The realistic, medium term solution is mandatory ADS-B for all, which will provide accurate, low-cost, low-power and potentially universal traffic information.
I agree, but we have done this before many times – e.g. here – and I don’t really see the “privacy” concerns going away anytime soon. I am quite certain that the people who fly around non-Mode-C will be the same people who will be flying around non-ADS-B, and any proposal to radiate even VFR OCAS will meet with massive resistance (or INOP stickers). There are multiple reasons why people want to be invisible and it isn’t just “privacy”; large sections of the GA community simply don’t want to be seen airborne in any manner which identifies their registration.
I didn’t want to start another thread on this same topic (electronic conspicuity). Rather, I wondered whether there is something else that can be done, in PPL training or maybe (very limited options for this) afterwards.
I absolutely do NOT buy the position that somebody who wants to fly an IAP should rely on a lookout – because a lookout does not work most of the time. All GA traffic needs to coexist reasonably because they all benefit from the freedoms of “OCAS” which includes a lack of route charges for radar ATC funding. How about gliders flying through the Shoreham approach path? They are usually non-radio too. Sometimes they are Mode C.
Midairs run at about 1-2 per year in the UK.
Peter wrote:
Midairs run at about 1-2 per year in the UK.
Between fixed wing and fixed wing (not counting drone / glider / kite / bird, as these are out of scope here)? I might be looking wrongly, but they don’t seem to have entries on the AAIB website. I think we discussed that on a couple occasions before as you keep stating that number, but I’ve never seen any accompanying data to support it.
It is the average I have read about, over say the past 10 years. Just out of quick memory:
Anyone can recall others?
The LAA (Peter Brady, I think) did a review of UK mid-air collisions, a few years back. 62 powered aircraft on powered aircraft in 37 years.
An Analysis of Mid-Air Collisions Involving UK registered Civil Aircraft
From a search for mid-air on the AAIB website, for last 10 years, including General – fixed wing:
(no injuries) 2016 Elstree, 2 Piper warriors: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-piper-pa-28-151-cherokee-warrior-g-cczv-and-piper-pa-28-161-cherokee-warrior-iii-g-bzbs
2011 Leicester, Taylorcraft BC12D Twosome, G-BVXS and Pitts S-2C Pitts Special, G-IICI, https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/taylorcraft-bc12d-twosome-g-bvxs-and-pitts-s-2c-pitts-special-g-iici-18-december-2011
2008, Coventry, Cessna 402C, G-EYES and Rand KR-2, G-BOLZ https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/8-2010-g-eyes-and-g-bolz-17-august-2008
2009, the 2 RAF Grobs: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/6-2010-g-byut-and-g-byvn-11-february-2009
2010, Mooney M20J G-JAST and Vans RV-4, G-MARX, Isle of wight: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/mooney-m20j-g-jast-and-vans-rv-4-g-marx-4-september-2010
Including Gliders:
2016 Glider vs C150, Leicester: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-szd-51-1-junior-glider-g-cljk-and-cessna-150l-g-csfc
2008 Gliver vs Grob, Oxforshire: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/5-2010-g-byxr-and-g-ckht-14-june-2009
There is only 1 entry in the entire AAIB for a DA40, which is not a collision
An answer to this that works well elsewhere is “Flight Following”.
(I heard a pilot call up asking for the very thing just last Friday. The controller hesitated before confirming a basic service. Not traffic) I thought: “welcome to the Micky Mouse UK, O’l boy”.
And to answer Peter’s point, yes specific education on the IFR environment at typical VFR levels in the PPL would be a good thing. Might even encourage some people to switch their transponder on.
Noe wrote:
Yes, and use of well designated VFR corridors, where we tell birds and clouds not to go ;)
Well… not exactly :) In Croatia we have controlled airspace and it works ok. I know that it’s not so much traffic here comparing to some other countries but during the summer it can be really busy. CAT and IFR in general are slightly favored in approach but in principle the treatment of VFR is pretty fair. There are some recommended VFR routes but you can practically fly wherever you want. ATC provides full service to all flights (IFR/VFR) including traffic and weather information.
Peter wrote:
Fuji – I got the impression Lydd probably did warn the said plane about somebody flying the procedure, but they still descended from 3500 to 3200ft (or maybe their altimeter was way off, on a FL or something).
Did they suggest avoidance action? Simply stating that someone is flying an IAP does not mean much to a pilot who is not familiar with the said procedure.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Noe an iap may be used as a let down. So you are in imc at the platform with vmc below. Clearly as you break out you dont want another aircraft to be flying through the approach in vmc.
We have minimum distances from clouds for VFR flight exactly to cover this situation, don’t we?
I think everyone should avoid and know to avoid flying through an approach, and outside class d atc should do their best to inform when they have traffic on the iap.
An instrument approach covers a huge area. It’s simply unrealistic to avoid all of them all the time.
Peter wrote:
I absolutely do NOT buy the position that somebody who wants to fly an IAP should rely on a lookout – because a lookout does not work most of the time.
Just as it does not work in all other scenarios when you are in VMC. But short of declaring a TMZ, RMZ or controlled airspace (I wholeheartedly support the first two, but not the last one), there is nothing you can do about this. The fact the you are IFR and flying an instrument approach does not give you any special privileges in VMC OCAS to rely on any better methods.
an instrument approach does not give you any special privileges in VMC OCAS to rely on any better methods.
Yet, it must do, to some extent, because if you rank IFR inbounds same as VFR inbounds, IFR will collapse. One clearly cannot maintain the same ( (C) WW1 Royal Air Force) Mk 1 Eyeball when following an IAP as when flying visually. Also lots of flights fly IFR only, for various reasons. For this reason IFR inbounds are prioritised at most airports, even though ATC cannot be open about this because there would be an uproar.
At my base we have a continuous mix of IFR and VFR arrivals, one every minute or two assuming VMC, and it’s never occurred to me that there’s any issue. That’s with ATC to coordinate close in, and when making a VFR base entry or whatever I occasionally have to make a 360 to leave the approach open for a jet. Further out the jet needs to be looking out the window, obviously in good weather nobody is going to avoid the miles long corridor through which they descend straight in through Class E airspace from 18,000 ft.
At non-ATC airports it’s a bit trickier because on a marginal VFR day you might have people doing circuit work simultaneous with a plane emerging from the clouds IFR. That takes good radio work on the part of both pilots and if by chance you’re flying a non-radio plane I think you need to use some common sense and maybe don’t fly if weather is really poor and IFR arrivals are common at the airport.
When I was learning to fly the ‘instrument approach’ aspect wasn’t discussed in great detail other than expansion of Class E airspace near an uncontrolled airport. What was discussed is that many local airports have long straight in approaches because of constrained airspace and less maneuverable large planes. Even on a CAVU day, and regardless of whether they’re operating IFR or VFR, there are places where there are long strings of them and my instructor would say “flying in that area is like playing on the freeway”.
