Close Calls
 

I have had at least 4 close calls (is there a definition?) in the last few weeks flying between two cities in the Minneapoli area. I have the TIS-B traffic sytem that alerts me when traffic is near within 6 NM and verbally warns me within 2 NM. In each case it is apparent the other plane didn't have a clue I was there, probably since most planes do not have this sytem. Unfortunately it only works within about 40-50 miles of class B airspace. It make me wonder how many close calls exist that pilots are not even aware of. Without a diversion of the fligh path a coule of these may have been tragic. I tried flying at odd altitude but with the last close call we apparently both had the same idea. Systems for certiied aircraft that work everywhere in interogating the transponders of other aircraft cost about $13,000, but considering my life this is at stake, this is starting to look cheap. Anyone else experiencing this issue too many times or just unaware?:confused:

Good TCAS systems based on TXPDR returns are wonderful in helping to deconflict traffic. Like all systems, they have their limitations and the main limitation is generally the pilot. The second, of course, is that it relies on the other guy using his system correctly as well, and having his transponder on in at least Mode C.

My first reaction on reading your post was that it illustrates the danger of relying on your on-board systems too much and not enough on airmanship. Your TIS-B system is good, but relies on several links - your GPS, the GPS satellite system, the ground station, etc. etc. etc.

Note also the limitations here.

They include:-The Mark I eyeball remains your best friend and collision avoidance tool.

You just need to fly with any kind of radar service, or TCAS to realise the limitations of the Mark 1 eyeball. Even when you know where to look, it's hard to spot other aircraft, and if one is ascending or descending into your path from behind, with its wings obscuring you, the eyeball has no chance. In my opinion, it mainly works because of the big sky theory.

Thank you.

I've been flying for 36 years. I have flown with all sorts of Radar services - even Russian and Caribbean ones. I've used several different kinds of TCAS as they've evolved over the years. I don't need patronising.

Anyone who, when flying VFR, relies on keeping head down in the cockpit staring at a little screen when they SHOULD be looking out, seeing and avoiding, or relies on a Traffic Service from a hardworked controller at EGLF and concludes "If the guy (or gal) doesn't say anything I'm safe", needs his head examining.

Lookout first, last, and always. Lookout before turning. Lookout before descending. Lookout in the climb or descent. Lookout before any manoeuvre. Lookout.

End of story.

This year I have had 3 near misses in about 60 hours of flying, some as a passenger in a shared plane. Every time we fly we get close to other aircraft but two of these close calls were due to the other guy's stupidity. One where the guy got his circuit wrong and descended on the live side and flew straight at us over the downwind numbers. We reckoned he never saw us! The second was a Europa overtook us and came within 100 metres. He said he never saw us and came very close to an RV before completely messing up the circuit and upsetting a few folk at an LAA flyin. The third one was when a twin came very close while under a LARS..when I protested I was told he had seen me and flown behingd me.
I'm not saying my flying is perfect (I know its NOT) but it is incredibly busy at times. Avoiding VRPs and VORs has to be a good idea.

Despite looking out very hard, I managed to see just 2 out of around 10 contacts reported whilst having a traffic service today.

Close calls
 

I keep a good lookout to try and avoid those planes. I also did when I was flying the cirrus with it's TCAS. It was incredible that it picked up LOTS of aircraft that I didn't see. In fact one was off to port for a few minutes and I didn't see it for quite a while even though I knew it was there.

Now, this being pprune: the training; my aviation skills; parentage and/or sexual orientation can all be called into question but the fact is take 1 average PPL and I garauntee that we're all missing LOTS more planes than we realise.

Of course, like everything automated, as soon as you start to rely on TCAS, GPS, automatic pilot the question is when it's not there can you still fly the plane ?

Hence why, imho, the look out is superior to the TCAS. Simply because it'll always be there whilst TCAS might not.

Cue lots of posting about the guy that had a stroke whilst flying and lost his sight.

Nope.

I reckon I don't "miss LOTS more planes than I realise".

'Cos I know perfectly well, and always have done, that I miss most of them.

(I even never saw one the other day that was "one mile, reciprocal heading, same height" ... but I did turn right, just in case.)

Perhaps Captain Stable could share with us the secrets of how his Mk. 1 eyeball spots them all.

http://www.pprune.org/professional-p...r-arizona.html

Rod1

soay, I did not say that I see them all.

From attempting to be patronising on your first post, you are now attempting to put words in my mouth. You therefore do not deserve a reply. You get one anyway because I'm feeling generous even to people who behave like snot-nosed kids.

Some time, go and look up what service you get for "Traffic Service". Then check what you do if, unbeknown to you, you have R/T failure and don't receive the transmission giving details of a possible conflict, or the controller is too darned busy to notice. I assume you would carry on, fat dumb and happy, thumb up bum and brain in neutral, not bothering much to look out.

In case you forgot it from when you did your training (if, in fact, you are even licensed), the entire principle of VFR is "See and Avoid". YOU are responbile for avoiding other traffic. Get used to using nifty little bits of kit and when they fail, you're stuffed. Get used to assuming ATC will spoonfeed you and sooner or later you'll be stuffed.

Bye bye.

A bit too sad !

A little harsh
 

Soay - you probably need to be a bit careful here. The "eyeball versus ATC" debate never generates a winner. I suspect that, like the rest of us, you retain SA when under ATC control by using the Mk 1 eyeball. My limited experience tells me to use all of the aids at my disposal, but never give control of your aircraft to anyone else, especially someone who is not in the air at the time.

Sorry if this sounds patronising, but that is exactly how your response to Capt Stable sounded to me.

Captain Sable, if you reread my original post carefully, you'll note that it simply stated my experience of the limitations of the Mk. 1 eyeball, based on personal empirical evidence. You misconstrued that to imply that I rely on ATC and TCAS. Perhaps if I'd started it with the pronoun one instead of you, the misunderstanding would not have arisen, but I didn't want to come across all Prince Charles. You however, have not addressed the point I was making, preferring to resort to abuse.

I've re-read your post and don't see the translation you attempt to imply. It appears that JTN concurs.

My point remains.

When VFR you, and you alone, are responsible for your aircraft avoiding other aircraft. You cannot delegate that responsibility to ATC under any service, nor is it sensible to get into the habit when flying VFR of having your head inside. No, it's sometimes not easy at all to spot other aircraft. I've often been given information about other aircraft and never spotted them. All the more reason to get into the habit of actively looking and honing your search technique rather than give up and get lazy.

TCAS can be a very useful tool particularly when being vectored around the sky close to places like CDG. But that's IFR and multi-crew, and therefore another ballgame entirely.

I have read Soay's post & I'm afraid, Captain Stable, that what I understand him to be saying is: Radar WILL pick up targets far more reliably than any eyeball (provided it is switched on). That is all!!!
The eyeball cannot see through haze, cloud, into the sun etc.
Radar CAN.
He does not in any way suggest that one should RELY on radar & sit fat & happy till the bang.
Most people are saying that they missed MOST of them.
No one has said the radar missed ANY of them.
You, Captain, seem to be of the impression that everyone is somehow blundering through the sky oblivious to everything & that only pure luck is keeping us alive. Please try to believe that this is not the case.
I hope you see this as an attempt to clarify the actual situation & not an attempt to insult you.

Crash one, I note that your interpretation of soay's post differs from mine.

I'm not sure how you can claim that radar doesn't miss any - there are plenty of non-transponder aircraft out there. There are also lots of people who forget to switch the damn thing on, even.

I relate it to all sorts of things I've heard around various airfields, posts here (and other aviation bulletin boards) that tell me that, contrary to your post, there ARE a lot of pilots out there blundering around, head down looking at their wonderful GPS that will keep them out of controlled airspace even if they don't bother to subscribe to an update service, who think they don't need to look out of the window because they've got TCAS now, who don't even worry about busting VMC minima even when not IMC rated, ears blasted off by having the iPod plugged into their headset, etc. etc.

You may not - there's plenty who do.

Finally, I draw your attention to the TIS-B NOTAM (link in my first post above:-(my emphasis).

There have been a number of studies on see and avoid. All have been very clear that it has big limitations. The UK AAIB have made the following statements following a fatal mid air in 07;

• ‘there are limitations in the human visual system that serve to make collision avoidance difficult by visual means alone.’

• ‘small targets may be hidden behind aircraft structure, such as the engine cowlings, canopy arches, wings, or struts, until very late.’

If you want to give yourself a better chance you might want to consider the PCAS systems. At £400 ish you get a lot of help for not much cash.

Rod1

Notice they say "difficult" but not "impossible"

This means you have to be "rubber necking", ie making head movements to mitigate these blank spots.

Basically I am with Captain Stable on this. Do I use radar services? Yes of course but this is additional not instead of maintaining an adequate lookout.

Lookout skills are rarely taught comprehensively other than within the military environment (and I speak as one who was civil trained but has, for a few years, instructed for the military).

When I teach E of C Part 1 and the Airmanship topics I emphasise that lookout is an acquired skill.

Crash One

Luck is keeping you alive. I have avoided this thread as we had a massive long thread on my very near miss in a twin with a glider in IMC.
I dont intend to start that debate again.

TCAS especially OCAS can give you a false sense of security unless all aircraft are transponding it can lead you to believe there is nothing there when infact there is and the same goes for radar. Radar units do miss aircraft especially non transponding aircraft.

OCAS there is such a mix of everything that you do need to be very careful VMC or IMC. You are relying on the Big sky theory and that can get very small at times.

Pace

fireflybob

Absolutely, See and Avoid is an essential tool in the box, but it is not very good and needs all the assistance it can get!

I learned to fly in the civilian Gliding world which taught lookout very aggressively. I had always considered myself quite good at it until I got the PCAS box, which shattered the illusion quite quickly. I still work at see and avoid, but now I know how bad I am in comparison with the tec, and that only spots about 50% of the traffic within 5nm and 2000ft of me.

Pace, did you get a copy of the Flyer article on collision avoidance?

Rod1

Rod1

Of course I did and it was an excellent well written piece. Thanks for all your efforts. Quite a celebrity :)

Pace

Nobody would deny that the Mark I Eyeball has its limitations. Getting a little of the right kind of assistance is no bad thing.

HOWEVER, TCAS/PCAS/OCAS also have their limitations and cannot under any circumstances replace a bloody good lookout. They can't show anything not transponding, they can't show anything if the equipment fails, and as Pace so rightly says, they CAN very easily induce a false sense of security so that the lookout becomes lazier and less effective.

I train in an area that can on occasions become overrun with gliders, which very rarely carry transponders and often are non-radio as well. They don't reflect primary radar too well, so are all but invisible on radar, invisible on TCAS, and you need a damn good lookout to see such a slim fuselage and high aspect ratio wing.

So keep that lookout skill honed - or you will become (the cause of) another accident statistic sooner or later.

Although I have considered it I have not bought a PCAS unit - not all of us have unlimited flying budgets - I am with Captain Staple on this one. Flying VFR you should be able to see converging aircraft in time to take avoiding action. The exception is an aircraft converging directly ahead at 12 o'clock. I consider the chances of another aircraft being on a direct heading at exactly the same height very low indeed. Is there any recorded instance of this actually happening?

A few days ago I was on the downwind leg at Swansee when I saw an aircraft far ahead, seemingly outside the ATZ and heading off in a different direction. As I turned on to base leg it was suddenly in front of me and I turned to the right to move behind it.

Swansee is A/G radio but they obviously take their job seriously. I did hear them give airfield information to an aircraft AFTER I had begun my downwind leg and didn't hear any a/c call downwind or the A/G mention anything about other traffic in the circuit.

At this time A/G was strongly advising another a/c about to line up to hold as that pilot seemed not to be bothered looking for traffic on final.

Which makes me think the other airborne a/c was doing a straight-in approach or else a right hand circuit (A/G had notified a left hand circuit). It's pilot also seemed completely unaware of my presence behind and seemed to take forever to evacuate the runway!

So a lot of less than perfect airmanship - and I include myself in that!

By the way, is it acceptable to go and talk to staff in the tower after the event to get more information about what happened? I had no intention with fighting with anyone but it would be of interest.

Definitely.

ATC units / AFISO units etc. all very much welcome pilots going to see what goes on, discussing any incidents whose dissection may lead to greater understanding of the other sides' problems and so on.

The fact is that one CANNOT rely on the Mk1 eyeball. If you want to use stats to prove this, how many collisions have occured in VMC conditions? Pretty much ALL of them AFAIK.

TIS is a real benefit, and I fly aeroplanes with it around LA which is exceedingly busy as no doubt Socal will atest to, and I have had a number of close calls in the past over the famous Long Beach "practice area" - which has claimed numerous lives in recent history from midairs.

If anything TIS increases ones ability to visually acquire a target - rather than "keeping your head in the cockpit looking at a screen" as some people who probably have never used the system seem to imply. Also because you can see the altitude of conflicting traffic you know if there really is a risk or not. I had a controller clear an aircraft for a left hand departure from a right hand parallel runway just after I had taken off the left hand runway at night. The other aircraft passed overhead at less than 100' and it was only because TIS started screaming that we stopped our climb and put the nose down. being night it was very difficult to tell which way the aeroplane was actually moving until very close when things started to happen very quickly.

However, one thing that I have discovered is that luckily a midair is exceedingly unlikely. Even when your traffic system shouts "Traffic" at you most of the time there will be some offset in altitude - A miss is as good as a mile so even with 20' clearance, a collision won't occur. Still sods law and all that, and so if I see another target I have not visually acquired then I'll make sure there is some offset in altitude.

In the UK i have a Zaon XRX interfaced to my G496 which displays the traffic on it. It works well and certainly increases situational awareness.

englishal, your post has a number of misconceptions and misunderstandings.

First:-This is quite an extraordinary statement to make. It rather sets the tone for the rest of the post.

Secondly, you say I am prepared to bet a considerable amount of money that I have used more TCAS systems than you. I have also written training modules for crews flying TCAS systems when they fiirst started becoming mandatory in larger aircraft. So let's not start slinging mud like that.

Third, nobody has said that we should "rely" on the Mark I eyeball solely. Situational awareness, ATC radar units and other systems (of which TCAS is just one) also have a major part to play.

Next, you stateThat's fine if you rely 100% on what TCAS and your own altimetry is telling you. If you want to bet your life on that rather than having a look out of the window, then that's fine. Just don't go betting other people's lives on it as well. All it takes is a mis-set altimeter and bang - that's all she wrote.

Next, your near miss:-Situational awareness should have alerted you to a very real and significant danger of collision. I suggest that you should have taken action well before the other aircraft got that close.

You say your wiggly amp devices are good for increasing situational awareness. I'm all for that. But anyone relying on such systems to give him first notice of traffic instead of starting off looking out of the window is an accident waiting to happen, and is a very silly pilot indeed.

Finally, a miss is very far from being as good as a mile. A little light aircraft thinking that 20' is fine and having a close encounter with something fast and heavy-ish doing close to 250 kts and pumping lots of hot air out the back is liable to be very upset. A physical collision is not necessary.

Why is it? It is fact. Even under IFR "see and avoid" still applies. Remember the Reno Hawker 800XP and glider collision? Neither "saw" the other, had the glider had a transponder turned on of course then the collision would probably not have happened. They were both responsible for See and Avoid being in VMC.
If you read my post again I said:
I don't use my own altimeter, I use the difference in height from the traffic system. If it tells me there is 400' difference then that is better than just ignoring an aeroplane you cannot see!
I did. In the few seconds we had after heading the tower tell them they were cleared, I visually acquired the target with the eyes and on the screen, I tried to determine whether it was going to pass behind us (as ATC had radar they normally would clear this action if it was safe) and which direction it was actually heading. Also he must have heard us depart so it would have been safe to assume that he'd have know about us. By that time things were happening quickly so I fail to see how one could have taken any further action "well before".

I'm sure you are a TCAS SkyGod but please tell me out of all the collisions in recent history how many have happened in VMC conditions (and hence see and avoid apply, even under IFR) and how many in IMC (where see and avoid is not applicable). I can't think of one having happened in IMC which leads me to the conclusion that the "Mk 1 eyeball" has its failings as well as any other system. Combine them both and you have the best of both worlds, though your first post seemed to indicate that you were an "anti-technologist" who thinks that all things TCAS and GPS are evil....

Blimey, where does one start?

You say, without evidence of blushing or presentation of reference or reputable authority, "If you want to use stats to prove this, how many collisions have occured in VMC conditions? Pretty much ALL of them AFAIK."

When I query this, you then say "Why is it? It is fact. Even under IFR "see and avoid" still applies."

Wrt the Hawker/Glider accident, you say "They were both responsible for See and Avoid being in VMC." And they failed to do so, didn't they? Perhaps the 800 pilot decided simply "In TCAS we trust". :rolleyes:

You wanted to bring up statistics - you quote them. Don't present something you've made up and then challenge me to prove the opposite.

I note in your further elaboration of your near miss that at no time did you make a call to alert either the Tower or the other aircraft to your presence. You decided it was "safe to assume" he knew. It's never safe to assume anything. In fact, it's bloody stupid to make assumptions where safety is concerned.

And when you knew an aircraft was being launched on a collision course with you, and you knew where he was relative to you, you decided to get your head inside rather than keeping all your attention on where he actually was? The mind boggles.

I make no claim to be any kind of a God. I do, however, know the rules about collision avoidance, how to use TCAS, and what one does in IFR compared to VFR.

For example, if you are under positive radar control while still in VMC, I am not going to blindly plough into another aircraft simply because ATC told me to fly this heading. Nor am I going to ignor a collision avoidance call from my TCAS. I shall pull up (if that's the action advised) and tell ATC "TCAS Climb". Similarly, in IMC the rule is NOT "see and avoid" as you seem to think. Looking out can still help, however.

Thanks for that, SoCal.

I'm not sure how the USA statistics compare to UK statistics, but probably about equivalent. Given the fact that one is in VMC a lot more than IMC, I'm not very surprised that's how they pan out. Very far from "almost all".

Incidentally, the UK Airprox Board state:-From Lessons Identified | UK Airprox Board

heh heh...whatever :}

I suppose at 350 kts things happen even quicker. It is hard enough to see a glider at 100kts, let alone at 350+ (this was at 16000' too) so perhaps they just didn't see each other??!?

Go through all the AAIB reports and NTSB reports and read them for yourself. I have read a good many of them and don't recall one being in IMC. I can't be bothered to spoon feed them to you.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why more and more glider pilots are taking up FLARM, and why many in Europe already use FLARM. Perhaps nothing better than see and avoid has existed for GA aircraft until now?

To inject some facts;

On average 3 – 4 people a year die in mid air collisions in UK GA (that includes self launching motor gliders but not other forms of glider) (AAIB umbers)

Mid air collisions are one of the big three killers in gliding, and the BGA has recently issued a statement supporting collision avoidance devices being used to assist lookout.

If you read the accident reports, like the 2007 incident in the midlands, you will see that unless you have x-ray vision to see through the aircraft structure, you cannot see all the threats. In the 2007 incident the Luscome turned to avoid a micro and was “collected” by a turboprop doing 160kn. The Luscome pilot could not have seen the turboprop. Of the three aircraft only the TP had a transponder, but if the Luscome had had PCAS he would have at least had a chance.

In the UK about 50% of GA has a transponder. 15% of gliders have FLARM, but this is rising rapidly as it only became legal to use it in October last year.

Devices that detect both Mode C, Mode S, ADS-B and FLARM are going to be available early next year.

If you do a search on see and avoid you will find several studies. All are very negative about its effectiveness. I think we all need to work on our lookout, but we also need to consider if some tec can help us.

Rod1

The newer devices certainly offer TIS like performance and FLARM, the latest one I have seen is LX avionics Ltd - Traffic Monitor which with the capability of adding mode C looks a very capable unit.

I'd love to think that I can spot all the other traffic - but I know I cann't. In this neck of the woods high speed military traffic can be found pretty much anywhere in the usual VFR range of heights. Spotting a single aircraft is really bad news as they generally operate in pairs - so any odd number suggested you have either missed the leader or the wingman - which? you'll never know......

Gadgets like this would really help.

Very rarely, gasax - they don't usually have TXPDR on.

However, if you have yours on, many of them should be able to spot you on threat detection.

A couple of years ago I flew as passenger seated behind the pilot in a Chipmunk going to a display as one of the Red Sparrows Team
The pilot was a serving senior ranking RAF officer,ex fighter pilot.
I was amazed at the thoroughness of his lookout.
He never stopped scanning the sky, up and down and from one side to the other all the time we were airborne.
I always try to emulate him when I fly.
Lister:)

Many more military aircraft seem to have txpdrs turned on. My PCAS / 496 has picked up Lynx & other helicopters, tutors, various fast jets, jetstreams, out of the mil base we're based near....as well as the coastuard helo, the air ambulance, police helo, and CAT (obviously).

I believe that although maybe only 50% of GA have txpdrs, those who are either based at, based near to "big" airfields and CAS normally do, and that those who tend to do cross country trips probably will have and use a transponder.

I try and go high - go at 7000 + if you can,lookout and use any available technology to help.

Easy to tell you're not based in the UK... :ouch:

I am too....You should try it sometime ;)

Flying high is a good tactic, but it is only of limited use.

You have to get up there and the first 3000 feet are the risky bit.

You have to come down and that is usually in a busy bit of airspace

You cannot normally fly high in the UK, as Class A forces you down.

I suspect we will see an increase in collisions as controlled airspace expands.

Rod1

You'll generally find that Mill traffic squawks on departure from their base, when in the vicinity of known other traffic. Thereafter, FJ traffic will turn it off when on exercise. Therefore they're unlikely to be squawking when blatting around the "wide open spaces" at MachLots and FL 0.5. Such, at least, is my understanding from participating in ShareSpace a few years ago.