Airprox
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airprox
What is the view of you guys on the paramotor and the A319 near Southend airport.
Interested in pilots views on this. The report suggests they were both entitled to be there, but perhaps the A319 should have kept a better look out.
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013082.pdf
Badly reported on here
Near miss! A motorised paraglider misses an EasyJet passenger plane by only 150ft | Mail Online
Being talked bout on here...
http://www.facebook.com/groups/paramotor/
Interested in pilots views on this. The report suggests they were both entitled to be there, but perhaps the A319 should have kept a better look out.
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013082.pdf
Badly reported on here
Near miss! A motorised paraglider misses an EasyJet passenger plane by only 150ft | Mail Online
Being talked bout on here...
http://www.facebook.com/groups/paramotor/
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 71
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
Isn't the caption 'Intense Microlight Activity' on the 1:500,000 chart 2 miles off the flight path sufficient to suggest that this wasn't a sensible place for an A319 to be at 2000', even in perfect VMC?
Immediately prior to the airprox, the A319 passed very close to Rochester's ATZ, below the 3500' base of the London TMA in an area often busy with GA aircraft Indeed, the airprox report shows that the Airbus was advised of two GA aircraft passing close to it.
Sadly, the passengers of the Airbus are unlikely to be aware of the increased risks they are taking using Southend so that their operator can pay reduced costs compared with using the nearby Stansted which has plenty of spare capacity - and controlled airspace.
Immediately prior to the airprox, the A319 passed very close to Rochester's ATZ, below the 3500' base of the London TMA in an area often busy with GA aircraft Indeed, the airprox report shows that the Airbus was advised of two GA aircraft passing close to it.
Sadly, the passengers of the Airbus are unlikely to be aware of the increased risks they are taking using Southend so that their operator can pay reduced costs compared with using the nearby Stansted which has plenty of spare capacity - and controlled airspace.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the eyes in the world looking out the cockpit window, a microlight or any other small GA aircraft is a difficult target to spot......doubly so if no transponder.
Agreed, class G airspace around London is no place for an airliner.....but like it or not it happens daily.
Agreed, class G airspace around London is no place for an airliner.....but like it or not it happens daily.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Andover
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have hesitated posting to this thread as I am not a professional pilot. The originator of the thread cross posted in our paramotor forum and, I think, was expecting a bigger response from professional pilots to this airprox report and the discussion we paramotorists have had. I was certainly expecting a bigger reaction to the recommendation the uKAB made following the report. On the basis that their remit is to establish cause and recommend measures to reduce or eliminate likelihood of recurrence that they seem to believe the re-taianing paramotorists will make a difference is extraordinary and worrying for me both as a paramotrist and as a jet passenger (and perhaps I should add a trainer of paramotrists). I would have expected the recommendation to reduce or prevent such use of class G by passenger jets until restricted airspace is established into these airports.
I know nothing about these matters beyond the usual rudimentary understanding of a GA sports pilot but it seems to me to allow Southend ATC to route a "base leg" straight through the middle of one of the only areas remaining, east of London for paramotrists to fly in, is asking for a repeat in the very near future however well trained the paramotorists become?
The UKAB report contains a number of assumptions and assertions about paramotors and their operators that are not supported by any investigation or evidence and no expert witnesses were called to give testimony. I am told "very influential people " read this forum and respectfully suggest they take an interest in the report and ask WTF is going on at UKAB?
I know nothing about these matters beyond the usual rudimentary understanding of a GA sports pilot but it seems to me to allow Southend ATC to route a "base leg" straight through the middle of one of the only areas remaining, east of London for paramotrists to fly in, is asking for a repeat in the very near future however well trained the paramotorists become?
The UKAB report contains a number of assumptions and assertions about paramotors and their operators that are not supported by any investigation or evidence and no expert witnesses were called to give testimony. I am told "very influential people " read this forum and respectfully suggest they take an interest in the report and ask WTF is going on at UKAB?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We live in a free country.
On the face of it, I think this was a pretty good report. But I'm not sure I agree with the final recommendation. The "Hazard" or top event is a collision. The solution to mitigate against this hazard must be effective and reasonable and we must remember we live in a free country. Both parties had the right to be where they were. Both would have their days ruined by contact.
So let's dismiss the recommendation. As Richard suggests, training people who don't need a licence who are free (as good as damn it) to operate from where ever they wish will achieve very little, if anything at all. But I disagree that large air transport aircraft should be prevented from flying in Class G airspace. Not only is that impractical (many airports can only be accessed from Class G airspace), we might end up no Class G airspace with "knee jerk" legislation. They'll be a civil servant muppet or worse, the Daily Mail, waving the "Safety Cosh". It would suit me, but we'd all lose another freedom.
Expanding Southend's CTA might not work either. These flying duvet covers will splutter all around the edges and most probably burgle the new zone. Not intentionally, but through ignorance (no insult intended) and the practical difficulties of map reading out in the open. It is also quite reasonable to assume that the density of microlights would be in greater just outside the CTA boundaries because their normal operating space will have been reduced.
Which leads us on to maybe a better solution. The "Gold Standard" might be the requirement for microlight to carry a Transponder and High Intensity strobe/s. The "Silver Standard" being one of either. And this would be a requirement if operating within X miles of CTA and/or above a certain height. A strobe would make the job of spotting microlights a lot easier and a transponder would give both Controllers and TCAS a fighting chance. This would still allow free access to Class G without permission and still enable "low-tech/low-budget" operations, all be it with some limitations.
PM
So let's dismiss the recommendation. As Richard suggests, training people who don't need a licence who are free (as good as damn it) to operate from where ever they wish will achieve very little, if anything at all. But I disagree that large air transport aircraft should be prevented from flying in Class G airspace. Not only is that impractical (many airports can only be accessed from Class G airspace), we might end up no Class G airspace with "knee jerk" legislation. They'll be a civil servant muppet or worse, the Daily Mail, waving the "Safety Cosh". It would suit me, but we'd all lose another freedom.
Expanding Southend's CTA might not work either. These flying duvet covers will splutter all around the edges and most probably burgle the new zone. Not intentionally, but through ignorance (no insult intended) and the practical difficulties of map reading out in the open. It is also quite reasonable to assume that the density of microlights would be in greater just outside the CTA boundaries because their normal operating space will have been reduced.
Which leads us on to maybe a better solution. The "Gold Standard" might be the requirement for microlight to carry a Transponder and High Intensity strobe/s. The "Silver Standard" being one of either. And this would be a requirement if operating within X miles of CTA and/or above a certain height. A strobe would make the job of spotting microlights a lot easier and a transponder would give both Controllers and TCAS a fighting chance. This would still allow free access to Class G without permission and still enable "low-tech/low-budget" operations, all be it with some limitations.
PM
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Andover
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paramotor pilots are not necessarily muppets?
Piltdown Man said "These flying duvet covers will splutter all around the edges and most probably burgle the new zone. Not intentionally, but through ignorance (no insult intended) and the practical difficulties of map reading out in the open."
I can appreciate the humour intended describing the craft but I do want to resist the notion that the pilots are ignorant of air law and find it difficult to map read. Of course there are a few in that category (it is our community's challenge to educate them) but the vast majority are responsible, intelligent people who are highly skilled at navigation and well versed in air law. Many are RTO and fly with at least a radio wtch and, where appropriate, a basic service. Many fly with local ATC cooperation through telephone call before and after transit or flying nearby. I have trained several commercial airline pilots in this form of aviation and many ex military pilots.
My objection to the report is that it paints paramotor pilots in a very bad light and promotes the view that we are, by and large, a bunch off muppets. This is simply wrong! It also alienates the very people who can help solve the problem.
The pilot in this case was described as "unwise" to have positioned himself at that location at that altitude. Yet the airliner had descended from 3000ft several miles further south on Northerly bearing. What the report is effectively saying is that he would have been unwise to fly anywhere in that class G space from 20 miles away from Southend because that is where the Southend ATC had decided their base leg would be.
I cannot see how it is necessary to have such a long base leg to Southend. Is it so impractical to fly west along the estuary and turn a short base north before final? An imposition of class D 11 miles south from the centre line would not impact sports flying in this area since most of that is over water where a paramotrist who values his life would never fly.
If an A319 is so unmaneuverable that it needs so much space to get into an airport it is unlikely to be able to make the necessary avoidance maneuver if it did see the conflict. My understanding is that they can turn on a sixpence?
On that subject what avoidance maneuver is recommended or simulated on encountering a paramotor? And, if indeed it has been briefed, what consideration is made for the likely effect on the paramotor wing? i.e. you might save the airliner at the cost of the paramotrist' life depending on what you choose to do. Would one recommendation from UKAB that this is researched be appropriate? Would making paramotors more passively radar visible help? e.g. aluminised fabric (space blanket) inserted within the wing void?
So many missed avenues to explore in this report.
I can appreciate the humour intended describing the craft but I do want to resist the notion that the pilots are ignorant of air law and find it difficult to map read. Of course there are a few in that category (it is our community's challenge to educate them) but the vast majority are responsible, intelligent people who are highly skilled at navigation and well versed in air law. Many are RTO and fly with at least a radio wtch and, where appropriate, a basic service. Many fly with local ATC cooperation through telephone call before and after transit or flying nearby. I have trained several commercial airline pilots in this form of aviation and many ex military pilots.
My objection to the report is that it paints paramotor pilots in a very bad light and promotes the view that we are, by and large, a bunch off muppets. This is simply wrong! It also alienates the very people who can help solve the problem.
The pilot in this case was described as "unwise" to have positioned himself at that location at that altitude. Yet the airliner had descended from 3000ft several miles further south on Northerly bearing. What the report is effectively saying is that he would have been unwise to fly anywhere in that class G space from 20 miles away from Southend because that is where the Southend ATC had decided their base leg would be.
I cannot see how it is necessary to have such a long base leg to Southend. Is it so impractical to fly west along the estuary and turn a short base north before final? An imposition of class D 11 miles south from the centre line would not impact sports flying in this area since most of that is over water where a paramotrist who values his life would never fly.
If an A319 is so unmaneuverable that it needs so much space to get into an airport it is unlikely to be able to make the necessary avoidance maneuver if it did see the conflict. My understanding is that they can turn on a sixpence?
On that subject what avoidance maneuver is recommended or simulated on encountering a paramotor? And, if indeed it has been briefed, what consideration is made for the likely effect on the paramotor wing? i.e. you might save the airliner at the cost of the paramotrist' life depending on what you choose to do. Would one recommendation from UKAB that this is researched be appropriate? Would making paramotors more passively radar visible help? e.g. aluminised fabric (space blanket) inserted within the wing void?
So many missed avenues to explore in this report.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Andover
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the cockpit of a paramotor
Noise level: Under a 36Db ear defender the noise and vibration level at cruise is such that the pilot's own voice, if shouted at max volume, can barely be heard by the pilot. Side tone in comms is needed for meaningful "words twice" communication.
Field of vision: about 160 degrees horizontally with ease. Further turn of the head restricted by headset, rigging, frame etc but up to and slightly beyond 180 degrees.
I would like to ask (being genuinely ignorant of these things) whether the approach to Southend generally takes such a long base leg (some 20+ miles by my reckoning from the radar plot, possibly more. Whether this is the only feasible approach and who decides the route?
From a flight planning perspective a paramotor pilot might make an assumption based on the air chart, that passenger jets will be in the TMA above 3500 and will descend close to the ATZ. Clearly that is not the case here. An ATZ with centre line feathers would alert him to not fly closer than 11 miles (this pilot was closer than that). he might elect to phone ATC for a briefing and alert them to his operation (several do just that who fly north east of Southend). Some fly with a listening watch (limited by the noise levels) A few use basic service.
In this case it is entirely plausible to conjecture that the pilot was keeping a 160 dgeree lookout that included spotting the A319 several miles away at 3000ft on a bearing 350 and appearing to fly level and behind. The A 319 then changed course to 325 and descended. It remains plausible that the pilot lost sight as the A319 moved further behind the easy field of vision before the course and attitude change and was and remains oblivious of the passage of the jet close behind him. the time scales, vectors and speeds can be gleaned from the report and, with a paramotor expert witness to assist UKAB might draw up a very different set of possible scenarios.
There certainly is an issue with quality of training in this exponentially growing sport (from excellent to none at all and most accessing "barely adequate")but that is surely only one of the many issues that this incident throws up some of which are far more serious and requiring immediate attention?
Field of vision: about 160 degrees horizontally with ease. Further turn of the head restricted by headset, rigging, frame etc but up to and slightly beyond 180 degrees.
I would like to ask (being genuinely ignorant of these things) whether the approach to Southend generally takes such a long base leg (some 20+ miles by my reckoning from the radar plot, possibly more. Whether this is the only feasible approach and who decides the route?
From a flight planning perspective a paramotor pilot might make an assumption based on the air chart, that passenger jets will be in the TMA above 3500 and will descend close to the ATZ. Clearly that is not the case here. An ATZ with centre line feathers would alert him to not fly closer than 11 miles (this pilot was closer than that). he might elect to phone ATC for a briefing and alert them to his operation (several do just that who fly north east of Southend). Some fly with a listening watch (limited by the noise levels) A few use basic service.
In this case it is entirely plausible to conjecture that the pilot was keeping a 160 dgeree lookout that included spotting the A319 several miles away at 3000ft on a bearing 350 and appearing to fly level and behind. The A 319 then changed course to 325 and descended. It remains plausible that the pilot lost sight as the A319 moved further behind the easy field of vision before the course and attitude change and was and remains oblivious of the passage of the jet close behind him. the time scales, vectors and speeds can be gleaned from the report and, with a paramotor expert witness to assist UKAB might draw up a very different set of possible scenarios.
There certainly is an issue with quality of training in this exponentially growing sport (from excellent to none at all and most accessing "barely adequate")but that is surely only one of the many issues that this incident throws up some of which are far more serious and requiring immediate attention?
Doncaster had the same problem when commercial transport jets started operating out of there without CAS, or radar in the middle of class G airspace known to be heaving with light GA traffic and 3 busy GA airfields within about 10nm.
There were several Airproxes and the operators just used them as evidence to bulldoze a huge Control Zone/Area into being.
Busy Class G airspace is no place for large transport jets flying around at 2000'-3,000' in the approach/landing configuration. They have very limited view from the flightdeck, and, even if they see something, they are in no condition to be able to take avoiding action.
I often wonder, what is the point of the UK Airprox Board?
I've read hundreds of their reports, a couple of which involved the aircraft I was flying, and I have to say that I believe they have a pecking order which goes something like this: 1. Royal Air Force, 2. Foreign Airforces, 3. Comercial Air Transport, 4. GA Bizjets, 5. Puddlejumpers. Regardless of the facts, or circumstances, the closer you are to the top of that list, the more likely you are to come out of the investigation smelling of roses, and the closer to the bottom, the more inept you will be made out to be.
I better put on my tin hat now and wait in the Anderson Shelter for my unjust deserts from all the retired Air Staff Officers on the board!
MJ
There were several Airproxes and the operators just used them as evidence to bulldoze a huge Control Zone/Area into being.
Busy Class G airspace is no place for large transport jets flying around at 2000'-3,000' in the approach/landing configuration. They have very limited view from the flightdeck, and, even if they see something, they are in no condition to be able to take avoiding action.
I often wonder, what is the point of the UK Airprox Board?
I've read hundreds of their reports, a couple of which involved the aircraft I was flying, and I have to say that I believe they have a pecking order which goes something like this: 1. Royal Air Force, 2. Foreign Airforces, 3. Comercial Air Transport, 4. GA Bizjets, 5. Puddlejumpers. Regardless of the facts, or circumstances, the closer you are to the top of that list, the more likely you are to come out of the investigation smelling of roses, and the closer to the bottom, the more inept you will be made out to be.
I better put on my tin hat now and wait in the Anderson Shelter for my unjust deserts from all the retired Air Staff Officers on the board!
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 2nd Mar 2014 at 20:34. Reason: Punctuation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was hoping to get a view from the Pro's. I fly a paramotor, I have a gps loaded with restricted airspace and so would not intentionally, or hopefully, accidentally wander into controlled airspace. If I can learn one nugget of information that will assist either myself or other paramotorists to avoid getting in the way of a big ol' jet, then it's worth the thread and effort to do so.
By and large, most paramotorists are keen to play by the rules and not to place either themselves or others in unnecessary danger. We are slow moving, and very susceptible to turbulence, let alone being hooked up on the nose ot wing of a jet...
We have a noisy engine inches from our heads, we wear headsets and so, there is a chance if a large plane is behind us, we simply will not know it is there. We don't have radar or other fancy gizmos to tell us other stuff is approaching. So for me, if I can learn anything that reduces the risk of me getting in the way, then I'm all for it.
I cross posted this simply because it seems no one else had the guts to ask, which seems daft to me. If you don't ask, how do you learn....
By and large, most paramotorists are keen to play by the rules and not to place either themselves or others in unnecessary danger. We are slow moving, and very susceptible to turbulence, let alone being hooked up on the nose ot wing of a jet...
We have a noisy engine inches from our heads, we wear headsets and so, there is a chance if a large plane is behind us, we simply will not know it is there. We don't have radar or other fancy gizmos to tell us other stuff is approaching. So for me, if I can learn anything that reduces the risk of me getting in the way, then I'm all for it.
I cross posted this simply because it seems no one else had the guts to ask, which seems daft to me. If you don't ask, how do you learn....
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Mid World
Age: 58
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of a report that got filed in 2007 while I was working for a now sadly defunct LGW based airline operating a Boeing 757. The report detailed a near miss with a microlight over the Isle of Wight at about 16,500ft, about 500ft off the port side I seem to remember. We filed an AIRPROX, did follow up investigation which included speaking to the pilot but never got any conclusions.
It sticks out in my mind because on the first read of the report, I assumed it was on approach to 26L at LGW, so concluded traffic from Redhill. Many lessons learnt including never assume anything!
It sticks out in my mind because on the first read of the report, I assumed it was on approach to 26L at LGW, so concluded traffic from Redhill. Many lessons learnt including never assume anything!
