to be highly reflective to stop the plastic overheating. Other manufacturers, such as Diamond, are less market oriented, so have taken the simple solution of offering any colour as long as it's white - with a choice of go faster stripes.

surely the paint technology exists so you can have coloured paint that does not absorb heat??

If all aircraft were coloured it would be so much easier. I find it difficult to spot aircraft even if I know the general direction where to look.
I have not completed by PPL yet but did my QXC on Saturday. What is the correct "scan technique"?

An excellent question from RansS9, and a thoughtful set of replies.

I too was flying yesterday, and we heard about the collision not long after it happened, not far to our south: it certainly provoked much thought and discussion, especially as the high cloud base and gin-clear air seemed pretty much ideal for aviation. It often seems to be the best days when the collisions happen, though: everyone gets their aircraft out (our hangar was almost empty yesterday, for the first time in months), and presumably the probability of a collision depends upon the square of the number of aircraft aloft. But one also wonders whether there's a 'first day of spring' effect, and not all pilots are as current as they might be. Perhaps the clear vis. also leads to a degree of complacency. (I stress that I'm musing in general, and not thinking of yesterday's events.)

It's also true that the Brize-Benson gap is pretty busy, as are all other bottlenecks: Keevil, Chilbolton, routes to the Isle of Wight... Maybe there's something to be said for *encouraging* GA to route through controlled airspace when it fancies, but the odd transit refusal and widespread disdain for unpolished R/T put most GA pilots off, so they never get to practice it either.

Aircraft colours: white shows up well from above, black from below (though most aircraft look black against cloud) ... but I'm not aware of any conclusive findings about the ones at your own level that'll get you. I've never spotted an aircraft from its strobes but, on the other hand, landing lights can be very obvious, though they must consume a lot of power.

Would Mode-S/TCAS/Flarm help? My guess is that if every aircraft had it (presuming low power versions available etc. - don't start that debate!) then you'd want the clever algorithms of Flarm to make much sense of the dense mixed traffic on a sunny summer Sunday. But Flarm has only got where it has because it's been unofficial: as soon as it became a defined and regulated system, even if targetted at GA specifically, that innovation would all but stop.

All rather tricky...

Windrusher

Correct scan technique as taught me for gliding is hard to explain in words and much easier to demonstrate, as are the pitfalls. Suggest you ask your instructor.

BTW I find it scary that having reached the point of flying your QXC you are not sure about this... Is it not a very important bit of getting a PPL?

That is what I do if possible. When going to the IOW from the NW I always ask Bournemouth for a transit via the o/h rather than squeeze down the StoneyX - Beaulieu gap at < 2000. Although VFR and I know I am responsible for my own separation, the traffic density can be less in CAS, or it is being controlled, or you may get a warning. One of the other posters on here told me how he goes at 4000 in Solent's airspace rather than fly along the Solent at < 2000 which seems a good idea - I've had a C172 pass 200' o/h in the Solent once which scared the crap out of me!

Unfortunately there are areas where the airspace is Class A and hence not available to VFR. This is wrong in my opinion and if it were reclassified as D up to say 10k' then more people could mnake use of it.

As especially in the spring and summer months when its light till late many people fly in the early evening. Any Radar service is useless if you have closed and gone home. Which appears to be more and more the case with ATC streamlining.

Pace

I must admit, this is the only thing that scares me about GA.

I'm working for a PPL and my local area is very busy with traffic funneling into and out of the LLR between Manchester and Liverpool, and on more than one occasion I've had traffic prox of less than 500 meters. Not bad in itself, but both times I've only spotted them as they are looming in windscreen, certainly too late to really do anything meaningful.

I keep heads up, a constant scan, clear all my turns and listen out, but I still feel like we missed by chance. The rate at which you can close down another aircraft is surprising, one second it's a tiny speck, in another it's close enough to read the reg.

It's not always the case that you can do anything about it either - the last one was someone climbing below us on an almost converging track from behind. And those are just the ones that get noticed - how many go unnoticed?

Strobes, lights, whatever - there will always be one, once, that you miss, no matter how good your lookout is. If you think you'll never miss one, you're almost certainly wrong. It's like closing your eyes and running across the road, chances are you won't be hit, but would you take the chance?

I have no intention of going out for a few hours flying in the afternoon and never coming back. I'll almost certainly be buying parachute to go along with my PPL, because, well, !!!! happens.