Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Another crash - Helicopter I-EDIC vs Jodel F-PMGV in Italy

Could cost be the major reason, or unawareness that cheap alternatives to commercial devices exist / are being developed? If so, would it help to advocate cheap (even DIY) and portable devices such as Stratux or SoftRF (parts are less than $200 in each case) to lower the bar of entry?

One can see somebody not wanting to spend c. €15k for an active TAS system like this, but, and I may be missing something big here, once one gets into the few hundred € department, how could cost possibly be a factor?

As regards why these cheaper systems may not work, it’s probably because there are as many of them as people posting about them on forums and there is a lack of integration with panel mounted avionics.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

EuroFlyer wrote:

We have a built-in powerflarm and it is very useful especially in the Alps, since most gliders have one. I don’t understand why that hasn’t become a standard for all aircraft flying in the mountains.

maybe because Flarm has abused their position by demanding huge amounts for the equipment which exceed the average flyer’s fiscal desires. Had that piece of equipment remained around €400 – 500, everyone would probably splash out. But no. For PowerFlarm, you need to pay $$$$ to get coverage (for fixed wing aircraft you can generally forget normal Flarm, in the case of two average GA aircraft closing head on with a closing speed of +/- 240knots and a typical Flarm detection range of 3km with GOOD antenna positioning, means they have around 15 seconds warning…..)

FWIW, I have PowerFlarm, it’s helped me avoid traffic numerous but even so, the gliders get mighty close before their Flarm is detected…..

EDL*, Germany

Steve6443 wrote:

FWIW, I have PowerFlarm, it’s helped me avoid traffic numerous but even so, the gliders get mighty close before their Flarm is detected…..

Does everyone have experience with FLARM signal filters or boosters such as here, there, or there, aimed to increase the SNR and reception range?

Quoting from the last link:

Very close to GSM bands and using only 10mW of ERP is not easy to detect, so the receivers with high LNA and narrow filters are required generally. The FLARM filter I build will not protect the receiver from the nearby GSM signal but can help a lot filtering the rest strong signals coming from the radio and TV broadcast towers.
Last Edited by Zorg at 02 Feb 11:07
LFHN, LSGP, LFHM

some information that shows that the experience does not necessarily prevent accidents:
The instructor was very experienced, and is Captain A320 Air France; he is injured with dislocation and vertebral collapse, very lucky ! “guarded by 2 carabinieri” at the Aosta hospital to avoid any contact.

One of the students, deceased, was Captain 777 Air France.
I have no info on the other passenger.

We can think that Helicopter pilots who fly Mountain and the removal of skiers in glaciers are also experienced (note that these depositions are prohibited by French law on the French territory)

The Investigation will determine the position of the respective aircraft during the collision, in particular the traces and deformation on the aircraft and the distribution of the debris, in order to objectify the lack of priority, but the Insurance will obviously put forward the absence of FPL, without impact on the accident, which is in fact totally tolerated by the French and Italian Authorities for this very particular activity of mountain flying.

Adls
LFPU, France

ADLS wrote:

in fact totally tolerated

That is not legally very helpful unless documented in some kind of formal agreement and published in AIP a`la German/Austrian

Antonio
LESB, Spain

leaving aside for the monent the possible airmanship issues of not using Flarm, TCAS and/or radio comms for the moment (because we don’t know about either for sure):

If aircraft not in contact with each other operate in mountains, taking off and landing on those spots where they can, this kind of accident will happen. Maybe once in a million times, but it will happen.

It is silly to prosecute accidents arising from that kind of operation. It is not so risky as to justify banning it, so really they are prosecuting bad luck.

Prosecuting somebody for breaking a rule that is broken thousands of times every year is just because “something must be done”.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 03 Feb 10:07
Biggin Hill

Antonio wrote:

That is not legally very helpful unless documented in some kind of formal agreement and published in AIP

There is no requirement for legality that it has to be explicitly written in some (semi) official paper somewhere, certainly not in AIP or AIC. These things are not har criminal/civil laws, they are regulations. If the regulators allow certain stuff, or “see through the fingers”, then it is allowed. I don’t know the exact reason for why FPLs has to be filed when crossing a border, but I would guess it is:

  • To give ATC of different countries a heads up
  • To give customs/immigration a heads up
  • Some arcane military reason?
  • Some other arcane bureaucratic “reason”, like it has been so for “hundred years”.

For certain activities none of those reasons are applicable, and the regulators may simply ignore it, even though in the general case they are not.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

Some arcane military reason?

I believe this is the primary reason. At least in Sweden, fighters will be launched to identify any unknown aircraft approaching the national border.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

If some of these concessions are not in AIP/AIC, then they will be documented in some Letter Of Agreements (LoA) or ATC/AD ops mannuals, even if you have an old LoA or mannual, most AD/ATC will just operate on these “rules” quitely with one regulator contact, if you call the other new guy at the NAA you will be surprised by his answer of what is legal…

Other than this, I will just consider the “rule” as any clubhouse tale with the usual caveat: “experience may vary”

ESSEX, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

I believe this is the primary reason

Probably, but seems a bit strange today for light GA.

Airborne_Again wrote:

At least in Sweden, fighters will be launched to identify any unknown aircraft approaching the national border.

I think they are very selective, I haven’t seen anyone It’s probably different in the Baltic sea than the Norwegian/Swedish border.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top