quatrelle wrote:
Really??…. outside controlled airspace you should expect to see a C42 pondering around the sky not a lunatic in a Citation not looking out for other traffic.
what_next wrote:
Well in my event I was outside controlled airspace. Having been descended fast by London I was quick. I was looking for traffic but do we know the Citation pilot in this was not? Does that make me a lunatic?
JasonC wrote:
No point talking to non-radar London Info
I have once or twice had “traffic information” from London Info. Not in a way that could affect a rapidly-developing situation such as in the report or how I imagine your incident to have unfolded – more like (abbreviated)
“G-ABCD London Info state position and level”
“G-ABCD at Petersfield altitude 3000 feet”
“G-CORB London Info did you copy that transmission?”
“G-CORB affirm climbing altitude 4000 feet”
So although they haven’t passed radar-based information, if you are paying attention you are getting a useful bit of situational awareness.
[Edit: the point I should have called out is that London Info clearly hadn’t had enough information from both pilots to have detected a potential conflict, so they must have got the idea from other, perhaps more screen-based, sources]
Really??…. outside controlled airspace you should expect to see a C42 pondering around the sky not a lunatic in a Citation
I must have missed that in class…
According to my book the Citation would have to fly not faster than 250 kts and should (maybe) have altered his course to the right.
He has every right to be there and certainly as much as the C42. I can understand that the crew of the C42 was taken by surprise, but that does not make this situation illegal.
JasonC wrote:
? Does that make me a lunatic?
I would say not, thats assuming that you were looking out for other traffic and adjusting your speed according to the visual conditions, that gave you the time to avoid slower traffic also using the same airspace.
So (for example) put yourself in the seat of the Citation 525 pilot inbound to Biggin with 35NM to run and still under radar control, would you (1) make the choice to descend out of controlled airspace, cancel IFR and take your chances with whatever is around, or (2) stay in controlled airspace as long as possible and get traffic information/ avoidance from London Control and Thames Radar?
Lets have a vote on this….
Who thinks the Citation pilot was bonkers ?
Who thinks the C42 pilot was bonkers for flying around VFR when there are Citations tearing around at 240KT not looking out ?
What happened to the “big sky theory”?
quatrelle wrote:
So (for example) put yourself in the seat of the Citation 525 pilot inbound to Biggin with 35NM to run and still under radar control, would you (1) make the choice to descend out of controlled airspace, cancel IFR and take your chances with whatever is around, or (2) stay in controlled airspace as long as possible and get traffic information/ avoidance from London Control and Thames Radar?
Perhaps it’s a naive question, but why doesn’t the UK have Class E below the Class A so that ATC radar service to IFR traffic can continue where traffic density is highest? Is it really to avoid ATC training costs? In the US, Class E would start when descending through 18,000 feet and often progress through Classes B or C and/or D to the ground. Non-communicating and some non-transponding VFR traffic in Class E would be a factor from 18,000 ft down, sometimes all the way to the ground if the jet is going into an uncontrolled airport.
I fly VFR in the LA basin with lost of traffic and I can just attest to how useless the Mk 1 eyeball is. One guy got so worked up at me he followed me and called up the tower at KEMT and asked if “they had an Aerostar landing there”, to which they replied, “yes, we have N79SR on downwind for landing”…. “Well you can tell him he almost run us over and didn’t advise on the common advisory frequency!!”.
quatrelle wrote:
I would say not, thats assuming that you were looking out for other traffic and adjusting your speed according to the visual conditions, that gave you the time to avoid slower traffic also using the same airspace.
What speed would be appropriate in your view in the conditions in the images from the C42?
AdamFrisch wrote:
Even when they point out traffic exactly, which they do here under radar service, half the time you don’t see it! And that’s when you know exactly where they’re supposed to be!
The only difference with ADS-B In is that you get ongoing data as you never see the traffic and he disappears into the distance. More data is better but it’s not fundamentally different than existing radar service.
AdamFrisch wrote:
If ATC can’t provide separation for us because they’re too lazy or too mired in politics, then let technology do it for us. It’s there. It’s cheap. Make it mandatory
The aircraft I’ll be flying within a Mode C Veil and Class D airspace tomorrow has two installed electrical wires, one switch, plus a non-installed handheld radio. Non-installed ADS-B In is simple with e.g. ForeFlight. Integrating ADS-B Out would not be not so simple or light, but as far as I know no such aircraft has ever been involved in a mid-air within a Mode C Veil, since their origination. Accordingly and consistent with the law, I think there is zero chance that all aircraft will be mandatorily ADS-B Out equipped for most airspace, even in areas where most aircraft will be so equipped.
Silvaire, problem with interrogating/squitting radar service is that then you have to rely on ATC opening their mouth and telling you about traffic, which they clearly don’t do in the UK and many other places. They don’t need to do it in the US either, but as they get paid by the plane they give service to, they tend to. With ADS-B we can take care of our own separation. Plus, the technology si much smaller and potentially cheaper.
