As FED says, one odd coloured blade will stand out like the dogs proverbials whereas evenly spaced bands of colour are not so obvious. The flicker effect will attract attention even when one is not looking directly at the rotors.

Moorabbin Airport has a 700’ Helicopter circuit height vs 1,000’ for fixed wing following a mid air many, many years ago when a FW let down onto a helicopter in identical conditions to all these fatal accidents being discussed. The problem is by no means a new one and ‘corporate knowledge ‘ often diminishes and has to be re-learned.

It would be interesting to know whether TCAS was in use by either aircraft. I am a big fan, because I would not be sitting here if it wasnt for that little box of tricks (I would be splatted on the front of a crab fast jet which never knew I was there).

Yes, you still need to visuallly acquire the other aircraft with a TA, but at least you know your relative altitudes (assuming both are squawking mode C). That gives you some idea of where to look, and the urgency to move out of the way.

Calm down old mate, you'll throw your back out (although by reading through your previous comments I reckon you've already done it)


Well back at ya; Are YOU advocating that a "few seconds" is acceptable? How long is a few seconds? 2...7? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me like you are a bit out of touch with the reality of operating an aircraft (which is good because you totally should not fly with back pain)

Your "MK1 eyeball" isn't perfect, and neither is anyone else's for that matter. You could scan out the window 100% of the time and not pick an aircraft up until it is too late. We do our best, but that's reality.

I notice you ignored a reasonable question.

Care to explain how long you think it is fine not to look outside when VFR/VMC?

Of course there are weaknesses of the ol' eyeball...but not looking out really does negate what usefulness it does allow....or did I miss something in all those years of flying?

In your three crew operation how do you divide Cockpit duties that would required all three to be focused inside for very long?

At altitude in cruise...knowing the eye's inability to focus much beyond the nose of the aircraft...and the closing rates of Jet Aircraft....it is hard to see other traffic until too late. Add in obstructions to vision and it gets more difficult yet.

In a terminal area during approach in VFR/VMC conditions where there is a lot of traffic it would seem self preservation would suggest keeping as sharp a lookout as possible would sound acceptable to you.

Also listening to the ATC traffic so you have an idea of who is going where and when.

Non PC-Plod,
TCAS, TAS, FLARM, ADS-B et al are all valuable SA tools. None, however, can replace a good, thorough look-out scan. In fact, they can degrade lookout by giving the operator a false sense of security or causing distraction (eg, looking at a contact that has already declared and therefore not scanning the arc where the danger is coming from). None of these systems are 100% effective - far from it in Open FIR where the vast majority of non-electronically co-operative traffic is (ultra/microlights, GA, paragliders etc). Crews can also forget to make the appropriate settings (especially on Xpdrs) or be unaware that the kit isn't working as advertised - a C130J and C27J collided at night in the US thinking they were both protected by TCAS (one of the systems was faulty). GAPAN (as was) commissioned a study to identify the MAC risk, and therefore S2A requirements, for RPAS operating in UK airspace, but it has relevance for manned operations as this was the measure. One comment is revealing - "Flying in VMC around aerodromes and glider sites in Class G airspace below 3000ft was much more risky than flying at night, in IMC and in controlled airspace. It was not difficult to see why. The sky at night was much less crowded than it was by day; and GA aircraft, gliders and micro-lights were rarely flown then. Even in the military, those pilots flying at night did so more procedurally, more sedately, using a visual-instrument flying mix even when flying under VFR. Through both regulation and sensible practice, in general, pilots flying at night, and in controlled airspace, and in IMC, tended to be more experienced, and tended to fly more extensively equipped aircraft, more predictably and often more procedurally, to tighter tolerances, under higher levels of radar service, with better self- illumination (both by lights and by electronic means) than pilots operating under VFR by day." The full study is here - it contains some interesting facts and statistics. https://www.airpilots.org/file/737/s...d-aircraft.pdf

Plus aircrafts' strobes and navigation lights contrast well against the dark sky - moving aircraft easy to acquire.

It is an interesting report - shame they couldn't see an obvious reason for less airprox reports from Mil aircraft between 1998 and 2008, perhaps they could have considered where a lot of mil aircraft were being flown for a lot of that period, and it wasn't UK:ok:

In our neck of the woods, in uncontrolled airspace we heavily rely on pilots making regular radio calls (position and intention reports). This has proven to work relatively well, at least outside the pattern. Away from the airfield, pilots tend to avoid reported traffic by a wide margin, and/or making arrangement with conflicting traffic to the same effect.

In the pattern the perceived restrictions in going higher or lower, or left or right, make people become more stubbornly stick to their planned trajectory. And then the lack of precision in reporting the exact position, combined with the lacking ability of most or all humans to create a perfect dynamic mental picture sometimes catches us out.

Thanks, Evalu8ter, and also echoed by many others here and in other threats. And who wants to disagree.

But it can also be the other way around. I just came back from a 1 hr flight in a busy weekend GA airspace. During the course of this flight, I made half a dozen of arrangements with other airspace users going to the same aerodrome that I intended flying over, or flying in opposite direction, to achieve or maintain 500 FT vertical separation, or similar. All based on blind radio calls, and thereafter both parties' mental determination that this might constitute "conflicting traffic".

To my total shame I must admit that despite my best endeavours I did not visually acquire a single of those other aircraft that I 'negotiated' with. We could as well all have been in a cloud, with the same satisfactory outcome. (Before somebody asks, I hold a recent Class 1 medical, and my - corrected - eye sight is well above 100%). :sad:

So how good would have been my chances to visually acquire traffic that I wasn't even aware of and expecting?

Hot and Hi - that is exactly the reality tablet that some of those who are convinced it is all about a 'fighter-pilot' level of lookout need to take.

Small, slow moving aircraft are just very difficult to see - big stuff or fast pointy stuff is much easier to notice.

ANYTHING that helps you detect a conflicting or potentially conflicting aircraft is a good thing - even with the false alarms such systems can give.

Those that think the Mk1 eyeball is enough have probably missed hundreds of potential conflicts in the past but just don't know it.

A colleague was saved by TAS just last week when a light FW nearly went straight through their 2-ship RW formation - it came from behind so the best lookout in the world wouldn't have saved them. TAS allowed them to detect and avoid.

All entirely valid (and no shame at all IMHO). I have also been amazed how hard it can be to acquire visually an aircraft which I know is there based on TAS or R/T. But this is not quite the same situation as the accident under discussion, where (we are told) the aircraft were aware of each other yet the aeroplane still managed to plough into the helicopter. On the occasions when I am struggling to see another aircraft which I know is close, I make sure I am pointing at a piece of sky which is definitely empty. So far, this has always worked...

Who has advocated that?

The Mk I eyeball is the basic method of detecting and avoiding traffic in VMC/VFR conditions beginning with the dawn of aviation and remains so today.

Everything else like TCAS and other aids....assist that Mk I eyeball.



As Hot and Hi notes....those secondary methods may prevent the MK I method being successful but none the less he was looking outside trying to see the traffic.

If none of the additional methods, equipment, or services exist....what do you do to achieve traffic separation in the end.....look outside of course or gamble blindly relying upon the small aircraft big sky method?

Jumpseating in a B747 over Russia, the three of us are looking out the window for a stray airliner about to encroach our path while the radio is going bananas. Capt spots plane and points it out, doesn't complete his sentence when he says the TCAS will go off. Although positive visual separation is maintained and the RA followed, I thought it a bit slow for the B747 to actually begin to react to the command.

Another place and time was heading downtown for some orbits of the CBD and was told by the tower to do left hand orbits. On my left about a mile away was a big yellow blimp doing the same thing at same altitude. Thought I had the speed (bad assumption in a H300) and some time to peruse the scenery only to look left again and notice that big fat blimp had quickly snuck right up to me and was really moving (tailwind). Flicked the little H300 hard left and went behind that big yellow bag of gas.

And yet another place and time, had a FW training hack catch on fire just after takeoff. Turning around in a smoked filled cabin, flying "blind-ish" and powerless straight through the RW training area to line up on a non-duty RWY, it then very nearly turned into a collision with a landing FW because ATC had been distracted by the event happening too quickly.

It is sadly typical of pprune these days, that we can even manage to make a subject on which we all broadly agree (that it can be busy out there, and we ought to use all the facilities available to us, Mk1 eyeball, crew co-operation, TCAS/TCAD, ATC, blind calls, etc. To avoid 'physical interaction' with another aircraft). And turn it into an 'I'm more right than you are' discussion. Surely if we are going to learn from incidents like the one in the OP, it's about encouraging good practice generally and not about personal point scoring?

great idea unless the traffic (as with my colleague and the UK crash) is coming at you from above and behind (can't think of any helicopters with visibility that way) so unless you select A-10 mode and never have the wings level, your only hope is electronic assistance.

the FW involved in this accident was a PA-28 Cherokee.
I have few hours in one of those and I always hated it for limited forward down view, see in the video I linked.
Knowing one of the pilots on the EC-135 and flew with him few times in formation involving 2 or 3 helicopters I know he had very good situational awareness and was very precautious pilot. :( RIP Chris

I think part of the problem of more frequent near misses or mid-air collisions lately is due to lack in radio/communication professionalism or discipline.
At least in my part of the world, and we have had more of these reports coming in and I've had more of incidents or almost incident in the last 2-3 years than in the 15 years before.
Is it because we have children that where trained by children that are teaching children to fly today? .... little or no experience is begin passed on.
At least today I try to avoid small fixed wing traffic in the air more than ever before.

Crab,

You over look that "rule" applies to the over taking aircraft as well as the one being overtaken.

For sure unless we have eyes in the back of our heads and the ability to see around the airframe....checking Six is a bit hard.

Nice bright Strobe Lights and brightly colored airframes with hi-vis painted rotor blades are about the best we can do along with TCAS and other aids.

I'm not overlooking any rules - if the overtaking aircraft can't see the one ahead (often because it is slightly below) then all the strobes and coloured blades in the world won't help.

In modern aviation, transponders and TAS/TCAS should be mandatory, even in class G - as we are seeing more MAC, lookout (good as it is) is often not enough.

Perhaps that Lookout needs to be improved....so the question might be why is that?

Pilot technique, complexity of the cockpits, cockpit workload, flaws in training?

With the number of MAC's in the past month or so....something is wrong!

probably all of those areas plus many more, not least of which is more congested airspace.

GA, whether flying for pleasure or learning/instruction, is forced into fewer areas with other (perhaps incompatible) airspace users (gliders and microlights vs Cessnas and Robbies for example) for a variety of reasons, one of which will be that the relatively low costs of GA have encouraged many more people into the air.

As I have alluded to before, the most dangerous time is a good weather day either just before or just after Winter when the whole world launches airborne.

Maybe we now have to treat other aviators as I was advised many years ago to treat other drivers on the road - assume they are all idiots out to kill you and plan accordingly!

Anyone who has been flying for a while will have noticed that the younger generation of glass cockpit helicopter pilots spend far more time with their eyes inside than outside. Programming the FMS, selecting various displays and auto-pilot functions are but a few distractions. They rarely have to fly manually these days so seem to have to find things to do. Now we have introduced the iPad into the mixture.

Add to that more traffic and - TCAS or not - I fear that mid-air collisions will become far more common.

Maybe they should learn from the older generation, fairly recently converted to glass cockpit - use the upper modes and FMS and let the aircraft fly itself while you look out of the window to avoid bumping into things:ok:

So long as each of us include ourselves in the "Idiot" Category e then I fully agree!:ok:

Only the ones, mostly elderly pilots, which donˋt like new Technology, need more time cause they are not used to and not willing to learn properly.

If you do your homework, i.e. installing and using the training Apps and videos provided and get Producern, you actually save time, cause you donˋt have to look up i.e. frequencies, approaches and so on.
You donˋt have to listen to morsecode anymore to identify VORs i.e., cause the Information is on the screen.
You donˋt have to look inside for aircraft limits, cause you get a warning approaching any or have all the information right in front of you and not splattered around an ancient cockpit.
Lotˋs of gadgets to make life easy, so you can look out and enjoy the flight.
Holding entry, done in seconds, no need to think about which entry to use, no need for calculating time and heading corrections, all done by the computer....
But you have to know your system, where which menue is to be found....

But I also see your point, cause I fly in a MultiCrewCockpit and had the experience, when ATC ordered an hold over a reporting point (Field IMC with a couple airliners approaching, while we were VMC)
I could have flown that by hand but asked my Co to set a holding.
After minutes it still wasnˋt programmed, so I let him look out and had set it up in 5 seconds by myself....
I really like my Garmin ;-)
If you have an iPad, look for Garmin GTN Trainer von Garmin DCI
And Flying the Garmin GTN650/750 von Flight Training Apps, Inc.
and you might understand why

Flying Bull - you may have seen a video called 'Children of the Magenta' - it describes one of the problems with reliance on automation, specifically the type of scenario you mention.

This is where the pre-planned FMS route is suddenly changed (by ATC instruction for example) - instead of adjusting the flightpath simply by hand, the crew go heads in and start punching buttons - often with some delay to the required route change, and often degrading lookout significantly.

Some of us oldies converted to glass cockpit quite easily and find the automation easy to manage, knowing you can always 'fly-through' if the computer doesn't do what you wanted it to do (or does the wrong thing you asked it to do in error:))



Sas - I always assume I will make mistakes and make allowances for it!

Oh yes, was also shown on the typerating course.
Some truth in it, but actually by now, the Autopilot has an emergency function, a button pressed twice will stabilise the helicopter with upper modis heading, ALT and speed, so if you get really disorientated, it will save your butt - unless you fly into something.
But, I think you have to admit, the work changed and we have to adopt.
From flyingskills to System Manager. We still need flyingskills, but most of the time now we have to organize and manage systems. And if you do it by time you now have plenty of time to enjoy the view!
With altering directions from ATC, hey, they are there to help you, nothing easier than saying: unable to comply, give me an inital heading and so on.
Many pilots take everything from ATC as an order - but you can always inform them about your situation, request a different solution!!!!

Not sure that always works in busy controlled airspace or following IFR routes/procedures. All very well if you have a problem/technical issue but not if you are slaved to the VMS instead of adjusting course manually and then catching up with the nav kit:ok:

You‘re right so far, that normaly you should comply - beeing well ahead of the bird.
But getting caught out, it won‘t necessarily reduce your workload start flying by hand, just keep the option to ask for time/directions in mind, before getting even further behind...
As well, with the AP doing the work, you have also the option to reduce speed i.e. from120 to 60 - which will double the availabe time ;-)

Not if the threat is coming from behind you!

And all this talk of using the automatics to manoeuvre concerns me - as we have already seen recently, there are times when a positive manual manoeuvre can save the day when a gentle input by the kit doesn't.

Well, we started off with lookout - and there automatics can give you much more time for just that.
Straight and level i.e. with altitude restrictions, you just press ALT and don´t have to check as often, as while flying hands on, especially in bumpy conditions...
Same with speed, automatics give you the all the speed the bird is capable off without exceeding limits - and you just monitor with a glance and then look out again.
There you might see a conflicting target much earlier, so that a tweak of the heading bug might be sufficant - nobody says, you should avoid close calls by using the AP....
But play around in advance to know wether you have to disconnect - or an override will just work as well, bringing the bird back onto heading when releasing the stick....
It´s all down to knowing your bird in and out so you can decide between the options available.