Shoreham Incident.
 

Looks bad. :(

Plane crash at Shoreham recreation ground (From The Argus)

Not good at all.

BBC News - Shoreham airport: Two aircraft crash in mid-air

BREAKING NEWS: Eye witness reports seeing plane burst into flames after Shoreham crash - Local - Worthing Herald

Very bad news.

A mid-air on/near crosswind, apparently.

It's not that easy to collide on crosswind, partly because the aircraft joining has a great view of the airfield, and partly because there shouldn't be anybody else there - except another person also joining crosswind, or somebody who climbed up rapidly to circuit height.

Overhead joins are much worse.

Crosswind join
 

Sorry to hear about this incident, cross wind joins should be over the numbers at 1000'. Correct me if I am wrong, but it would require a fairly robust rate of climb to reach 1000', by the end of that runway. If that report were to be accurate, then it would appear someone got it very tragically wrong.

One of the reports say the planes collided over the beach, no where near the end of the numbers.....

This one says both DA40s, owned by Flying Time.

oh no that is sad. ..lets hope he did not die. How come they ever got that close without ATC noticing them?I was there yesterday afternoon and it was very busy as well. There were 5 lining up in the circuit when I landed.
If they collided over the sea could one of the pilot just been blinded by sea/sun?

ATC don't separate traffic in the circuit, usually.

IO540 - In that piece, Flying Time is quoted as saying that one of their aircraft was involved.

100 yards from my office & I didn't see or hear a thing. Thoughts with the pilots obviously but I feel luck was with me today.:(

Its just about exactly where you would turn downwind from a 20 departure into the circuit with the possibility of another aircraft joining into the downwind if the bbc reports of the other aircrafts direction are correct.

Sad news, very sad.

Which ATC would that be? Elsewhere, on a recent trip I asked for, and was given, a wrong-way base join, but as I couldn't see the aircraft on the right-way base join and they couldn't see me I was given an orbit by ATC (fair enough, I could have avoided this by asking for an overhead join). By the time I'd finished the orbit the othe aircraft was over the fence and I was given a land-after; that sounds like separation to me.

Yes; correct.

They also edit those news articles every few minutes, despite the time tag at the top.

I wonder who the other one was?

If you think that is an assurance of separation, better stay on the ground :) In the circuit, you have to keep a lookout. ATC help to sequence the traffic but for example how you fit into downwind traffic after a crosswind join is 100% down to you.

Sad to hear news of any incident of this nature.

But from the ATC perspective - for VFR flights in the circuit and the vicinity of the airport all ATC will do is give information and instructions intended to achieve 'safe, orderly and expeditions' flow of traffic. No separation involved, information and instructions to assist pilots to avoid collisions. If you think you're getting something else, you need to think again.

shoreham
 

if you were joining the circuit correctly,you should cross the upwind numbers at 90 degrees to the runway,having entered the zone at 1100', traffic in the circuit will have climbed out to 5-600' before turning left 90 degrees, climbing crosswind, to turn downwind at 1100' , therefore joining traffic will see circuit traffic at the same level, either left, right, or ahead of him, an error is for circuit training traffic to fly the climbing crosswind leg paralleling the coast. if you are coming from the west,at some point, say, littlehampton, well west of worthing, you should discontinue keeping the coast on your left, and position your aircraft so you join crosswind over the numbers,at 1100', nowhere near the crosswind climb out track of circuit traffic
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image..._propeller.jpg

Yes.

A crosswind join to Shoreham 20 should be flown from roughly north Worthing or, if you like, 2-3 miles north abeam Worthing Pier.

That way, one is flying a constant track of about 110, for 2-3 miles at least, ending up over the upwind numbers.

There is no good way to do that starting from the coast of Worthing. Well, it would be a severe dogleg, and you will be well over a built-up area with few engine failure options.

Whether this is what happened, I have no idea. The wreckage is a long way in from the coast.

From here, a comment near the bottom, it sounds like the crashed plane was an RV6. The poster is however still clue-less about the role of ATC.

My condolences go out to the pilots family and friends very sad day

The problem is with crosswind joins...IMHE...that many pilots think a "crosswind join" should be where the crosswind normally is (i.e. upwind of the numbers). I've flow with people who join like that and it makes my skin crawl as it is a recipe for disaster. Sticking OVER the upwind numbers gives greatest vis, clearance and least conflict. The only possible time there may be an issue is if someone goes around early and are back at circuit height by the end of the runway.

It baffles me why they didn't see each other though. The DA40 viz is pretty good.

Possibly pointless observation - Shoreham has a pretty long runway (depending on the wind direction), and there are some pretty pokey types hanging out there. Not saying it's so in this case, but I rather suspect something like an Extra 300 could comfortably make 1000agl by the upwind numbers. Whether it should is another matter.

Re: Shoreham accident
 

As could an RV-6A if doing a performance take off. Sadly it might have been the case.

Depending on the wind strength there are quite a few aircraft that can exceed 1000ft by the upwind numbers given 1000m of runway. Agree though that you shouldn't really do it if in any doubt about the circuit traffic, especially as you'll be nose high and even worse forward vis than normal.

Well in an incredibly busy airfield like Shoreham, if you blast from standing start to 1100 agl by the end of the runway, without screamimg from the rooftops that you are intending to do that, and all joiners beware, then you are an idiot.

Busy and complex airfields require the utmost respect and awareness from all. In similar threads, where are the UK most dangerous airfields? - Perth, Shorham, White Waltham the list goes on, but if all participants in the circuit and take off/landing phase, do as they should, it makes life a little bit safer for all.

This is no way assumes anything about the circumstances of this tragic accident.

Given the location of the RV, is it plausible that the RV did join crosswind correctly (flying over the 02 numbers at the end of 20 tracking 110), whilst the DA40 was flying the crosswind leg of the circuit? When the RV turned downwind that may have put it in front of the DA40, which would explain the DA40 losing its prop, and the eyewitness accounts that the RV lost its tail.

I may have misunderstood though - I thought the DA40 was doing circuits and the RV was rejoining, not departing.

A very tragic incident indeed, and a very sad day for Shoreham Airport. My thoughts are with all those involved.

Joel.

Although that advice makes sense at airfields where OHJ or crosswind joins are used, I have never ever seen it written down anywhere.

You fly Vx (plus the associated flap settings) until reaching 200', then reconfigure and fly Vy until reaching circuit altitude. Although you might, depending on the aircraft, adopt a different climb speed when above 1000'. That's the only take-off profile for which you have actual performance data in your average spamcan. And that's regardless of the length of the runway, circuit altitude or your actual ROC.

In fact, I think you could argue that the "idiot" in this case was the person crossing the upwind end of the runway, while another aircraft was taking off.

(Note: I'm not at all familiar with this accident or the circumstances in general. I just think it's the person performing the crosswind join who should give way to the aircraft taking off, not the other way around. And yes, I've been in this exact situation: Climbing out on upwind, at about 700' AGL, when an aircraft crossed directly in front of me at about 30 feet distance, same level. I can still recall the whites in their eyes.)

The separation during departure depends on

1) the departing plane not climbing like a bat out of hell, and

2) the crosswind joiner joining at the circuit height and at the right place (over the numbers)

Lookout is good but is never 100%, especially when traffic might be coming from your 3 o'clock or your 9 o'clock.

Bearing in mind that the one thats going to hit you from the same level , is the one thats on a constant bearing, so you dont pick up the visual cues of movement as it is always in the same position in the screen.
at the minute i have not read for certain, who was joining and who was in the circuit, but the circuit aircraft does seem to be close in downwind, possibly glide approach training, but just shooting the breeze, no basis for my opinion whatsoever.

A bit harsh, if that is what you've been asked to do by ATC, you can hardly decide to start orbiting deadside because you hear a take off clearance given, you may easily interfere with something else.

I was given a crosswind join for 20 a few weeks back when I was still between Littlehampton and Worthing and told to report downwind. I wasn't comfortable with that, so reported Worthing descending to circuit height for crosswind join, then as I was approaching crosswind an aircraft was given take off clearance on 20 so I reported my crosswind position. Better that everyone is aware of position I think.

Yeah, but what constitutes "a bat out of hell"?

I just did the calculation for a PA28-161 (the only aircraft for which I have performance data to hand right now) and that aircraft can already reach 200' by the end of the runway, assuming ISA conditions, nil wind and MTOW. Lightly loaded and with a 20kt headwind, 300' by the end of the runway. And that aircraft is by no means a spirited climber.

Anything else with a lower weight or more powerful engine will be able to outclimb a PA28-161. Heck, I think even your TB would reach circuit height by the end of the runway if lightly loaded and flown with the most efficient climb profile. And that's not even considering the fact that the aircraft taking off might have been doing a T&G or go-around.

We're not talking about Extra-300, Pitts Special or RAF tornados take-off performance here. Quite a few relatively normal aircraft are able to reach circuit height by the end of a 1000m runway if the conditions are right.

Actually, unless we're talking class B airspace here, that's *exactly* what you're supposed to do. In anything class C and below, VFR/VFR separation is your responsibility, not that of ATC. If that separation requires an orbit deadside, so be it.

Reporting your position is good, but just reporting your position does not automagically prevent a mid-air collision. At some point in time somebody actually has to take avoiding action. And since you are joining the circuit, it's up to you to give way to any traffic that's already in the circuit. Regardless of the way you join the circuit.

I'm not sure that it's quite as simple as that - and I am in no way attempting to an armchair investigation of this sad event. ATC should also pass traffic information to assist the pilots to avoid each other - and perhaps even issue instructions so as to reduce the potential for aircraft to get close to each other. This applies even to class C airspace and 'below'.

And to be pedantic, what VFR pilots are doing is collision avoidance, not separation.

I don't have the actual ICAO annex 11 right here, but Jeremy Pratt quotes this annex in Air Law, and he talks about "separation" not "collision avoidance".

absolutely so, use your ears and eyes, manoeuvre or adjust your speed to position behind established circuit traffic, ATC can only do so much, aviate, navigate, communicate.

The more I read about this the more it sounds similar to the accident at coventry between 2 light aircraft in the circuit.

Whatever happened, both aeroplanes *should* have been aware of each other at a towered field and should have been keeping a very good look out. If I couldn't see the other traffic I'd deliberately throw in a few more phrases onto the RT like "joining crosswind for 20, over the numbers at 1000" or something to help them as well as me. Likewise when I am coming into an untowered field, I'll report something like "5 miles south at 1500, positioning for base leg join 25". The more pertinent info the better if you ask me.

The DA40 doesn't have any blind spots like the windcreen pillar in the coventry accident and has good vis. I imagine the RV has good vis too.

The midair collision risk is always there as long as two aircraft are airborne in the same bit of airspace.

When I trained at Hamble in 1969 there was a fatal collision between 2 solo students - one was established in the circuit (right hand) and just turning crosswind - the joiner was a little bit wide and sadly they met. One of the recommendations of the report was that right hand circuits at a training airfield were not suitable when a/c with side by side seating were being operated, particularly solo. At the time there was full atc but it was a nice day and they often used "negative" r/t - ie just make the calls and atc would keep an eye out.

I think it's almost impossible to completely eliminate this risk but the answer lies in full and comprehensive training on all aspects of lookout and how to manage the flight (as englishal comments - intelligent use of r/t etc) - if you can't see the other a/c then ask!

Going back to the Hamble days there were often circa 12 in the circuit and probably double that over the IOW doing GH - a training situation which made you very aware of the importance of lookout and clearing airspace during climb/descent etc.

During the days when I did lots of basic instruction I observed that the lookout prior to commencing descent was often neglected - probably because instructors were not demonstrating it and/or insisting on it. Another one is those who descend on the dead side in a straight line - better to be turning so that you are clearing the airspace below and you have a better view of the runway and traffic which you might meet later on when crosswind so that you can adjust so that you don't do so.

Does anyone know which of the two (DA40 and RV6) was departing and which one was joining crosswind?

BTW there is no way my TB20 can reach 1100ft by the end of the runway. Well, maybe in 50kt headwind :) Normally about 300-400ft.

A departure should be protected from crosswind traffic provided the crosswind traffic joins correctly above the numbers and at circuit height.

Obviously an Extra 300 could hit the circuit height over the numbers but one would hope that an E300 pilot would be aware of the less than stellar wisdom of doing that.

But separation is collision avoidance, is it not?

If you're not separate from each other, you must be joined. Therefore you've collided.

i believe the diamond star joined crosswind at 1100' and the vans was taking off doing a performance climb out to gain height.

Very sad events :( I have done quite a lot of flying in the USA, and have to say the downwind 45 degree join ( at circuit height) gives you a much better "air picture", as you know exactly where everyone is joining, and at what level. Personally I feel the overhead join & crosswind joins etc can lead to events like this, as you can end up with people flying with big blind spots around them, being slightly off track/height during the join etc...

Memories of px


If the Vans was doing a performance climb out then the odds were worse than one in a million, substantially so.

Does anyone know if the DA40 had announced his intentions to join crosswind?