Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
#1844024
Great respect to the Turweston AGO using PilotAware/ATOM ground station for averting what could have been a far more serious situation between a CAP1391/SkyEcho2 equipped RV9, and an ADS-B/TCASII equipped Phenom
Airprox Report

The Board first looked at the actions of the AGO. In providing an AGS, they were not required to provide Traffic Information, other than to pass on known position reports from other pilots. Nevertheless, the PilotAware ATOM provided the AGO with information that the Phenom was approaching from the north, and the AGO broadcast this information to the circuit traffic. The Board commended the AGO for their actions;


Looking at the actions of the RV9 pilot, having heard the AGO give a warning about the approaching Phenom (CF6), they looked for, and became visual with it, at a range of around 500m (CF8) and took action to increase the separation by climbing.


Using the VECTOR data as an overlay to the report image captured for each system on the day in question, probably highlights the issues of visibility from the perspective of the Phenom, and the RV9
Image

Thx
Lee
bogopper, Rob L, kanga liked this
#1844042
Isn't it funny how all this radar info and investigation all leads to what could almost be described as a "Just Culture" result, but when a pilots flying life is put on the line with accusations of infringement and the "evidence" such as the radar traces could positively show an offence or not, that they are not available to the accused, as with any other potential court appearance with evidence disclosure being required..
#1844045
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:If the RV would have had SE2 no action would have been required by the AGO or importantly if there would not have been an AGO, the EC would have still worked.
Demonstrates the need to use a unified system.
Just saying.

Eh did one of us miss something ?
- The Phenom was ADS-B out and TCASII
- The RV was CAP1391/SE2

The overlays of radiated emissions for each aircraft was captured from the ATOM/VECTOR system from the day in question.
As both aircraft were being captured by the same VECTOR system, I think we can deduce that the image used in the report, shows no effective transmissions from 5 o'clock to 12 o'clock from the RV

For the absence of doubt, The PilotAware ATOM Station detects and displays:-
FLARM, OGN, FANET+, Mode-S/3D, ADS-B, PilotAware
#1844063
UKAB wrote: Recommendation: The CAA conducts a review to establish the reasons behind why many training airfields chose not to maintain their ATZ when the requirement to hold an aerodrome licence to conduct training activity was removed. Where those reasons fall within the competency of the CAA – take appropriate action to mitigate against any increase in risk associated with the removal of the protection previously afforded to them (by an ATZ).

At the time of the closest position between the two aircraft, was the RV within the radius that an ATZ (had it existed) have offered protection? If so, it does beg my following question:
Why can't unlicenced airfields have an ATZ for circuit traffic protection?

Edit: second question:
UKAB wrote:An aircraft operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation.

I am aware of SERA.3225 Operation on and in the Vicinity of an Aerodrome. MAA RA 2307 paragraph 15, but how does one define "on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome"?

Edit 2:
UKAB wrote:...Certainly, a CAA advisor was concerned that an enthusiastic, but unqualified, AGO could potentially pass inaccurate information that then distracted a pilot...

Was said CAA advisor aware that ALL Air Ground Operators are in fact qualified (by experience [including grandfather rights]) or, more recently, by examination & test? Further: An AGO can also provide accurate information, as is the case here.
Last edited by Rob L on Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1844064
leemoore1966 wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:If the RV would have had SE2 no action would have been required by the AGO or importantly if there would not have been an AGO, the EC would have still worked.
Demonstrates the need to use a unified system.
Just saying.

Eh did one of us miss something ?
- The Phenom was ADS-B out and TCASII
- The RV was CAP1391/SE2

The overlays of radiated emissions for each aircraft was captured from the ATOM/VECTOR system from the day in question.
As both aircraft were being captured by the same VECTOR system, I think we can deduce that the image used in the report, shows no effective transmissions from 5 o'clock to 12 o'clock from the RV

For the absence of doubt, The PilotAware ATOM Station detects and displays:-
FLARM, OGN, FANET+, Mode-S/3D, ADS-B, PilotAware


Lee, that is totally misleading as your Vector data DOES NOT and CANNOT reflect the real air to air performance between the aircraft. Also, I don’t believe that Phenom could have seen the SkyEcho2 on 15 Dec 20 as SDA=1 was not authorised until Feb 21 for CAP1391? So this is a total ‘red herring’.

Please leave the Vector tool for showing what it really shows (ie. the performance of your ground station network) and try not to mislead people here with such data. You and I both know that Vector will only show performance of an EC device when that aspect of the aircraft is within range and line of sight of one of your ground stations, and so you cannot demonstrably state whether there are any areas of poor performance.

Thanks
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1844068
On a different note, being based at Turweston myself and therefore aware that they have more than their fair share of MOD close encounters, is it worth setting up a gofundme.com fund to buy the RAF some Sharpie permanent markers so they can annotate their charts with airfields?
gaznav, T67M, ls8pilot and 1 others liked this
#1844070
skydriller wrote:@gaznav So what you are saying is that SE2 outputting/receiving ADSB was useless for collision avoidance and that without the ATOMGrid system, there would have been a potential mid-air.... :wink:


Nice winky emoji.

Nope, what I am saying is that Vector cannot tell you how poor your EC device is performing - it can only tell you when it is performing (ie. that it is receiving something). Also, that until the change to SDA=1 then certified ADS-B In would not see CAP1391. That change did not happen until Feb 21 and this Airprox occurred 2 months earlier in Dec 20. I’m also not sure that Phenom has ADS-B In and I would need to check (I know it has ADS-B Out). :thumright:
#1844071
@gaznav: VECTOR may not be perfect, but it is good enough to give a reasonable indication of performance, and is a LOT better than the nothing which is otherwise available. Since you repeatedly insist on perfect data ad nauseam before you will accept any data, I presume you will be personally funding the necessary testing on an antenna range? I suspect a couple of hundred thousand pounds should be sufficient. The rest of us can then compare that perfect data the equivalent VECTOR plots to quantify how large the error might be. My suspicion is that for any aircraft with a lot (>10,000) of recorded points on VECTOR, the results are going to be within a few percent. I look forward to you proving me right - or wrong.
#1844072
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:On a different note, being based at Turweston myself and therefore aware that they have more than their fair share of MOD close encounters, is it worth setting up a gofundme.com fund to buy the RAF some Sharpie permanent markers so they can annotate their charts with airfields?


:lol:

In fact, the real fix is to either come up with ATZs for unlicensed airfield with AGROs, or give them circles like glider sites for warning purposes :thumright:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9