Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 29
#1654382
Gwynge wrote:People seem to get very excited about collision avoidance... but how often does it actually happen? Almost never? Anyone got the stats of mid-airs?


Yup - easily searched on the net.

6th or 7th cause of fatalities in GA.

Hence my suggestion that folks who have only a small budget to fly per annum are much better off spending it on flying and or additional training as LOC is a much larger cause of fatalities.
By Gwynge
#1654388
Four in the last 20 years it seems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mid-air_collisions_and_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom#2010s

I guess by the time you get to the 6th or 7th cause you're into the not-very-likely territory, the 8th cause being finding a black and white cat stuck under the pedals.

People seem to get very excited by the possibility but there's still more chance of being run over by a man in his 40s driving a red landrover on the way to the airfield :o)
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1654402
Gwynge wrote:Four in the last 20 years it seems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mid-air_collisions_and_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom#2010s

I guess by the time you get to the 6th or 7th cause you're into the not-very-likely territory, the 8th cause being finding a black and white cat stuck under the pedals.

People seem to get very excited by the possibility but there's still more chance of being run over by a man in his 40s driving a red landrover on the way to the airfield :o)


Unfortunately that list is not complete nor comprehensive. I suspect there are more GA collisions than listed.

From BGA statistics there have been 9 glider:glider mid-air collisions in the 13 years since FLARM was introduced in the UK, only one of which occurred between gliders that were both carrying FLARM (the company did a thorough investigation but couldn't reach a definitive conclusion).

There were no glider-glider collisions in 2015, 2016, 2017 - the first clear run of more than two years in BGA records, though this could be a statistical fluke. There were 5 collisions between gliders and tugs or tow-ropes in the last 13 years (all where Flarm was not installed in both aircraft).

In addition I am aware of two (fatal) glider:powered aircraft collisions in the last few years, only one of which is listed on the wikipedia list.

Note that of the 19 collisions since 1998, 7 fatalities resulted. The rest either resulted in a successful bail-out or landed with damage.

Statistically MAC is relatively rare, thankfully. From 10 years with Flarm I can't say it has saved me from a collision, but I can say that every 20-30hrs or so of flying it prevents a "s****! that was close" moment.

Of course the nature of gliding is that we get a lot closer to each other. I want to stay much clearer of non-glider traffic and I would feel much more comfortable if I could avoid a few "that's a bit too close" moments with things with engines as well.

The BGA publishes detailed annual accident analysis (see below for an example), which has some historical trends:
https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/Accident-review-2017-v2.pdf
gaznav liked this
By Gwynge
#1654407
Gliders are the aircraft I have had most surprises with as they aren't visible and then suddenly they are! I'm now much more wary of gliding sites. So I agree that it's more of an issue for gliders given that they can be drawn towards the same juicy air.

I think for the powered GA craft engine failure is a greater cause of fatality and my understanding is that a proportion (not sure if I could validly say a lot or most) of GA pilots rarely practice forced landings and if they do then they don't go below 500', This is a free safety improvement and I'm not sure why they aren't practised more yet willing to invest money in a device that protects against a lower risk!
#1654410
I work on my handling/LOC on every flight, so I believe that I am taking steps to mitigate against LOC.
I use my bienniel to do PFL training because if I've screwed up everything else, then at least I'm trained to put it down well enough not to kill myself.
I probably have a '**** where did he come from!?' moment about every 18 months, and I use a PAW and fly with my transponder on to reduce the chances of that happening. I've come close to mid air collision probably five times in the last 12 years, any of which could have killed me, but I've never even momentarily lost control of the aeroplane or had an engine failure. My experience tells me that I can mitigate against LOC and engine failure with training and practise, but see and avoid requires augmentation with EC, and that's money worth spending once you're happy you've covered risk 1 & 2.
neilmurg, Straight Level, Dusty_B and 7 others liked this
User avatar
By UpThere
#1654457
Gwynge wrote:I think for the powered GA craft engine failure is a greater cause of fatality

Well, having suffered an EFATO and a very near miss in the past couple of years, I know which frightened me the most! EC is not a solution in search of a problem, and while the fine details get sorted out, please switch your transponder on in mode C, if you have one, so my TAS picks you up.
gaznav, Flyin'Dutch', Maxthelion and 4 others liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1654470
When the UK Civil Aviation Authority reviewed its priorities for safety action for all aircraft, it came up with a list it calls "The Significant Seven". These are, in order:

1. Loss of control
2. Runway excursion
3. Controlled flight into terrain
4. Runway incursion
5. Airborne conflict
6. Ground-handling accidents
7. Fire (risk awareness and countermeasures)

In the top-5 there are only 3 technical solutions that can really make a difference:

1. Loss of control (cheap(ish) Angle of Attack warning system are just coming to market)
3. Controlled flight into terrain (moving map GPS with vertical displays like Sky Demon are a great mitigation)
5. Airborne conflict (a common Electronic Conspicuity device - less than £500)

So I would offer that the discussion of collision avoidance matters is proportionate to the risk and the availability of the technology to counter it.
By Gwynge
#1654496
I think you incorrectly assume a significance to the order. There is the first five "in no particular order" as they might say when revealing votes on I'm a Celebrity. Also if you read a related document https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2011_03.pdf, which is a report on the seven, page 80 you'll see that it's not really to do with GA safety.. It's all about protecting commercial traffic >5,700Kg.

I think mechanical failure probably comes under "loss of control" too?

My point was that I think more can be done, for free, to mitigate "loss of control" but people don't do that (probably because it takes effort), whereas paying a few hundred quid to buy some technology to mitigate a really low risk event gets people all excited!
By PaulB
#1654513
Gwynge wrote:My point was that I think more can be done, for free, to mitigate "loss of control" but people don't do that (probably because it takes effort), whereas paying a few hundred quid to buy some technology to mitigate a really low risk event gets people all excited!


I think that that is a very very good point and maybe there should be a separate thread about loss of control and how to mitigate it.... especially if there are things that can be done for free.
User avatar
By kanga
#1654559
Gwynge wrote:People seem to get very excited about collision avoidance... but how often does it actually happen? Almost never? Anyone got the stats of mid-airs?


Possibly equally significant are the reports by the Airprox Board (if that's still the right title) of incidents giving rise to a '... risk of collision', where .. can be 'low' to 'very high' IIRC. A common cause cited is 'late sighting'. Add to those reported incidents those (unknown number) where there was no report filed, and there may have been a lot more risk. I personally had a 'late sighting' incident with a glider when I was returning from the Rally and on a day when a gliding competition was NOTAMd, so thought both I and my passenger were very alert; but neither aircraft had to deviate from its straight course, so I decided not to file; perhaps I should have.

Therefore, any cheap and cheaply-installed gizmos which may mitigate 'late sighting' (taking 'cheap' with its usual aeronautical relativity of course :roll: ), particularly with/of gliders, may be an important mitigator of real risk.

So well done, SD :thumright:
johnm, Maxthelion liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 29