The only thing I am suggesting is that the Flightradar 24 data that many people are taking as gospel on this thread should not be entirely trusted, for the reasons I have listed in my previous posts.

No-one is taking the FR24 data as 'gospel' but it does look fairly stable and give an outline indication of possible reasons. For instance the altitudes are relatively stable on both aircraft, the fixed wing appearing to take a reasonably rapid descent within the last 20-30secs. This we know because it was initially at 3000+ft and the helicopter always had been around the 1000'ft.

Best to wait and see what the accident report says and if the FR24 data is all wrong, then it's all wrong, and it shouldn't be used to 'second guess' reasons for such a tragic accident.

FR24 has shown my aircraft travelling anywhere between 0 and 300 kts in a steady cruise.

So what? All on FR24 are just smokes and mirrors :D

You can place more reliance on Fred "slightly behind and above"

Did a number of end of course checks for Mike's FI students way back. Was always impressed by the standards that he had set. A very sad loss.

Disagree
 

I used to fly WACG many years ago in that particular pice of airspace, and I can tell you it's a hotspot. As good as a mk1 eyeball maybe, it can't see through metal. I once had a near miss climbing out of Wycombe when a Dove flew directly over the top of me from behind. No way would I have been able to see him, and he probably wouldn't have been able to see me either. So no, I have to disagree, not stupid at all.

Stating that Class G airspace in US is very rare, would be one of those 'very ill-informed statements'. Outside of towered airports it extends from the surface to either 700' or 1200' agl across the entire country. I spend my life in it. In mountainous areas the rules can become fairly complicated, suffice to say that you can be flying around at 14,499 msl...in Glass G airspace.

Without hijacking the thread, more info here for anyone interested in what's happening in the USA in 2020:

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft...b-out-required

Belt & Braces
 

Agree - but it's not just human limitations. I've yet to fly a GA type that doesn't block off your view in some directions, even the Tiger Moth. Cessnas stop you seeing above, Pipers ditto below, unless you manoeuvre frequently - which of course we all do for HASELL, but probably not so much the rest of the time. I try my best to spot the other guys, but I do know that a "little yellow blob and an audio warning" have made my life more comfortable several times. Just as it seems sound sense to take a sextant as well as a GPS when I sail long distance, so I switch on TCAS and keep a decent lookout when I'm airborne. I'm not sure that's a strong enough argument for making some kind of collision avoidance technology compulsory; but that's a different argument.

Do the, so called, hi-viz markings on rotorblades significantly improve 'conspicuity'?

That would be TAS/TIS, not TCAS, correct? TCAS does more than just call out traffic. It would be extremely unusual, if not actually impossible, to provision a helicopter like an Enstrom with TCAS. ADS-B In/Out with TAS/TIS, yes, TCAS, no.

That's pretty elitist. The counter-position to that is "If you are that risk averse, stay on the ground and don't ruin things for a large portion of TRULY not so well off general aviation." Even for those who don't fly on a shoestring, a high end ADS-B upgrade (e.g. GTX345 + installation) can still equate to 25% of yearly operating costs for many GA operators (it does for me). For those who do fly on a shoestring budget that sort of thinking will take them right out of the game. Oh, wait, that's the plan, isn't it? Maybe we should just kill off general aviation all together. Nobody needs to fly under Part 91. Waaay too dangerous. They can all just sit in their basements and use simulators :ugh:

important not to jump to any conclusions re FR24 data which can be erratic as I have witnessed when checking back on my own aircraft.

What I would say looking back on the historical readings is that I have much more confidence in the G-JAMM data than the G-WACG data. G-JAMM's sortie earlier in the day to what likes Silverstone and Wing has painted well and reliably as did the fateful flight taking a similar route although slightly to the east of Silverstone this time. The G-WACG data is much less reliable which is perhaps not surprising considering the relative ages of the two craft involved and the spec of the fitted avionics and there is little low level data on any of G-WACG's recent flights.

@aa777888

Risk is everywhere but in a regulated environment it also implies risk management.
Risk management implies some degree of control in influencing the outcome.
Having to rely on someone else's ability to see you, in this instance seemingly requiring xray vision, seems futile especially since uncivilized regions like ours have other techniques, as per @hot&hi's post, to help mitigate situations where an eyeball can fail.
Aviate, navigate & COMMUNICATE.

Can't help but think that see and avoid alone should have retired along with the tigermoth.

Fully agree on possible erratic data,
but on the other hand G-WACG available data on FR24 are in accordance to this statement: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/602...ml#post9961457
Have made this few pages before, just for educational purpose:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t1lesr05ls..._G2_2.jpg?dl=0
So anyone can draw own educated guess (not necessary) even on mentioned "Providence"

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.

Thanks A-squared 7&8-cubed.
Won't disagree with that.

Ok here's another angle on this debate.

Emergency avoiding action is not in the syllabus for PPL/CPL (although 45 degree bank turns are). Maybe it should be?

PPT,
No argument from me when you are spending your own money, but when there is a huge push to spend somebody else's money on somebody else's aeroplane ---- and make it mandatory, that's when proper analysis and process should kick in --- but often doesn't.

Far more than motoring "safety", aviation "safety" attracts lurid headlines, and all sorts of self-appointed experts ( eX is the unknown quantity, "spurt" is a drip under pressure) demanding "they do something", and all too often, politicians respond.

This is a huge problem in Australia, where GA has been saddled with a "WORLD'S BEST/First" (we just love being self proclaimed world first/best** something ) ADS-B mandate, far broader than the FAA or Eurocontrol ADS-B mandate --- the millions spent ( or, aircraft grounded because owners can't afford it) will not reduce risk on iota, because the traffic levels are so low, in most of the areas GA operates, that the assessed risk is not only below the ICAO Separation Assurance Standard, but is assessed as "vanishingly small", the statistical equivalent of zero, nil,zilch, naught, but it doesn't silence the "but what if ---" brigade, who are quite happy to spend every last dollar of somebody else's money.

** Delete as applicable

Tootle pip!!

And are students taught WHY they do steep or advanced turns? However; if something is not in your field of view, avoidance turns will not provide a solution.

LOOKOUT is invariably taught during S&L in a lateral environment from wingtip to wingtip, possibly because relative speed is perceived as the major contributer to the threat. Lokout below in a descent, is seldom taught correctly; lowering the nose is of little use, but if you weave the aircraft it gives you the opportunity to look down into the area where you are descending. It is much more diffiucult to see an aircraft silouetted against terrain, especially if it is small and has a low cross sectional profile and the relative speed is low.

I second that. Rarely do I see pilots clearing airspace below them before commencing a descent.