how not to see each other
 

Having two qualified pilots in one aircraft, and one in the other with considerable experience I wonder what really went on up there. I find it almost impossible to believe that they would not have seen each other had they been looking. From the Radar traces it looks like the RV had priority according to visual flight rules, and hence the DA40 should have given way to the RV. Clearly it didn't - either because the pilots of the DA40 were not looking where they were going, or decided that the RV would miss them.

How many times have we not muttered "damn, that was close!" to ourselves and sworn to be more vigilant in our scan in the future? Even when you do nothing but look outside, you miss stuff. Even when you're in the pattern and the tower calls out the traffic for you, I fail to see it many times. And from the R/T, I gather, so do the other pilots.

So I'm not very surprised.

Da42

Did you read the report?

The pilots that survived give a clear account.

Obviously we dont know whether the other pilot saw them but since there is no evidence he sort to take avoiding action he probably didnt.

Chirp GA Feedback 1/2012 page 3
 

This article on circuit joining procedure suggests that the a/c joining crosswind was in the circuit whereas a taking off/ going around a/c is not. This information being UNDERLINED. Any thoughts, as the information in CHIRP on this was news to me

This appeared recently in the Shoreham Herald website. Presumably the right of way comment relates to the fact the RV6 was approaching from the right, but as the report points out this is only relevant if the aircraft are in visual contact which it appears they tragically were not.

VERDICT: Shoreham air crash

VERDICT: Shoreham air crash - Local - Shoreham Herald


Published on Thursday 25 October 2012 15:50

The family of a retired British Airways captain killed in a mid-air collision over Shoreham have said they are “deeply disappointed” with the verdict of an inquest into his death.

A jury concluded today (Thursday, October 25) that 63-year-old Alan Weal, from Goring, died as the result of an accident.

Speaking after the three-day hearing, held in Horsham, his wife, Penelope, said: “We are not at all happy with the verdict.

“As a family, we are disappointed the coroner directed the jury to enter a short-form accidental death verdict. His death was not an accident, it was preventable.”

Alan died on July 4 last year, after the aircraft he was piloting collided with another, piloted by Robert Rickwood and Barnaby Kerr, of Flying Time Aviation, based at Shoreham Airport.

Alan’s family maintain he had the “right of way” in the air.

His daughter, Victoria, said: “The tragic and preventable loss of my father has left a void that can never be filled.

“He was an amazing father, husband, grandfather and friend, and losing him has changed our lives forever.

“My dad lived life to the full, and our memories of him will live on in us, and all those who knew and loved him, forever.”

For a full report, see next week’s Shoreham Herald, out on November 1

The family appears to have been badly advised of the way aviation works, and perhaps their lawyers are doing the usual scam of forcing a settlement to get them off the other party's insurer's back.

There's another thread running in another forum which appears to show everything that could go wrong with Shoreham's ATC.

This is nothing to do with ATC.

It is a failure of visual separation in Class G airspace, assisted by the departing aircraft (an RV) climbing enthusiastically to circuit height on a tight circuit.

ATC don't have eyes on the back of their heads, and separation of VFR traffic is not their job.

I am based at Shoreham and regard ATC there as very good, and doing their best given the dreadful flying and dreadful radio so often seen.

I agree there is dreadful radio and I have my utmost respect for the ATCers who work odd shifts, keep their calm, and still carry on. Without their help and guidance I would probably not be alive today.

But everyone knows that traffic information or separation is meant to be applied between aircraft at a Towered airport until the following pilot confirms he has the other in sight and can maintain his own separation.

What is this Class G stuff? Inappropriately classified airspace should not be used as a waiver of liability into someone's death?

soaringhigh650

Be careful not to make assumptions based on US airspace procedures & regulations.
Shoreham is in class G airspace and although the aerodrome controller's instructions must be followed, separation in the ATZ remains the responsibility of the pilot.

Class G you are on your tod see and avoid only.

ATZ which it happened in has different rules but the main ones as always is see and avoid and don't crash into the ground.

As the old tongue in cheek goes if you always presume they are out to kill you, you won't go far wrong.

The rules have been designed so it will always fall back to the pilots responsability. And although its hard for the familys to understand this fact and I have every sympathy for them. Most pilots will understand that its a "there by the grace of god go I" accident.

You have to get fairly high up the list of airspace classifications before VFR traffic is seperated from VFR traffic, even in the USA. ;)

Quite correct in the second two paragraphs, but I would take issue with the first statement - it needs to be a whole lot to do with ATC, if not as practised now, then in the future (and indeed to do with acceptable procedures at non-ATC aerodromes). For example, joining procedures when the circuit is active (direct crosswind join or not?), and more specific requirements about how and when traffic information is passed (and possibly updated) are examples of how this sort of incident needs to be followed up from an ATC perspective and procedures improved.

2 s

People are completely forgetting about the limitations of unalerted see-and-avoid here. If there was no limitation, we don't need a controller. They are there to help prevent collisions.

This is achieved by passing traffic information and/or applying separation.

For controllers to pass instructions to pilots, while 1) giving pilots the freedom to ignore those instructions, and 2) giving themselves the freedom not to pass any traffic information, and 3) giving themselves the freedom not to provide any separation - the three points all being possible as it is uncontrolled airspace, and THEN expecting that pilots should know about each other and exactly where to look out for each other, is an accident which has already happened.

This is because pilots perceive controllers to be in the know about the bigger picture, else they wouldn't have given them instructions.

Posters here are correct that a pilot in VMC is ultimately responsible for their own separation. However I go back to my original point which is that inappropriate airspace classification, in this case the fact the airspace is "uncontrolled", should not be used as a liability waiver.

Soaring, it's more than just pilots in VMC. All VFR pilots in airspaces C to G provide their own seperation from other VFR traffic. If you think it's inappropriate airspace classification the only two that would provide seperation for VFR/VFR traffic is A or B. The UK don't use B, so that just least A (which EASA is trying to phase out anyway!).

In class C, VFR traffic does get info on other VFR traffic, but no seperation other than from IFR traffic.

It's a long time since I flew in the USA, but from memory I thought it was the same there too?

PS. I'll happily admit that most ATC in the UK (and Ireland) seem to try to provide some sort of seperation for VFR/VFR but it's not their responsibility.

Agree entirely, and would bet if they did not, there would be a hell of a lot more incidents.

Try visiting Perth, Scone, on a busy spring day.:eek:

Pilots responsibility through and through, see and be seen. The air/ground/ATC, call it what you will, can inform of traffic that they know about, but it falls to the pilot to keep clear of other traffic, despite what that other traffic may be doing.

Have seen it all at Perth, quite shocking in some instances:rolleyes:

Air/ground is not ATC - they are 2 distinct ATSUs, although I understand that some A/G operators like to think they are ATC.

Apparently, still so. It appears that only Class B provides VFR to VFR separation in the US.

From soaringhigh650:
None of the above points is accurate in the case of this collision. Pilots require ATC permission to operate within the ATZ (albeit in Class G airspace) and instructions are issued which, in effect, are modifications of that permission. Part of the aerodrome control service (the FIS) is to provide relevant traffic information; the point in my previous post was that the format and timing of this needs to be addressed and specified in more detail (IMHO of course). Separation per se is not provided in such airspace and the use of this word is very misleading.

2 s

Soaring - I don't disagree with your drift but you live in a theoretical world.

The UK airspace structure will never change to the US one. In the USA you have taxpayer funded approach controllers who service the extensive Class E airspace. This will never happen here because ATC is privatised and anyway has for a long time operated a policy of cost recovery, and nobody is going to pay the very substantial ATC salaries which would be required for Class E on that scale.

Nobody is also going to pay for radar equipment and the extra cost of a "radar qualified" ATCO. Shoreham does have ATC but the same scenario is played out at the many non-ATC airfields, none of which could afford ATC salaries, never mind radar.

Class G is going to stay in the UK, and people have to live with it.

Most pilots who fly for real are actually completely happy with loads of Class G, with GPS etc making ATC assistance practically redundant, and by flying above 2000ft ;) you avoid nearly all GA traffic in the UK.

You just get the ambiguous separation issues at the airfields, but this can never be solved because even if the airfield has CAS (Class D) the controller is still not going to provide "guaranteed" separation between VFR traffic.

As I see it, the most important thing is to somehow get through to pilots (old ones and new ones) that climbing at say 2000fpm off the runway is not a great idea. By all means fly a tight circuit if you are sure there is no traffic around, but the rest of the time you should fly a proper rectangular circuit in which you climb "normally" off the runway, and you do the crosswind turn and commence the downwind turn well upwind of any traffic joining crosswind.

That all depends on several factors. The more significant factor here was the departing traffic remaining in the circuit and the other aircraft making a direct crosswind join when the pilot did not have the other relevant traffic in sight at that stage.

2 s

In my very humble opinion, I'd say that's the best piece of advice in this thread. If your flight profile is vastly different to that of the majority of the pattern traffic, you could easily put yourself in a place where others don't expect you to be. It's no replacement for maintaining a proper lookout, but it helps mitigate the risk.

But you have mixed up en-route airspace with terminal airspace.

I understand you guys pay a landing fee which includes the navigation service fee?

Neither does the US and not all towered fields have radar, but in Class D at least traffic information is meant to be provided. And in my experience with the detail as 2 sheds has tried to highlight.

A factor contributing to the accident was the inadequate traffic advisory information provided by the controllers.