AAIB and Mode S

[Nick Allen]

The AAIB report just published into the collision in 2007 between a Luscombe and a PAC (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Lu ... 002-09.pdf)
concludes with a paragraph on the lines that technology is the answer and (paraphrasing slightly) "there was widespread opposition from the recreational flying community to mandatory Mode S outside controlled airspace..." This is, it seems to me, a very one-sided view of the matter, and indeed inconsistent -- the AAIB's report itself points out that the incident did not appear on any en route radar; the best it could come up with was a post-event poor-quality "commercial feed" to Birmingham ATC. I feel that this comment makes the "recreational flying community" appear cavalier about safety, and would ask the LAA to draft a suitable response.

[J.C.]

I agree with your comments.
As a slight tangent,can anyone tell me catagorically the answer to this question, " even when flying in a mandatory transponder zone is it mandatory to have the radio switched on? ".

[Rod1]

“As a slight tangent,can anyone tell me catagorically the answer to this question, " even when flying in a mandatory transponder zone is it mandatory to have the radio switched on? ".”

It is not even mandatory to have a radio in a TMZ!

Rod1

[Nigel Hitchman]

I agree with what Nick is saying, this report seems to be making incorrect assumptions and peddling someones agenda, instead of reporting the facts. Compulsory Mode S would do nothing to prevent this accident, only compulsory mode C and compulsory TCAS would have any effect.

The AAIB used to have an excellent reputation for their superb investigation skills and factual reporting. It seems that lately they are trying to push personal or perhaps "corporate" agendas too. Their reputation was severly dented by the poor investigation of the G-STYX accident and strong "opinions" contained within it. Hopefully this isnt a trend. I havent read the whole report, but it does seem to be trying to push an agenda, although doesnt actually make any recommendation. I wonder if it was written by the same person?

[Steve Brown]

Mmmm - the AAIB report mentions that over the last 10 years there are on average 3 mid air collisions a year in UK - usually involving fatalities.
In my view that IS A LOT

Perhaps more should be done by the CAA to look for whether this is better or worse than say 20 - 30 years ago, what the reasons for the negative changes are - more traffic ?, worse training / professionalism? , GA aircraft squeezed into smaller airspace & at specific turning points? , etc etc, and conversly what mitigating factors (GPS, better training?) have reduced this to a lower than would be otherwise level.

Is it better or worse than Europe's stats?

And come up with something that can reduce this risk - without knee jerk reactions .

A few initial ideas - maybe scrap the overly complex UK quadrantal rule that from my experience many don't abide by and use the simpler ICAO semi circular rule, at lowest possible levels too and publicise it much more and enforce it much more - maybe get the ATC & LARS guys querying / reporting incorrect cruising levels - ie a bit like the CAA effort that goes into Controlled Airspace violations and maybe introduce more Class E airspace where using semi circular levels is compulsory.

Encourage Mode A , C and S transponders & cheap fitting of collision avoidance kit too.

I can reduce my flying risks by good maintenance, flying only in weather I have been trained for and carry sufficient fuel but mid airs are a matter of luck - only avoided somewhat by good lookout by all pilots .

Ironic isnt it that the CAA fixation ref GPS not as a primary GA navigation aid is a factor here. The big aircraft pilot who survived was not looking out, and was head down looking at his 'CAA actively encouraged navigation facility' map - not his GPS.!!!!!

Imagine the bad publicity if a GA pilot had caused this by head down twiddling of his GPS!!!!

I know that since I fitted a GPS slaved route managing autopilot I am able to spend much much more time looking out the window.

From the sound of it, this sounds a GOOD THING.

Regards
Steve

[Nick Allen]

Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favour of technological solutions that work. What I object to is the complete non-sequitur between the first two sentences of the last paragraph of this report. It would be good to get an official response/line from the LAA (the Luscombe involved was on a Permit after all), before a journalist picks up on this and turns it into a "Homebuilt aviation rejects life-saving technology" story.

By the way Steve, the report doesn't say collisions "usually involve fatalities"; it says "roughly half of the collisions [1995-2004] involve at least one fatality" (to be precise, 46% if I read it right). I'm not trying to minimise the danger, but if you, with a genuine interest, can misintepret the figures, imagine what a hack will do?

[Rob Swain]

The comments regarding TCAS assume it always works and works properly.

I've been told more than once (in different aircraft) by "TCAS equipped" light aircraft that my transponder isn't working (once when I was on very short final - really helpful!). I've never been told by any ATC that my transponder isn't working - quite the opposite in fact: they generally love the fact I have it and use it!
I may sound like a luddite, but I have serious reservations about the reliability of "cheap" TCAS.

In the Luscombe accident, given that it appears it was already avoiding one aircraft, if all had xpdrs and TCAS then surely the TCAS beeping away might have just confused the situation even more.

[Pete]

I live very close to the old Hatfield Aerodrome, its situated at a pinch point where traffic heading from Cambridge and East Anglia turns through the gap between the London TMA and the Luton mushroom.

On any sunny day, Hiam from Panshanger is out annoying the neighbours doing aeros over the old airfield.

On Saturdays and Sundays we get many, many aircraft route direct over the NDB on the old airfield, it's difficult to be accurate about the height, but most look like 1500-2000 ft.

The obvious conclusion is that we have a lot of pilots looking for some excitement in their lives.

It seems to me that folks flying with navaids, traditional or GPS are drawn to NDBs like moths to the light, they are possibly more likely to have a mid air than folks flying on map and compass

[JohnMead]

On Saturdays and Sundays we get many, many aircraft route direct over the NDB on the old airfield, it's difficult to be accurate about the height, but most look like 1500-2000 ft.

The obvious conclusion is that we have a lot of pilots looking for some excitement in their lives.

It seems to me that folks flying with navaids, traditional or GPS are drawn to NDBs like moths to the light, they are possibly more likely to have a mid air than folks flying on map and compass

Could it be that they are using the disused airfield as a VISUAL waypoint ??