Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Midair Collision Near Waddesdon

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Midair Collision Near Waddesdon

Old 20th Nov 2017, 17:59
  #241 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by BizJetJock View Post
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.
At least the latter would remind pilots to keep a very good lookout!
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2017, 18:42
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PUDBY
Posts: 724
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.
This is nonsense I'm afraid. It's rare to be refused service with Norcal (SFO and a long way beyond), but it happens. And still the targets you need to worry about are very easy to see on the screen. And as always, mostly impossible to see with the much-vaunted "Mk I eyeball".

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.
n5296s is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2017, 19:00
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PUDBY
Posts: 724
Yeah, you should be afraid.
I'm way more afraid of PPRuNe than I am of being refused flight following.

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
Same comment applies. In all heavy traffic areas in the US (in every Class B veil, i.e. 30 miles around every major airport) transponders are mandatory. Not a problem. There is a lot of special pleading going on here.

Last edited by n5296s; 20th Nov 2017 at 19:25.
n5296s is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2017, 21:19
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
This thread is about UK airspace,
Yes....and we know how perfectly coordinated that can be...right?

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.
SASless is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 01:34
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: england
Posts: 176
Have done renewals with Mike for two decades very sad RIP sir.
cyclic flare is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 03:52
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Africa
Posts: 360
SkyEcho

Originally Posted by horizon flyer View Post
I believe with a SkyEcho (ADS-B IN/OUT) device £600 a tablet and SkyDemon you have a TCS device for as little as £1000 with all the benefits of skydemon. Then as long as everyone runs mode S we would all see each other and reduce these sad events happening. This is UK CAA Approved only. Even gliders could run this, has an internal batteries that runs for 6 hour. SkyEcho ? uAvionix

It would appear from the tracks they where both on the same track and the 152 descended onto the helicopter so in each others blind spot very sad day.

Originally Posted by Hot and Hi View Post
Does the SkyEcho receive transmissions from other TPX-equipped aircraft squawking Mode C. Does SkyEcho display those in SkyDemon as a bearing less targets?

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer View Post
Appears to be ADS-B only and mode S extended squiter.
Response received from uAvionix:
At this time SkyEcho renders 978MHz and 1090ES ADS-B targets. There isn't any notification of Mode 3/A, Mode C or Mode S aircraft.
Hot and Hi is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 08:39
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Bristol
Posts: 164
It is interesting that neither the CAA Safety Sense leaflet and the Airprox video really fully explain the visual scan, for instance it seems mostly confined by them forwards, why would you not scan through the side windows and over your shoulders.

Likewise, absolute no explanation of how to visually scan in an aircraft with a persex canopy, such as DR400, T67, Bulldog, G115. For example tilting the head back to look above. looking over the rlight shoulder, then toward the windsheld, over the the left shoulder, tilting the head back looking above and back to the windshield.

Interesting the comments on here especially why pilots are not being trained to think aboout the lookout before and during a decent.

Finally, can anyone suggest why the younger instructors in the UK are not teaching 60 degree banked turns? What do instructors do in other countries?

Last edited by anchorhold; 21st Nov 2017 at 09:28.
anchorhold is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 11:09
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,348
Finally, can anyone suggest why the younger instructors in the UK are not teaching 60 degree banked turns?
In the majority of cases I suspect that schools have not updated their training manuals since the introduction some ways back, so if it wasn't there then it wouldn't be now. I would suspect the desire for schools to teach 'more' than what is in the syllabus is driven by time/cost constraints. I know I was taught them, 20 odd years ago and have taught them since - along with teaching navigation by compass which seems to be becoming a 'forgotten art'.

I ensure that all of the FI candidates I teach are able to teach to both 45AoB and 60AoB but see the norm during the discussion is that 60AoB is seen as a 'pusher' (challenge) for those who get 45AoB early in the lesson.

I do also teach maximum rate turns to those candidates, but I would suggest that over 90% of those haven't seen one before, let alone been taught to do one.
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 14:34
  #249 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 68
Posts: 3,813
"I doubt that the focus on WAP Tower being closed for period is relevant here"

Not where the accident happened, perhaps, but with people trying to get in and out of Wycombe before the closure times, I'm surprised that this has not already happened in the circuit.
paco is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 20:58
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: no comment ;)
Age: 55
Posts: 782
This is nice reading, document update finished just a month ago =>
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...17%20FINAL.pdf
9Aplus is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 21:31
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Duchess_Driver View Post
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.
Sadly Oxford is not a LARS provider and the services we do offer are from within our controller spare capacity (although we did offer to do LARS and were given a refusal by DAP). Brize and Farnborough are the only LARS provision within the area although the Westcott area and the route toward WAP, albeit within the Farnborough north AOR, affects Benson and Oxford. Brize LARS is only 0900-1700 so we do find ourselves picking up a lot of transit outside those hours. The loss of Coventry radar means both Oxford and Brize probably having to work aircraft further north which reduces controller capacity even further. A review of capabilities and who does what, and where, might be useful. Albeit to late for the 4 victims of this accident.


Regards Fred
ATCO Fred is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2017, 22:26
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,747
Two thoughts in particular about Fred's comments above.

(1) The moment you have two providers in the same bit of airspace, you have a potential problem. It really shouldn't be hard in Britain to have a line on the chart, that clearly demarks to whom an aircraft should be talking, where (and if necessary, when).

(2) Historically instrument approaches are primarily controlled by a pilot, with supporting information from controllers. Historically pilots are also responsible for see-and-avoid in VMC. Always and forever, pilots are responsible for the safety of their aircraft. Therefore, particularly since this technology exists and is becoming increasingly affordable, I think that future collision avoidance strategies should concentrate on putting information directly into the cockpit - not be reliant on information from a controller [notwithstanding that I'd still like to see (1) sorted out in British airspace].

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 08:58
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,055
Finally, can anyone suggest why the younger instructors in the UK are not teaching 60 degree banked turns?
Simply, because a number of items, including max rate turns, that were taught as part of the UK PPL, are not included in the JAA/EASA syllabus that we are now obliged to follow.

Whilst the CAA SSL13 - Collision Avoidance referred to here is quite comprehensive regarding lateral lookout, it only includes a one liner regarding lookout in the climb and descent
c) During the climb and descent beware of the blind spot under the nose– manoeuvre the aircraft so that you can check
Whopity is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 14:09
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Bristol
Posts: 164
Whopity, wouldn't you say the whole syllabus is being dumbed down. I accept I am oblidged to follow the syllabus, but surely the instructor is able to go beyond the syllabus based on his initiative. For example 60 AofB and collision avoidance, sideslipping if someone is having problems with crossed controls on landing in cosswinds and pilot induced ocsilations, if you were training on certain types, such as the DR200 or DR400. What next, stalls can only be taught up to the stall warning?

But Im wondering can a flying school opt to teach beyond the EASA syllabus, I am also wondering if EASA thinks a steep turn is an aerrobatic manouvre?

On the point you raised about the lookout, says it all. What happenned to HASSELL and clearing turns. I think this leads me back to Firefly Bob's original point, is why dont we teach collision avoidence.

Is there a mechanism under EASA for the UK CAA to make it a requirement under a variation for 60 AoB turns and practice collision avoidance, based on the intensity of some Class G airspace in Southern Britain and fewer radar units?
anchorhold is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 14:50
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
Simply, because a number of items, including max rate turns, that were taught as part of the UK PPL, are not included in the JAA/EASA syllabus that we are now obliged to follow.

Whilst the CAA SSL13 - Collision Avoidance referred to here is quite comprehensive regarding lateral lookout, it only includes a one liner regarding lookout in the climb and descent
Yes, I was taught (in Fixed Wing) to turn as the altimeter needle passed every 500 ft, to clear the view obscured by the engine.

I think many posters may never have flown FW and, for those in that category, may not realise that the view out of a typical Piper or Cessna is like looking out of a letter box by comparison to most helicopters. Better with a bubble canopy (Slingsby or Bulldog for instance), but there is still a major blind spot caused by the engine.
212man is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 19:23
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,055
Is there a mechanism under EASA for the UK CAA to make it a requirement under a variation for 60 AoB turns and practice collision avoidance
Only NPA, where you can propose a change then wait 4 years to see what happens. The UK cannot unilaterally add to the regulation.
Whopity is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2017, 09:58
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Location, location - is very important when buying a house.
Posts: 109
Really? How many degrees do we want to train at to be 'safe'.

These guys didn't see each other, isn't that the point?
Frying Pan is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2017, 11:26
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,348
Is there a mechanism under EASA for the UK CAA to make it a requirement under a variation for 60 AoB turns and practice collision avoidance
Don't forget, what is stated in the AMCs, GM and Part FCL are the minimum requirements. Each course COULD contain more stringent requirements should the training provider write it into the approved course documentation. So long as you include all the bits stated there is no reason whatsoever for the CA to reject either the course design or any application for licence issue which completed that course.

Sadly though, there aren't that many ATO's that would design a 60hour PPL course!
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 11:44
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sussex
Age: 71
Posts: 65
helispeediii

god bless they did not make them any better helispeed iii
helispeediii is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 15:25
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
These guys didn't see each other, isn't that the point?
That was the immediate cause I suppose....but there are a lot of factors that play into the traffic conflict occurring that need to be considered as well.

I understand your point....what in heavens name does teaching steep turns and training syllabus standards have to do with this at all.

Rather than evoke an argument about that....lets focus on likely causes, the reason for those factors, and how the situation in that particular bit of airspace be improved so that we never have a repeat of this tragedy where some vey good people sadly lost their lives.

This is something that can happen to any of us.
SASless is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.