atc would have probably given him the clearance to join crosswind when he called up for rejoin from 10 miles out, his next call would be to report crosswind or downwind.

I fly from Shoreham. The airfield has full ATC. Permission to make a crosswind join has to be requested from ATC and such permission granted before joining.

The DA-40 was based at Shoreham so it is 99.9% certain that he had been cleared by ATC to join crosswind.

I like overhead joins as they provide for a longer time to get established, gives you the opportunity to see the field and the windsock (which is invaluable at uncontrolled fields) and keep you separated from the downwind traffic by altitude. I use it here in the US with my Aero Commander on smaller fields as well, as it provides time for it to slow down. I even asked for it at Stockton last time, which is very much controlled and has two long parallel runways, and got it. The 45 degree join in the US is a suggestion or recommendation - you can ask for whatever you want.

The 45 degree join works fine if you're set up beforehand for it. If you're descending into the downwind on your 45 degree, then I'd argue it's more dangerous than an overhead join as you're now descending into traffic that could be behind or below you with no way of spotting them. This happens daily in the US - rarely do you see people being established at pattern altitude at the 45. Therefore in reality, the English systems is safer, I think.

I think the safest way would be to climb to pattern altitude, i.e. come in lower on the 45, but that's obviously not very practical.

Well if the Vans was making a maximum performance climb at take off and was likely to be at circuit height by the end of the runway at a towered field, then a) ATC should have known about it and made the DA40 aware or instructed something else, b) the Vans pilot should have been aware of crosswind joining traffic. What was the reason for the steep rate of climb? There is no terrain to clear....

Shoreham often clears people to join on a left crosswind for 20. You could argue that he should have checked clear above and even looked left and right a bit. Can't really fault the DA40 crew in that case as he would have been approaching from about the only blind spot a DA40 has - below and left.

Good effort by the DA40, if this is what happened.

Are we getting a little carried away with expounding the perfect circuit and entry here? Yes they are possible, no, they don't happen often. I have no idea what happened here, other than the reported outcome.

We are best reminding ourselves about the need for ever vigilence for traffic. Much more than that, in terms of enless armchair investigating for an accident like this, I cannot see as being helpful. We must remind ourselves that all aircraft have blind spots, and it is always possible to have zero relative motion traffic. I had one a month or so ago, just one bug spot on the windsheild getting bigger, where the others were not. Head on. By the time I believed what I was seeing, it was time for quite an evasive turn. I don't think I was seen at all by the other aircraft - it never altered course.

Let's not beat up on ATC. They, more than we pilots, are bound by the procedures of their jobs. They do what they are supposed to do, and are not supposed to offer other services, not matter how temping, or well meaning. I'm sure there is a Shoreham controller who feels terrible. Let's support that person. We pilots have all of the opportunity for collision prevention, by any means, and the most interest in success too!

As for Ooo, Ooo.... Ooo, I know this one! Because he could! I've done it, when I was flying a capable aircraft. Who among us would deny doing it!

I've flown from Shoreham (thank you, friend). There is a lot of "detail" on the ground all around there. That can make a small relative motion "target" much more hard to spot as traffic - it just blends into the background. Vigilence!

Perhaps there was fault, perhaps not, perhaps we'll never know. Just sad, and a reminder for us to follow patterns other pilots will anticipate, and keep our eyes open.

Seems that the kangaroo court has reached a verdict and passed sentence before any real evidence has been submitted. Speculation built upon speculation, that attributes blame and negligence to the deceased before any facts are really known. The press picks up on this stuff you know. A lot of you should know a lot better.:=

Every post appears to accept a plane climbs, fast or not, straight on, right up to circuit height. So what's going on ??

AFIR one was taught to climb to 500 ft then make a (left) turn and continue climbing till at 1000 ft, ready for a downwind leg at circuit height.

So have the rules changed without me noticing, or has Shoreham a non standard circuit climb pattern ?

When joining an airfield crosswind I fly over the upwind end of the runway at (usually) 1000 ft - should anyone unnoticed be climbing out I'd expect them to turn crosswind too 500 ft below me & continue to 1000 ready for downwind if circuit training.
ATC normally will accomodate alternative approaches/departures depending on the traffic density, when high volumes one is usually requested to use the conventional O/H join, descend to circuit height on the dead side etc.

mike hallam.

In ATC terms the word separation has a rather specific meaning and relates to a number of defined minimum 'distances' that ATC must keep certain aircraft apart. These distances are defined in a number of ways so that they can be applied in different situations, for example as times between aircraft passing a particular point. When using radar it's usually more simple and you might hear references to 5 miles and 1000ft, these being the minimum lateral and vertical distances respectively - in this case the controller must ensure one or the other separation distances exists between two aircraft being separated.

Depending on the class of airspace and the flight rules that the aircraft are flying under, the controller will either be required to separate two aircraft or not. If separation is not required the controller will have some responsibility to provide information to help the pilot(s) to avoid a collision. There is no minimum distance by which a pilot needs to miss the other - this is collision avoidance. The amount of information that ATC must provide varies, again depending on the class of airspace and local practice.

That's all fine in a slow (climbing) aircraft. But if your aircraft is capable of climbing to 1000' less than 1000m after commencing its take-off roll, it means that if you turn crosswind at 500', you do so a little further than halfway down the runway, and end up joining downwind about mid-field. Possibly cutting off slower (climbing) aircraft.

Personally I would expect traffic to turn crosswind not earlier than the end of the runway, and perhaps not earlier than about half a mile on upwind.

Spot on Mike, yes, I was trained, and I still believe this is the procedure, climb ahead to 500', then left/right turn climbing to circuit height,1000', join the pattern. Standard calls all the way, which nowadays appear to be quite random.

On joining o/h 2000' to descend deadside,turning as you descend, pref away from pattern, then crosswind at 1000' over the numbers, position reports again,keeping a very good lookout.

I do not think any of this has changed???? Or has it?

Mikehallam: Unless I'm missing something, you're rather assuming that one is staying in the circuit - in my experience, if the runway heading is suitable, it is not at all unusual to climb and depart on runway heading.

Generally one climbs at Vy initially at least for the purpose of getting some air beneath you - in a performant type, such as the RV somewhere with a long runway you'll hit that 500ft well before the upwind threshold. I confess I'll normally flatten off a bit and continue a 'cruise' climb at that point, but I never was completely clear about the early turn - turn crosswind at 500ft after takeoff and you'll have aeroplanes on crosswind at all sorts of distances - I've always considered it to be more of a geographic consideration.

So far, I'm thinking I'll be more careful about using available climb performance, more aware of the crosswind join, and more diligent about lowering the nose every so often in the climb. As an aside, I do wonder if the presence of 'ATC', might be prone to making people relax the lookout a little too much in the assumption that they are 'separated'. I don't know whether the typical tower has a radar picture, but I tend to believe they're in a worse position to observe all the traffic than I am..

I am now saddened to learn who the deceased pilot was. RIP Alan.

Are we missing something
 

This thread was about a very unfortunate incident where a crash has occurred and someone has died as a result. Not good.

As I read through, and contributed, the thread has become a discussion on aerodrome/pattern procedures, some of which are appearing slightly alien to me, and whilst I witness a lot of what I am reading, some contributors appear to totally misunderstand the arrival/depart sequence at GA airfields.

The thought of someone in a high performance, high climb aeroplane, as a matter of course, blasting up through a crosswind join procedure, and then wondering why there was an airprox, gives me the shudders. I stated in an earlier post, fine, if circuit inactive, no one about, great. If the circuit is active then, clear intentions to all and sundry about what you are about to do, is/should be mandatory. The process is there for safety, of all.

A high performance climb out could be considered an aero manoeuvre in some
circles:cool:

I was not talking about this incident. I have been careful not too.

I was commenting on other posters who suggested this seemed normal

Ok, noted, I have toned down my comment.

But I would be seriously pissed off if someone climbed like a bat out of hell into my prop from a blind spot and nearly killed me and possibly my family because they didn't see me....when they didn't need to climb like that and hadn't got "the big picture", and may have been doing it "just because they can". Sure do it, but make damn sure no one is in the way.

I'd also be well pissed off if someone I knew was killed by someone barrel rolling at 50' because they wanted to show off to someone on the ground....like has happened before.

I am just going by comments previously posted, and I apologise if this transpires not to be the case, but from what has been posted the RV climbed as fast as possible into the DA40.

I am a member of FlyingTime and now fly regularly in one of their PA28's. I have spoken with the guys at FlyingTime, firstly to make sure that everyone there is ok, but also to find out some details as obviously I am a little shaken to hear of such a serious incident so close to home.

As to be expected they are not allowed to mention any specific details as the situation is currently being investigated by the AIB and the Sussex Police, but what I have been told is basically what you can read on the BBC website, which is that the FlyingTime DA40 was traveling from West to East on the X-wind leg when the other aircraft climbed out from runway 20 and the 2 aircraft collided.
I do not know if the DA40 was joining the X-wind leg or simply passing the airfield (I have assumed it was joining the X-winf leg as it would seem the DA40 was at circuit height). I do not know if it was joining X-wind wide or over the numbers either.

In any case, the fact of the matter here is that there was a major incident and someone has lost their life as a result. Also, the pilots of the DA40 will no doubt be running this scenario over in their minds to work out if indeed they had any part to play in this tragic event. I would also imagine that the person on ATC at the time is also questioning their actions so undoubtedly this event has not only caused a death but will also affect the other pilots and ATC for the rest of their lives. We need to be considerate of this fact and try not to draw any of our own conclusions (even though it is human nature to do so) until the official AIB conclusions are published.

What I can say is that the whole team at FlyingTime are extremely professional and I have thoroughly enjoyed being with the club and dealing with the people who work there. This is a freak, tragic accident and my thoughts go out to all involved, and the family of the deceased.

All we can do is use this as a reminder of the potential hazards to aviation and ensure that we all fly safe and remain constantly aware of the movement of other aircraft.

Just 'cause I'm trying to follow in context here... is it an estabished fact that an aircraft involved in the collision was in a place in the circuit, which was not where they should have been? Obvioulsy two aircraft were in the same place, but was either in the wrong place, were the other not to have been there? Are there any facts?

At a controlled airport, I can see how this works, but then you have a controller who is aware that you are doing something unusual, and has "controlled" the airspace to safely enable it. I extend to the controllers (I think Shoreham is positively controlled?) the belief that if they had known there was a prospect of conflict, would have advised.

One of those MD500's could depart on the runway heading, manage a climb better than the RV-X, and probably be even harder to see while doing it. Would the MD500 pilot be wrong to accomplish a maximum performance climb on the runway axis? Is there a limiting procedure for this? I've never seen one. Indeed, the reverse at some airports, "no turns until X feet AGL". Let's get the noise as far up as possible, as fast as possible, Particularly for helicopters, 'cause the airport has neighbours, and we pilots are trying to mitigate annoyance.

At an uncontrolled airport, how would you ever know if the circuit is inactive? I think that is an assumption which can never be made. I fly a nordo aircraft into an uncontrolled airport from time to time. I spend the entire time watching out like crazy, and flying something predictable as a pattern. I never assume the circuit is inactive! Indeed this airport has two simultainious parallel circuits, one to the right, the other to the left, and it works quite well, as long as you assume both are active, and fly accordingly.

Just my opinion..... but...All of the circuit procedure posturing here is only touching a part of the real world circumstances, while other realities are being completely overlooked. While flying a helicopter into a controlled airport, no controller has ever asked me to conform to the airplane circuit, even though palnes were in it. When I tried, it seemed to introduce confusion!

I think So cal was commenting on my comment, thinking I was referring to this incident, which I have tried to make pains not to:hmm:

I feel very strongly on this issue. I used to own and display a YAK50, a very powerful aeroplane. I could be at 2000' by the end of the runway if I so wished.

I never did. Regardless of type, one should leave the pattern in safe and sensible manner. The same on entry.

You only have to google or you tube, to see the disasters of not paying attention in the pattern. Arriving and leaving is the pattern.

Fairly obviously a plane joining crosswind at the right place is not going to collide with a plane which is departing in accordance with normal procedures (and a climb to 1100ft at the numbers is definitely not "normal procedures"; if you are into aerobatics then you do them well away from an airport unless pre-arranged).

Local reports (which could be wrong) suggest that the collision took place after the RV had departed and turned east, either to depart to the east or to fly a circuit. At this point the two converged into close proximity (which is why some early eye witness reports, in the papers, spoke of two planes flying in an apparent formation) and the DA40 prop cut off the tail of the RV6, rendering it uncontrollable except for some roll capability which would not have been relevant to its trajectory.

It is obvious that the location of the prop (on Shoreham beach) is nowhere near the crosswind point for 20. I don't know if that is relevant in this case, but I have seen many pilots joining "crosswind" at the same time as I am doing so, but when I (being over the numbers) have finally found them it turns out they are way out over the beach, which puts them at risk from another plane departing on 20 with a high rate of climb whose pilot, being at Vx or so, is not going to have much (or any) forward visibility. And I don't think a prop that's been ripped out of the gearbox is going to fly laterally on its own very far...

When I depart on 20 I cross the beach at about 500ft, which should be safe, but what if somebody is joining "crosswind" a mile offshore? People have done that too. Such a pilot is likely to collide with somebody who has departed and has turned east and is climbing.

If the DA40 lost its prop over the numbers then a deadstick landing ought to have been easy. If the DA40 lost its prop over the beach (as appears to be the case) then making it back is also consistent with them being at say 1100ft. What would not be consistent is e.g. the DA40 losing its prop over the beach at the sort of height most people reach when departing, at that point, which is only a few hundred feet.

The winds were very light so not really helping somebody to do a rapid climb:

METAR EGKA 041450Z 20005KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041520Z 16004KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041550Z 17005KT CAVOK 19/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041620Z 16005KT CAVOK 19/11 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041650Z 18004KT CAVOK 19/10 Q1017

I cannot believe there is any ATC issue here. Once ATC clear you to join crosswind, you are 100% responsible for doing it correctly. They also have no control over departing traffic, how it climbs, where it goes after takeoff, etc.

I think it is important to learn from these things. Waiting for the AAIB report is no good because everybody except those immediately affected will have forgotten about it by then.

Pilot DAR - I think we are on the same wavelength here. Not sure about the Canadian procedures, however, a number of our busy GA airfields are air/ground. in that whilst there is a 'controller', a guy on the ground who will give airfield information, they are not 'controlling'. Nor are the positioning. The are informing. It is all pilots responsibility to position according to active pattern, and there are reasonably set procedures on how to do this. The most important aspect is r/t and look out from the pilots.

Similarly leaving an airfield, was, before I started reading some comments here, relatively straight forward. Now I am not so sure.

it occurred at 1100 feet, at the point where the diamond aircraft was crossing the upwind numbers and the vans took off and climbed up into him,or just ahead, the diamond star could not be expected to see an aircraft coming up from below with such a high rate of climb.

Sussex Police said it appeared he steered the plane away from homes during the crash on Monday.

The Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) are investigating the incident.

'Avert greater tragedy'
His family issued a statement, which said: "Alan was a captain for British Airways for many years who flew all over the world and lived life to the full.

"He loved aeroplanes and when he retired from BA, he built his own light aircraft.

BBC news

Interesting... are you certain?

Note to self

Get my aircraft recognition up to speed so I know which aircraft taking off as I join a circuit is going to have a high rate of climb

The circuit join is pretty much laid down, so you are funnelled into a particular spot at a specific height.

We were taught when climbing out nose-high to weave and/or drop the nose so we keep an eye on traffic crossing in front of us.

This post is not to address what and why happened yesterday - nobody really knows, the AAIB will publish in due course, there is already contradictory information, and finger pointing helps nobody. And as with all accidents, it will probably be a chain of events / factors.

However, there are valid questions raised above about circuit joining procedures, and am sure all could do with a rethink on what they do, maybe versus what they should do.

AFAIK, this is about as authoritative as the "defined" best practice to join a circuit CAA Overhead Join Poster. So a direct crosswind join is not the standard. Whether you like the overhead join or not, it does give a good opportunity to pick out all other aircraft, including departing traffic. NB what the poster says Watch for aircraft taking off, as they could pose a hazard.

If people really feel the OHJ is dangerous, it is not worth whinging on here - they should be filing MORs highlighting the hazards, and campaigning to change it. But until that change, and unless Shoreham has a correctly publicised alternative procedure, the OHJ appears to me to be the "correct" way to join a visual circuit. As with all "SOPs", one can deviate, but the accountability and responsibility for doing so rest with those (which may be ATC as well as crew) making that decision.

Willing to be corrected if the OHJ is not documented as the "best practice".

NoD

I spend quite a lot of time in the circuit instructing. I'm often surprised how, with an active circuit of 2 or 3 aircraft, joining traffic calls up and declares from several miles away, that they'll be joining downwind, base leg etc etc.

I really can't understand what the problem is with an overhead join in situaitons like this. It takes a few minutes more, and provides a better opportunity for the joining traffic to spot those already in the pattern. Additionally, those already in the circuit pattern know more readily where and when to expect the joining aircraft.

For solo students in the circuit pattern, there is enough going on already - we were all there once! Yet rarely do I hear traffic intending to make a non-standard join ascertain beforehand whether or not there are solo students in the circuit, before committing themselves.

I'm not suggesting the overhead join is perfect, but my feelings are that it does tend to make things more predictable for all parties.

Just for information, Shoreham did 6713 movements in April, so considerably more than 100 a day, especially when you consider 'bad weather' days and the fact that the movements are largely limited to the published airfield operating hours.

I don't want to start another "OHJ" thread especially as it is not relevant to this accident, but the issue with the OHJ should be readily apparent:

- multiple planes can arrive concurrently, with the possibility of a mid-air because they are all at the same height and it is geometrically infeasible to guarantee that each can see all the others

- while everybody who has arrived is going round and round in the OHJ, they again can't see each other so separation assumes looking ahead of you and hoping that a) you can see everybody ahead and b) they can see you.

It is really a very dodgy system. Something like a crosswind join is much safer because you are approaching the airfield from an area in which there should not be other traffic (except another plane also joining crosswind, but he should be able to report his distance to run and not lie about that as many do) and you have the whole airfield and the circuit nicely laid out in front of you. Also you will normally be descending so your visibility is even better.

People who like the OHJ are probably the same people who think a lookout is perfect, but there is ample evidence that it isn't.

It's in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication [AIP].

UK AIP GEN3.3, 5.5.2 Standard Overhead Join

Very sad at the loss of another fellow aviator. :(

everybody seems to be getting off topic, its not circuit joining procedures that are in question here, its take off departure procedures, also go-arounds, if you are on finals and have to go-around what height is it safe to cross the upwind numbers at?? i would say 500 feet before continuing the climb beyond the numbers, if at 1100 feet already maintain a good look out for crosswind joining traffic.
and yes i am sure.

I would think the same had the prop/hub assembly remained integer (e.g. in case of failure of the flange bolts), but from the picture of the propeller on the beach it looks as though there's basically only one blade still attached to the hub. With such eccentricity, I would expect the prob/hub assembly to be flung sideways quite energetically.

Pilot has been named, condolences to the family.


Ex-British Airways captain killed after mid-air collision with light aircraft causes him to lose control and crash | Mail Online

I think OHJ proponents forget that the OHJ ends up with a crosswind join, which takes us back to square one.

In an ATC scenario, when you are cleared to exit the OHJ, that is equivalent to being cleared to fly a crosswind join. Same risks, except you were subjected to additional risks while performing the OHJ earlier on as well.

Anyway, they will get the GPS log from the DA40 (the engine data logger logs lat/long as well) and find out exactly where it happened. A pity we are not going to hear about it for a year or so.

Quote: "I think OHJ proponents forget that the OHJ ends up with a crosswind join, which takes us back to square one.'

You must fly extremely tight circuits then! Do you normally turn to fly crosswind at the upwind end of the runway?

Anyway, I think that the thread has drifted somewhat considering little is yet known for certain.

The comment was not about when you turn crosswind on climb out it was about where you do a cross wind join, either straight in or from an OHJ. The point is that you don't turn crosswind over the numbers, to prevent the possibility of conflict with someone joining cross wind

It seems to me that the OHJ is sometimes necessary where there are issues which may prevent other approaches, e.g. noise abatement, obstructions etc. There should not be a problem provided that people overwork the radio telling everyone else exactly where they are. If people are not communicating then any form of join will have heightened risks associated with it.

The OHJ takes you to a point where you join downwind on the upwind end of the runway.

It's not the same as the crosswind taken after one departs the upwind end of the runway.

The two tracks run parallel to each other.

Whatever joining procedure used, somewhere there is the possibility of aircraft to aircraft conflict.

Aircraft already in the pattern, whatever climb angle they might make, have priority over joining traffic.

"See and be seen" is subject to the limitations of the human eyesight.

There was a discussion here (Private Flying) very recently where a newly qualified pilot told us about a situation where he used the radio to ask another pilot for his position. He was concerned that someone took him to task on the radio for doing so, as did others participating in the discussion he began here.

Some others here will hopefully see that what he did was actually very sensible, irrespective of what some folk think CAP413 doesn't allow us to say on the radio. Safety is paramount. If in doubt, use the radio in any way you need to.

the OHJ is quite straightforward, its a bit like a conveyor belt, if its a left hand circuit approach the airfield with it on your left side at 2000',(right side for right hand circuits) you can circle up there left hand turns for as long as want so you know exactly what you are going to do,for the active runway, at shoreham, for rwy20, when you are on the live side be at 2000' or 1100', nothing else. when ready and cleared, cross the landing numbers at 2000' tracking 290 starting a cruise descent in an arc, extend as necessary if following other traffic, (if busy you will be asked to join overhead, so unlikely to come across traffic joining on a direct to crosswind join from the west at 1100',) to cross the upwind numbers at a steady 1100' tracking 110, watch for established circuit traffic and position behind if necessary, anyone in the circuit should be at 1100 before turning downwind from a take off to crosswind climb, providing a sufficient time & distance in which to position your aircraft as necessary, what is not expected is an aircraft taking off to compromise crosswind joining traffic either from the OH or direct.
ps i dont think you should address another aircraft directly when in the circuit, but via atc, its more diplomatic!, you can always ask atc if you can talk direct to another aircraft.

Descening off an OHJ, I would always aim to end up at circuit height overhead the upwind numbers - for exactly the same reason one joins crosswind at circuit height and overhead the numbers.

Otherwise, you risk a collision with departing traffic which might typically be at 300-500ft overhead the numbers, and at circuit height a mile or two further out.

Yes. It's very easy.

Agreed but the incident I refer to occurred where no ATC was present.