Midair Collision Near Waddesdon
Mick I so remember a long time ago flying a Gazelle night sortie with you on BRW - I can remember your wise words to myself, a young student pilot at debrief, 'that was a good solid green sortie Steve but never forget night flying is a large part of being a military pilot, treat it with respect but it's just night flying, the same as day flying - only dark'.
Rest in Peace pal.
Rest in Peace pal.
Folks,
Be very careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Who was the great economist who said:"It is just as well we don't get all the government we pay for".
There have been some very ill-informed statements about the US and FAA, for a start, Class G airspace in US is very rare, transponders are not a universal requirement for VFR.
There have been some very uniformed statements about the use of various collision avoidance devices, but the ALL have one thing in common, they are not accurate enough in such as a circuit environment, or approach/departure areas to their airfields. And they are "head down" when you should be "head up".
I speak from considerable experience of such devices, pilots who are "gadget freaks" are also the one who already do not look out the window nearly enough, and put undeserved faith in their latest toy --- usually extolling the virtues straight from the manufacturer's sales blurbs, with no idea of the real limitation ---- and this is not a shot at PPLs, one of the worst offenders I know is a high time corporate pilot.
The first step is to properly analyze the real risk --- not the perceived risk.
The next step is, once the magnitude of the risk is established ( the ICAO separation assurance standard is a good benchmark), and there will ALWAYS be some risk, the next step is: What to do about it.
A good start is always to amp up the national on-going pilot education efforts. How to conduct a proper search, including making certain your eyes are not on a fixed focus, would be a start, it can't be emphasised too often.
When it comes to "mandating" equipment, sentiment ( I was going to call it loudly expressed ignorance) can cost a lot of money, the preferred process (about which the FAA is quite rigorous) is a cost/benefit analysis. using real costs, not fantasy figures dreamed up by proponents ( more properly called "proponent bias"). And I do mean cost/benefit, not cost/effectiveness --- which is a different thing. Most of you on this thread have been making claims about perceptions of cost/effectiveness --- not benefit.
Unless the cost (initial and ongoing) is less than the benefit ( using national standard cost for lives and damage) the idea fails. Whether you like it or not, life is not "priceless", a principle accepted throughout public planning processes, "the sky is NOT the limit" to save a life. This is the national statistical cost of life, not trying to put a value on the life of one individual.
I can say, with great confidence, that mandating ACAS/ ADS-B in Class G airspace in UK will not produce a positive benefit to cost ratio, based on work I have done over the years, indeed, it will not even go close.
At time like the aftermath of this recent occurrence, there is too great a tendency for kneejerk demands that "they do something".
Tootle Pip!!
Be very careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Who was the great economist who said:"It is just as well we don't get all the government we pay for".
There have been some very ill-informed statements about the US and FAA, for a start, Class G airspace in US is very rare, transponders are not a universal requirement for VFR.
There have been some very uniformed statements about the use of various collision avoidance devices, but the ALL have one thing in common, they are not accurate enough in such as a circuit environment, or approach/departure areas to their airfields. And they are "head down" when you should be "head up".
I speak from considerable experience of such devices, pilots who are "gadget freaks" are also the one who already do not look out the window nearly enough, and put undeserved faith in their latest toy --- usually extolling the virtues straight from the manufacturer's sales blurbs, with no idea of the real limitation ---- and this is not a shot at PPLs, one of the worst offenders I know is a high time corporate pilot.
The first step is to properly analyze the real risk --- not the perceived risk.
The next step is, once the magnitude of the risk is established ( the ICAO separation assurance standard is a good benchmark), and there will ALWAYS be some risk, the next step is: What to do about it.
A good start is always to amp up the national on-going pilot education efforts. How to conduct a proper search, including making certain your eyes are not on a fixed focus, would be a start, it can't be emphasised too often.
When it comes to "mandating" equipment, sentiment ( I was going to call it loudly expressed ignorance) can cost a lot of money, the preferred process (about which the FAA is quite rigorous) is a cost/benefit analysis. using real costs, not fantasy figures dreamed up by proponents ( more properly called "proponent bias"). And I do mean cost/benefit, not cost/effectiveness --- which is a different thing. Most of you on this thread have been making claims about perceptions of cost/effectiveness --- not benefit.
Unless the cost (initial and ongoing) is less than the benefit ( using national standard cost for lives and damage) the idea fails. Whether you like it or not, life is not "priceless", a principle accepted throughout public planning processes, "the sky is NOT the limit" to save a life. This is the national statistical cost of life, not trying to put a value on the life of one individual.
I can say, with great confidence, that mandating ACAS/ ADS-B in Class G airspace in UK will not produce a positive benefit to cost ratio, based on work I have done over the years, indeed, it will not even go close.
At time like the aftermath of this recent occurrence, there is too great a tendency for kneejerk demands that "they do something".
Tootle Pip!!
I first flew with Mike in 2000, when he was at Thruxton. Over the next 6 years he took me from a raw PPL(H) to CPL(H) then FI(H), training at Helicopter Services.
I was always in awe of the man's sheer flying ability. Once, after a particularly **** sortie on my FI(H) course, I tentatively asked Mike "Can I ask a personal question?".
"Yes, David" - he never called me Dave. I asked how long he'd been doing this, as we hover taxied back in towards the Helicopter Services pads at Booker.
"About 40 years". It was the "about" which I remember, as well as the picture on the Sun's online page of him in his flying attire with a big smile.
What a sad, sad, day.
I was always in awe of the man's sheer flying ability. Once, after a particularly **** sortie on my FI(H) course, I tentatively asked Mike "Can I ask a personal question?".
"Yes, David" - he never called me Dave. I asked how long he'd been doing this, as we hover taxied back in towards the Helicopter Services pads at Booker.
"About 40 years". It was the "about" which I remember, as well as the picture on the Sun's online page of him in his flying attire with a big smile.
What a sad, sad, day.
I also had the pleasure of Mike's company for FI course and renewals over the years.
Great guy.
Tcas 1 does not give resolution advice, that's Tcas 2 that must be followed.
A good lookout is always the number 1 but a form of tcas will inevitably give better SA.
For those people insisting that it will force people's heads inside the cockpit, well yes there is that argument and in some cases this will happen but then so does GPS. I fly aircraft with and without Tcas and I feel far more comfortable in a tcas aircraft.
RIP Mike.
Great guy.
Tcas 1 does not give resolution advice, that's Tcas 2 that must be followed.
A good lookout is always the number 1 but a form of tcas will inevitably give better SA.
For those people insisting that it will force people's heads inside the cockpit, well yes there is that argument and in some cases this will happen but then so does GPS. I fly aircraft with and without Tcas and I feel far more comfortable in a tcas aircraft.
RIP Mike.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An audio beep that varies in tone and frequency and ideally uses surround sound technology to "position" the beep using suitable headphones could be the answer.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this modern world where we can get self driving vehicles that manage to miss most things, there has to be a cost effective solution for this.
We keep seeing the same type of accidents and somehow expect a different result each time.
Perhaps it's time to look at things slightly differently and not keep doing the same things since that seems to have limited results?
Aviation, particularly GA, seems quite backwards looking in a time when every other industry seems to be looking ahead.
We keep seeing the same type of accidents and somehow expect a different result each time.
Perhaps it's time to look at things slightly differently and not keep doing the same things since that seems to have limited results?
Aviation, particularly GA, seems quite backwards looking in a time when every other industry seems to be looking ahead.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this modern world where we can get self driving vehicles that manage to miss most things, there has to be a cost effective solution for this.
We keep seeing the same type of accidents and somehow expect a different result each time.
Perhaps it's time to look at things slightly differently and not keep doing the same things since that seems to have limited results?
Aviation, particularly GA, seems quite backwards looking in a time when every other industry seems to be looking ahead.
We keep seeing the same type of accidents and somehow expect a different result each time.
Perhaps it's time to look at things slightly differently and not keep doing the same things since that seems to have limited results?
Aviation, particularly GA, seems quite backwards looking in a time when every other industry seems to be looking ahead.
Something that is battery powered and does not connect to the aircraft's systems could be a possibility though.
It’s not going to be long before you can don a pair of AR glasses and be able to see other traffic, even through the structure of the aeroplane and have threats made conspicuous.
Until then, anything that warns you of the “fly on the windscreen” that’s shortly to bloom into something frightening is something worth having.
Until then, anything that warns you of the “fly on the windscreen” that’s shortly to bloom into something frightening is something worth having.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the accident aircraft this thread is about didn't have any TCAS type devices fitted ? An accident report would be handy.
Nor are they likely to have CVR or FDR. Which will make the accident that took 4 precious lives far more difficult to investigate than it needs to be. We may never find complete answers?
Bear in mind also that even a microlight has the capacity to bring down an aircraft carrying a number of people. So where do we stop with the march of 'technology'? Should all a/c be required to carry strobes, transponders, tcas, cvr, fdr? Where do we draw the line? How much kit can these little aircraft realistically carry? What are the electrical requirements? How often should this equipment be tested? Precisely when should a 'simple' (to operate) type become a type that requires all of this equipment?
Will we end light aircraft flying for the masses. (Who for a century have flown perfectly safely, year in and year out!)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The devil will be in the detail but...
Two aircraft out of the same airfield have a midair in a known busy piece of sky and we think having an electronic device that requires even more head inside the cockpit is going to help ? I wonder, was this a two ship ? It seems a very odd chance event otherwise.
Two aircraft out of the same airfield have a midair in a known busy piece of sky and we think having an electronic device that requires even more head inside the cockpit is going to help ? I wonder, was this a two ship ? It seems a very odd chance event otherwise.
Fred
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Notwithstanding that TCAS is also fitted to most modern SPIFR equipped helicopters.
Unfortunately, from what has been found already, it appears that the pilots of both aircraft were probably completely unaware of the other's close presence.
From personal experience, small helicopters such as the Gimbal Cabrio offer a very small profile and are very difficult to see, especially from behind.
Unfortunately, from what has been found already, it appears that the pilots of both aircraft were probably completely unaware of the other's close presence.
From personal experience, small helicopters such as the Gimbal Cabrio offer a very small profile and are very difficult to see, especially from behind.
MK1 eyeball is so much better and even if you have, like in the aircraft I fly, TCAS 2 fitted when flying VFR you still should spend most of your time heads outside scanning for other traffic.
What I notice is some pilots overly relying, trusting the TCAS and not scanning, to the extend that when ATC calls them about other aircraft saying "we have him on TCAS"
Even with the top of the line TCAS equipment we have fitted the amount of times I've seen one contact suddenly splitting into two, disappearing altogether, not in the same postion when you spotted the other aircraft or when flying near a small GA airfield with aircraft without transponder there will be nothing on TCAS!
Also if you get an RA you (partly) rely on the other pilot flying correctly what their TCAS is telling them, something we train but isn't a given.
IMHO TCAS has its place but not in GA aircraft, because of the reasons listed above together with cost factor.
What I notice is some pilots overly relying, trusting the TCAS and not scanning, to the extend that when ATC calls them about other aircraft saying "we have him on TCAS"
Even with the top of the line TCAS equipment we have fitted the amount of times I've seen one contact suddenly splitting into two, disappearing altogether, not in the same postion when you spotted the other aircraft or when flying near a small GA airfield with aircraft without transponder there will be nothing on TCAS!
Also if you get an RA you (partly) rely on the other pilot flying correctly what their TCAS is telling them, something we train but isn't a given.
IMHO TCAS has its place but not in GA aircraft, because of the reasons listed above together with cost factor.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
MK1 eyeball is so much better and even if you have, like in the aircraft I fly, TCAS 2 fitted when flying VFR you still should spend most of your time heads outside scanning for other traffic.
Additionally, it is totally useless if another aircraft approaches yours from an blind spot such as above (or below) and behind you.
Unless you have a 360 degree view from the cockpit and a neck like an owl.
TCAS is a very useful supplement to help build a pilot's awareness of what is going on around him. As I wrote a few posts back, it needs to be used correctly, with it's own limitations borne in mind.
Same as listening out on the radio. Another useful tool, but no good in isolation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand that area is have fair coverage with F- kind of FR24 hardware where GPS is ON 7/24/365 and position can not be "written by
hand" and time domain timing is not estimated through network but sourced from GPS timing.
Which is slight difference to T- kind of devices mostly self home-made out of good SDRdongle, RPI2or3, fair 1 GHz range antenna, good net, with or without GPS present.
Let's see official report but expect no surprise, the plank was above
and behind on 7 to 8 diving on poor souls in G2
Edit / this post just confirm that the data for FR24 was enough to have fair estimation of position:
hand" and time domain timing is not estimated through network but sourced from GPS timing.
Which is slight difference to T- kind of devices mostly self home-made out of good SDRdongle, RPI2or3, fair 1 GHz range antenna, good net, with or without GPS present.
Let's see official report but expect no surprise, the plank was above
and behind on 7 to 8 diving on poor souls in G2
Edit / this post just confirm that the data for FR24 was enough to have fair estimation of position:
Since we've pretty much decided that there is no need for the AAIB based on the FR24 data perhaps you have some thoughts on these questions:
1. Why the sudden dog-leg on the last data received from the aircraft as plotted on the FR24 map? The reported track was 17 degrees which is consistent with the previously received data. Note: If you plot the co-ordinates yourself this will correlate with the map, not with FR24's csv/xml data.
2. The aircraft tracks crossed somewhere between 11:58:28 and 11:59:01 according to the FR24 data. At this time FR24 reports the aircraft was not "diving" and was infact holding an altitude of 3500-3700 feet. The helicopter was consistently between 1,025 and 1,050 feet. Any thoughts on this? Based on the FR24 data they had ~2,500 feet of vertical seperation.
3. Last received data from the helicopter was at 12:00:46 (1000 feet consistent speed and heading with previous data). Last received data from the aircraft was at 11:59:44 (2700 feet (a loss of 700 feet in 24 seconds), with speed and direction remaining consistent with previous data. Generally speaking data from the heli was received every ~10 seconds. Data from the plane was received slightly less often but not by a large amount. Why was data received from the helicopter for another minute than the plane? I can only think of one reason - and if that was the case it msot likely wouldn't be reporting a steady alititude of ~1,000 feet.
4. Do you know what filtering FR24 does on received data in order to provide the end users with positon, heading, speed and alititude data? I would imagine it's fairly accurate when data is relatively consistent but I guess all bets are out the window when incidents like this occur.
5. If reception in this area is so great why is the first received data from the aircraft received at 11:57:27 when it is already at 2,800 feet? I suppose it is possible the pilot didn't have the transponder on until that point but it seems a bit odd to me, especially for a training flight.
Maybe this gives some indication of why I created my original post rather than people throwing around theories such as xxx FPM descent rate, cessna "diving" towards the heli etc etc.
At the end of the day whatever happened 4 people have died. Perhaps its not the circumstances to be drawing conclusions based on limited publically available data.
Last edited by wealthysoup; 18th Nov 2017 at 17:00.
FR24 data is inaccurate, particularly low-level.
I've played back the recorded data on our flights and it's not close.
(coverage is sparse locally)
It should not be taken as gospel.
I've played back the recorded data on our flights and it's not close.
(coverage is sparse locally)
It should not be taken as gospel.