alioth wrote:
Is there really anything to be learned from the OP’s experience by others that hasn’t been discussed for decades at this point?
Steer clear of Howard when flying as he is a magnet for airproxs? 
alioth wrote:
The United States, to give an example, doesn’t have an airprox board reporting on private GA matters or half the other layers of pontificating civil servants and mandatory occurrence reports, yet the GA safety record in the US is slightly better than it is for the UK or Europe.
The United States is large. Flying in California, Texas, the prairie and so on with 365 sunny days per year, hardly resembles anything like flying in Europe. I wonder what the statistics of Alaska vs Texas is for instance.
Not that I’m fond of bureaucracy or anything, but comparing the US as a whole to Europe is hardly relevant.
IMO it is important to get statistics. Real facts can only be a good thing. People “report” these things in any case, on the internet or by telling it, so why not make some statistics out of it instead of just stories.
mmgreve wrote:
Sounds like a safety loss to me. You move VFR traffic out of the way of other VFR traffic and into the way of IFR traffic
…but my question is rather if it actually changed pilots behaviour? Have you had fewer airproxs since?
I’ve personally never had any, but never heard of any occurrences since.
Yes, so now the IFR users of Colmar need to report enough airproxes so that traffic can be moved further. 
LeSving wrote:
MO it is important to get statistics.
But what statistics will we get from that? The only one which I can think about is “Number of reported proximities versus actual mid-air collisions”. We have no way of knowing how many proximities were not reported (and from my own experience I guess that they must be higher by several orders of magnitude) and most important we have no idea how many flights have been performed in total.
You should post the video, Howard. It might just make someone think about the way they fly. Most pilots on the UK scene read EuroGA, mostly daily, even though most don’t post.
Otherwise, there is no solution to this. Class G is Class G and is a free for all.
Training does almost nothing because most new PPLs in the UK give up almost immediately, so most people flying have been flying for many years, and with the UK average being ~20hrs/year you will have lots of pilots who don’t know what an ATZ is. Also I can’t see why the high % who fly at low level with their TXP turned off should care what an ATZ is; the whole point of having the TXP off is to not have to worry about “occassional mistakes” And the two-yearly revalidation gets signed off provided the FI survives the flight… this has been discussed in the UK for many years but nobody wants the reval flight to be tightened because a lot of pilots would drop out of flying.
Also mid-airs are rare – of the order of 2 per year in the UK.
What I do is reduce the risks, by
) I would not go on a weekend unless I could land before 10am (just possible from Shoreham)For many people these are not options but each of them makes each hole in the cheese less likely to line up.
boscomantico wrote:
Well, yes: don’t do overhead joins!
Indeed! That and get rid of A/G Radio stations…. in my (often expressed) opinion, all they do is stifle free communications between aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airfield…. again IMO, pilots (subconsciously?) behave as if the guy in the tower is watching out and intervening…. In OP example, had there been no A/G (or AFIS) each pilot would (should) have made an effort to keep the other aware of their relative position until it was clear the other was “no factor”…. this is how it works (well) in the world’s largest and safest aviation environment…
what_next wrote:
But what statistics will we get from that? The only one which I can think about is “Number of reported proximities versus actual mid-air collisions”. We have no way of knowing how many proximities were not reported (and from my own experience I guess that they must be higher by several orders of magnitude) and most important we have no idea how many flights have been performed in total.
True. But something is better than nothing. Without facts it all becomes a quasi theoretical exercise where regulations are made based on anecdotes alone. What happens is that the most “scaring” or most spectacular situation will “win”, not the typical situation, or most risky situation. Near mid air, can be perceived as very scary for instance, but how likely is a real mid air? Reporting will give a number of reported near incidents vs real accidents. It will also give statistics about the typical situation of a near mid air, which factors are important and which aren’t.
bookworm wrote:
Fuji_Abound wrote: I dont beleive it is mandatory in the UK for a private pilot, it is mandatory in certain other circumstances.It very much is. See the Occurrence reporting regulation.
It’s not about the conclusion of the Airprox Board, about which you may draw your own conclusions. It’s to provide evidence to help others manage risk.
That is interesting.
When I looked at this I was sure I read (albeit on the internet) that it was not mandatory for private aircraft in the UK? In fact it would seem that Annex 2 aircraft are certainly excluded? Also it is interesting that the Airprox in their documentation use the word “should” instead of “must” in relation to the filing of a report.
The link you provided is most interesting. It seems to me there are a raft of “events” that “must” be reported – indeed some quite surprising that I rarely see reported – for example a Pan must always lead to a report. Is this the case? Far more surprising – the activation of any flight warning protection, including stall warning, etc
I also see that Article 5 deals with voluntary reporting and the circumstances where this would appply.
I am guessing that para 5 deals with collision – using the words “collision or near collision”? I wonder how we are expected to interpret “near collision” if that is the case?
Peter wrote:
Also mid-airs are rare – of the order of 2 per year in the UK.
2 / Year is a ton if you ask me. However, I think looking at the AIIB reports and searching for mid air I find 3 accidents that don’t involve radio controlled models / kites. The oldest one is 1984. I might be searching wrong though.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
The link you provided is most interesting. It seems to me there are a raft of “events” that “must” be reported – indeed some quite surprising that I rarely see reported – for example a Pan must always lead to a report. Is this the case? Far more surprising – the activation of any flight warning protection, including stall warning, etc
I think that’s for large/complex aircraft only. There is also Annex V in the same document which has a much, much shorter list for “non complex” aircraft. I presume Annex V overrides Annex I if you’re flying a typical light single or twin.
Unfortunately the way the document is written it’s very easy to stop at Annex I thinking it means everyone, stop reading, and never actually reach Annex V right down at the bottom.
