Midair Collision Near Waddesdon
It would appear - if the FW did descend onto the heli from behind - that all the lookout and steep turns in the world would not have prevented this sad loss of life.
TAS/TCAS/ADS-B/FLARM etc - might very well have done so............A gadget in the cockpit that gets the eyes out in the right direction simply enhances lookout.
TAS/TCAS/ADS-B/FLARM etc - might very well have done so............A gadget in the cockpit that gets the eyes out in the right direction simply enhances lookout.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those declaring TCAS / use of tech as nonsensical are clearly skygods of a bygone era. Yes it's not a one stop solution but how many more people need to die for this roulette wheel to stop spinning?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The UK AIRPROX Board website contains some very useful information, for those who haven't read it:
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Topi...ion-Avoidance/
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Topi...ion-Avoidance/
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I've already stated that I very much like traffic information in the cockpit, and that I've done more than what is mandated in the US in that respect, so clearly I feel it has value. Indeed, I'd happily pay for something like this:
when they get it to be that good (AeroGlass is shipping, but it's nowhere near like what you see in that Hollywood production of a Youtube video).
However, I don't agree with requiring people to spend more than the rest of their aircraft is worth, sometimes much more, on avionics mandates.
A tablet and a crappity ass USB radio dongle can do better than the vast majority of the GA avionics already installed for achieving situational awareness. If you can make meeting the mandate that inexpensive, then I'd be all for it.
Anyhow, you can have all the technology in the world, and until we take the pilot out of the loop aircraft will still hit each other in mid-air.
when they get it to be that good (AeroGlass is shipping, but it's nowhere near like what you see in that Hollywood production of a Youtube video).
However, I don't agree with requiring people to spend more than the rest of their aircraft is worth, sometimes much more, on avionics mandates.
A tablet and a crappity ass USB radio dongle can do better than the vast majority of the GA avionics already installed for achieving situational awareness. If you can make meeting the mandate that inexpensive, then I'd be all for it.
Anyhow, you can have all the technology in the world, and until we take the pilot out of the loop aircraft will still hit each other in mid-air.
Interesting that the leaflet on Electronic Conspicuity contains a blanket statement
It's worth noting that lighting needs to be something like an order of magnitude brighter than the background to make you stand out. In the worst case turning the landing lights on may make you blend into the background as you'll be around the same brightness rather than a contrasting black dot. That's not to say never switch them on, but if it's a summer's day and the sun's behind you they may be better off.
Of course you can do simple things to
help yourself be seen such as switching
on a beacon or strobe lights (and why
not the nav and landing lights, it doesn’t
cost any more money)
help yourself be seen such as switching
on a beacon or strobe lights (and why
not the nav and landing lights, it doesn’t
cost any more money)
I've already stated that I very much like traffic information in the cockpit, and that I've done more than what is mandated in the US in that respect, so clearly I feel it has value. Indeed, I'd happily pay for something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0UZWn4bnGY
when they get it to be that good (AeroGlass is shipping, but it's nowhere near like what you see in that Hollywood production of a Youtube video).
However, I don't agree with requiring people to spend more than the rest of their aircraft is worth, sometimes much more, on avionics mandates.
A tablet and a crappity ass USB radio dongle can do better than the vast majority of the GA avionics already installed for achieving situational awareness. If you can make meeting the mandate that inexpensive, then I'd be all for it.
Anyhow, you can have all the technology in the world, and until we take the pilot out of the loop aircraft will still hit each other in mid-air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0UZWn4bnGY
when they get it to be that good (AeroGlass is shipping, but it's nowhere near like what you see in that Hollywood production of a Youtube video).
However, I don't agree with requiring people to spend more than the rest of their aircraft is worth, sometimes much more, on avionics mandates.
A tablet and a crappity ass USB radio dongle can do better than the vast majority of the GA avionics already installed for achieving situational awareness. If you can make meeting the mandate that inexpensive, then I'd be all for it.
Anyhow, you can have all the technology in the world, and until we take the pilot out of the loop aircraft will still hit each other in mid-air.
That bit where it's quite near the airspace, all red cross-hatching and so on, there could be an aircraft in there and about come out of it, either very soon or a potential encounter in a few minutes time, and the so-called augmented reality would be hiding it from being seen by eye
Maybe even the rectangles forming the tunnel it's going along inside could temporarily partly mask an aircraft slightly higher or lower.
Sometimes things that are supposed to be more conspicuous are surprisingly not. I can remember standing on different days on an airfield with a set of chimneys a few kilometres to the south. In certain conditions of light and haziness the middle third of the height of the chimneys was completely invisible. Red and white stripes had suddenly become excellent camouflage.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
NAROBS, uncontrolled airspace means just that.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, perhaps not. Not everyone is good at imagining things. I actually have a few hours of seat time in an augmented reality system (for ground vehicles, not air). Done right (and this one was), it's truly Next Level Stuff. Absolutely transformational, in every sense of the buzzword.
Done right, I'd fly with that capability in a heartbeat. Fighter pilots have it now for finding targets. Civilians need that, except we call it "traffic"
, plus symbology for clearly visualizing airspace. This is the future.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
In Class G airspace, the principle of collision avoidance is see and avoid. Representation of capability or not, that seems to be seeing transponding aircraft only.
This is one of those things.
NOTHING can account for human factors. It's got nothing to do with technology when it comes to saving the day.
One guy dropped his guard for a while. It happens. It's sad but it happens.
It's busy up there.
It will only go away (HF) when we go pilotless.
RiP
NOTHING can account for human factors. It's got nothing to do with technology when it comes to saving the day.
One guy dropped his guard for a while. It happens. It's sad but it happens.
It's busy up there.
It will only go away (HF) when we go pilotless.
RiP
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A musing.
Does this limitation accentuate possible traffic density problems by forcing operators to launch in waves? My relatively limited experience of Booker, and the airspace it's operators frequent, is of a busy sky at the best of times. Take away 2:15 of the daily launch period and..........
Q) EGTT/QSTLC/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5137N00049W005
B) FROM: 17/11/07 11:00C) TO: 17/11/30 16:30
E) ATC CLOSED DUE STAFF SHORTAGE. WYCOMBE AIR PARK ATZ AND GLIDING
REMAIN ACTIVE. NO DEPARTURES ARE PERMITTED 15 MIN PRIOR TO
CLOSURE, ALL MOVEMENTS DURING CLOSURES ARE STRICTLY BY APPROVAL OF
AERODROME MANAGER ON 01494 529261
SCHEDULE: 07 12 13 14 17 20 21 26 27 29 30 1100-1130, 1330-1400, 1600-1630
B) FROM: 17/11/07 11:00C) TO: 17/11/30 16:30
E) ATC CLOSED DUE STAFF SHORTAGE. WYCOMBE AIR PARK ATZ AND GLIDING
REMAIN ACTIVE. NO DEPARTURES ARE PERMITTED 15 MIN PRIOR TO
CLOSURE, ALL MOVEMENTS DURING CLOSURES ARE STRICTLY BY APPROVAL OF
AERODROME MANAGER ON 01494 529261
SCHEDULE: 07 12 13 14 17 20 21 26 27 29 30 1100-1130, 1330-1400, 1600-1630
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take away 2:15 of the daily launch period and..........
There is little (read none) coordination of the training area although it does have AIAA status.
There are three 'relevant' LARS providers available in that area now: Brize, Oxford and Farnborough North - with Benson being able to 'chip' in when they're not busy with their own patch. Whether there is a 'policy' effort to use one provider (Oxford Radar, perhaps) I don't know - but again, they're optional calls if you want cover. It really is a congested piece of sky but is about the only place for those airfields to be able to get up high due London/Luton CTR/CTA to the east and Birmingham to the North West
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it's not unusual to call one of the LARS stations and be told - if you can get a word in on the R/T at all - "unable to give you service due to high traffic density". The same problem would apply to your TIS if you made transponders mandatory; you wouldn't be able to make anything out due to the number of targets.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
And it's not unusual to call one of the LARS stations and be told - if you can get a word in on the R/T at all - "unable to give you service due to high traffic density". The same problem would apply to your TIS if you made transponders mandatory; you wouldn't be able to make anything out due to the number of targets.
And it's not unusual to call one of the LARS stations and be told - if you can get a word in on the R/T at all - "unable to give you service due to high traffic density". The same problem would apply to your TIS if you made transponders mandatory; you wouldn't be able to make anything out due to the number of targets.
Just before the US eclipse event, we were flying north to see it. Oakland Center were clearly overwhelmed by the traffic - they later told me they were tracking over 100 GA flights, just in one sector. But still the ADS-B picture 6 miles out was nearly always empty.
There was one target that was close for a while. Once again we saw it on the screen LONG before we saw it visually, and hence were able to be sure to keep clear of it. Later we chatted to them at the destination airport.
Flying into Palo Alto at the weekend you can have a dozen or more targets in a 6 mile radius, but it is VERY easy to see which ones you need to be worried about.
Yeah, you should be afraid.
The traffic density in the Bay Area (or LA, or the Boston/New York area) is WAY higher than anything you'll find in the UK. And my point is that TIS/TCAS/TCAD/ADS-B/whatever you want to call it is STILL extremely effective and valuable, whether or not you can get flight following or the equivalent.
The same problem would apply to your TIS if you made transponders mandatory
Last edited by n5296s; 20th Nov 2017 at 19:25.
This thread is about UK airspace,
At least the Fee Structure for using it anyhow!
I watched a MidAir occur at what is now an International Airport between a DC-9 Airliner which overflew a C-172 when both were on a straight in final to an Instrument Runway...in very nice weather...with both Approach Control and Control Tower in operation.
There are always going to be conflicts, failure to see other traffic, and tragedies no matter the technology and complexity of air traffic de-confliction efforts using technology and other methods.
Sadly, I was in the process of cranking an aircraft and just happened to glance up to see the two aircraft in less than a couple of seconds of colliding and could not do a thing but look on as the Cessna came apart....lost one wing...and strike the ground a few meters from the Wind Sock.
The DC-9 suffered minor damage to the fuselage and landing gear struts and landed safely.
These sad events bring home the notion the Sky can be a very small place at times.