Not sure it is the issue. The picture so far is certainly not inconsistent with a crosswind join that was flown overhead the upwind numbers and continued on an appropriate track.

BUT,

By the UK rules, that cross-over is at a defined place and with one a/c 500 ft above the other. Isn't that what the airways tolerate too ?

They are on an overhead join so long as they are established at circuit height before entering the "live" part of the circuit - same would apply to the 45 degree US join, ie a/c should be in level flight before entering the the live part of the circuit.

The way to reduce "blind spots" is to ensure proper lookout - wherever you are.

It's ok joining on the 45 if know exactly where the airfield is. But, I find that if I'm trying to find a small airfield I haven't visited before it's easier from 2000ft agl rather than circuit height 1000ft. From the overhead it's easier to spot the wind-sock, signal square and observe traffic in the circuit and generally get myself orientated to the field. To use the 45 degree method you have to know the runway in use to plan your circuit which probably implies being given instructions by ATC. "Horses for courses".

Both the UK "standard rejoin" and the USA "45 degree rejoin" work. I use them both and am not sure which one I prefer.

However, unless pilots are disciplined to fly either given procedure correctly, these accidents will always happen despite all the "lookout" in the world.

Couldn't agree more. I've always found the UK join rather dangerous.

There is a US way of doing so, sometimes referred to as 'teardrop arrival' which pretty well describes the path of the joining a/c. In a nutshell you overfly the field MIDFIELD above circuit (pattern) height, typically at 2000 ft, of course taking potential jet circuit heights into account. This way you get to a great vantage point and see everything that's going on below you: traffic, windsock, a/c on ground. Importantly, doing this midfield you are not in anybody's way. You then proceed live side outside the pattern and descend in a long curved path (that's where the 'teardrop' comes from) upwind. Thus you have any traffic joining on the 45 in sight and can adjust accordingly. You then fly a standard 45 join. IMHO safest way to do it.

Have asked this before but where is the statistical evidence that the US 45 deg join is "safer" than an OHJ?

We might all have some sort of subjective feelings about which is safer but until someone can show me stats on airproxes/collisions in the circuit for different types of join, I am yet to be convinced.

I don't think that their is any statistical evidence in favor of either procedure.

Both are flawed if the procedure is not flown correctly.

In the UK over the numbers means - over the numbers

In the US intercept at 45 degrees means - intercept at 45 degrees.

Making up your own joining procedure in either country, in a busy circuit, with all the lookout in the world, will not stop this happening again.

Maybe, a N reg parachute ;) will be mandatory next, along with Mode S and 8.33kz spacing.

In the US there is nothing to stop you flying overhead the airfield at a safe height first then fly away turn and descend out of the way of the airfield before joining on the 45.

The key is to have the big picture in your mind. For two to collide like this at an ATC controlled field is nuts, especially because both pilots would no doubt have been listening to RT for some minutes before the event and should have been aware of the other.

Englishal - you are right, both aircraft should have heard one another on RT, but, Shoreham does not have radar. They probably rely solely upon pilot information.

If for example, aircraft A calls up for departure, for a standard circuit and whilst accelerating in the roll hears aircraft B call up "letting down deadside for rejoin" Aircraft A for sure would be looking out for aircraft B.
Once aircraft A has reached 500ft he would then turn left still ascending onto crosswind still looking out to his left for aircraft B "joining" crosswind.

Why would aircraft A be looking directly behind in the climb on crosswind. One doesn't expect a prop chomping away at your *rse from behind.

When I call downwind and another aircraft calls finals, the picture that I am expecting is the other aircraft to be in front of me, having completed base leg and descending on the runway heading, but after this discussion I will now be looking everywhere for that traffic.

Don't bank on it. I once flew through Shawbury CMATZ on my way back to Halfpenny Green and spoke with ATC there. Also flying through the MATZ was an aircraft which had left from Blackpool. Having been given the QFE X4 and replied "Roger" X3, it was the FI with him who answered correctly on the 4th time. Now, I had heard him and he, no doubt had heard me but when he arrived in the circuit at EGBO and was told he was No2 to me his response was "Visual with HIM!". I do not have a male-sounding voice but I suppose I should be grateful that he had at least seen me. :\

Absolutely agree. Just a thought - as earlier posts have said, a final ATC clearance for this join is typically given when positioned north abeam Worthing Pier to "descend to circuit height, join crosswind and report downwind". I have often found when joining crosswind at Shoreham (eg. when traffic is light) that I am not asked to report crosswind. So, there could have been a period of a few minutes with no ATC exchange with the joining a/c before the collision as it hadn't quite reached downwind.

Having done that very crosswind join so many times, once over the upwind numbers I'm busy looking at the downwind leg to merge with any traffic approaching from my right and would not have seriously imagined (until now) there would be a serious conflict with an a/c taking off below and to my left, especially if the take off clearance is for an immediate left turn out - which is unusual, but could well turn out to be the case here as it fits better with the evidence available and provides a scenario in which every party involved acted professionally and rationally.

I find Shoreham ATC superb at alerting and helping to deal with possible conflicts.

This thread has personally made me question a whole load of assumptions and issues about crosswind joins etc.. Many thanks.

Spotthedog - your description of the crosswind join in para 2 is spot on :ok:

Had YOU been that DA40 on the day in question, you would have seen the other aircraft climbing crosswind (parallel with your track) in your 3 o clock position, range approx 1 mile/1.5 miles.

Have you seen the geographical photo's on previous pages ?

I have seen the geo pics and my thinking is that the RV wreckage site (and the area to its south east towards the children's play area and the A259 bridge) is a much better indicator as to where the collision took place than the other sites marked .. based upon:

a) the earlier observation in this thread that a prop can travel a significant distance when it detaches, and possibly other smaller pieces too.

b) Witness statements suggest the RV fell speedily from a low height (although we don't know what height yet do we - even 1100 feet might appear "low" to a muggle, as to "400 feet" - surely this isn't true but time till tell).

c) Witness statements suggest that the RV appeared to turn away from the houses (on the east and south of the A259) and a bridge (which surely must be the A259 bridge and not the A27 bridge as quoted in the Mail article).

So if I was the DA40 joining crosswind (over the numbers and then tracking over the recreation park towards the A259 bridge) the other a/c would probably have been coming at me from below and from the left as it had just taken off from R20 and, the presumption here, made an agreed early left turn, in order to reach the point of collision.

But suppose, as you suggest, the RV had continued on a more 'normal' R20 departure, it still would have to have turned sharpish left and departed the published circuit track at some point, in order to approach me from my 3 o clock. But yes I would have stood a better chance of seeing it ... and it me. But I have several problems with this scenario so it seems less likely to me - based on what we know.

Early Left Turns EGKA
 

I will admit to sometimes not following the circuit pattern when departing 20 and going off to the east.

If im doing T&G,s my focus is on a cross wind climb out of 110deg until I reach circuit height of 1100ft

But if im going east I now realize that once IV crossed the coast I have forgotten the circuit pattern and followed the coastline which is 80deg as it feels safer to hug the land rather than the wet water.

Probably its due to my C152 not have such a great rate of climb as compared to other high performance planes that I have never reached 1100ft as I went under the Crosswind / Downwind area of the circuit.

However im going to make sure I keep to the pattern from now on

So, from this, and foregoing information, I understand that each aircraft could have been somewhat "out of position" relative to what would normally be expected? The DA40 was crossing the runway centerline farther along the Van's takeoff path than the Van might have expected (and could not see down, as a wing could block that view)? The Van's perhaps had the capability of a climb rate after liftoff, which would enable it to be higher than normal along it's departure path, and maybe even had a pitch attitude which would lessen the forward field of view?

Would you typically fly a square circuit in a Vans? Could it have been flying a tighter oval circuit with an earlier lift-off point due to a t&g?

500man
 

You can fly a tight oval circuit in any aircraft, but it is very bad practice to fly a circuit that is not the one published.

A number of years back a Cessna 150 flown by a mate ( with a young passenger) was hit by an aircraft doing a non standard circuit, all were killed.

Before anyone jumps on me this is a general comment as I am not in a position to comment on the Shoreham accident.