Most ordinary people would be (are) shocked when they realize how bad radio communication in aviation is. Even between native English speakers, even between those from the same background, and far more so when considering the full international environment. The technology to overcome the communication issues, the see and avoid issues and of course, navigation issues are to hand and need not even be particularly expensive. Keeping it difficult and dangerous seems to be some sort of weird human factors issue.
If I judged an aircraft in the proximity shown in the video to be a near miss, I’d be reporting near misses many times per year. On the other hand, its nice to have radar equipped ATC to call traffic when there’s a potential conflict, as in this situation.
MedEwok wrote:
[…] the other pilot had every right to be where he was and go NORDO if he pleased. […] He might have been on FIS which Dimme couldn’t hear because he was already talking to Konstanz info.
I completely agree with you. Of course he should be able to go NORDO outside of RMZ. However, I am not up to date with German regulations so maybe you can help me here. Can you simply fly at pattern altitude, overhead the field, without following the published circuit, approach/departure procedure, doing anything you want?
I don’t think it was a near miss, nor close at all. Comparing the video with the chart, if your plane symbol is correctly shown in the chart you show briefly in the video, the guy seems to have just departed on heading 030, and you were crossing midfield to join the circuit pattern for 030.
Sounds completely plausible to me, to be honest. Not every plane in sight is a near miss and this guy was no factor. You must have been at 3000ft and the guy was maybe say at 1000-1500ft or so, crossing left to right but in no way any of you would have met.
Or am I missing sth here ?
And, @medewok:
>>This is of course provocative but why don’t you speak German when flying to Germany <<
Because we lost the bloody war ;)
EuroFlyer wrote:
Because we lost the bloody war ;)
That has to be one of the wittiest and funniest comments I have ever seen on an internet forum. As I preach daily, the Victor writes history……… 
My take on the video is he wasn’t that close.
On the subject of English, it is the official language of ICAO. But I don’t mind people using it in smaller German airfields as I know enough to get the gist. These sort of issues happen if English is used as well.
The wide angle lens makes everything look really distant. He was probably 50-100m away. One could calculate it from how many frames it takes to travel a given angle, but it would need cockpit measurements.
Peter wrote:
The wide angle lens makes everything look really distant. He was probably 50-100m away
Even with a wide angle lens an aircraft that close would have to look bigger in the video don’t you think?
EuroFlyer wrote:Because we lost the bloody war ;)
That is correct, but it was over 70 years ago and everyone responsible is long dead. We are now (again) the preeminent power on the European continent again but refuse to admit it to ourselves, instead behaving like greater Switzerland. Just look at the sorry state of our armed forces. Donald Trump actually has a point about us not pulling our weight and missing NATOs 2% of GDP on defence spending goal.
Sorry I got so completely off topic here but this topic bothered me a lot in the last couple of days.
At least for GA the lack of flyable Luftwaffe aircraft is a good thing (lame attempt to get back on topic) 
The point is not the size of the aircraft in the video. The point is not if the distance was 5 meters or 50 meters. The point is that I didn’t see the traffic, was not warned about the traffic, didn’t hear the traffic.
I though the flight was going great. Had I sneezed 5 minutes earlier and veered right, had an itch bothered me 5 minutes earlier and I had veered right, I could have been right in the path of that other aircraft. Just as the other aircraft appears in the video and disappears in 2 seconds, that is how much time I would have had to react had I been on a collision course.
The point is not if it was far enough, the point is that it was there and despite all the procedures and regulations and technology in the world, I had no idea it was there.
Yes encounters like this happens all the time at the home airfield, I’ve heard the argument before, but then at least I know they are around and I expect them.
To some this encounter might not seem like a big deal, but the lack of situational awareness terrifies me personally.
Dimme wrote:
espite all the procedures and regulations and technology in the world, I had no idea it was there.
have to disagree with , “all the…. technology in the world”.
A huge gulf has developed between the tech we could use and the way we can successfully use it. Plenty of issues, but when you look at what autonomous systems in cars and drones can do and when you look at some of the advanced but non flight rated systems such as;
Surely you begin to suspect that a crackly radio with all sorts of language and skill incompatibilities, a set of eyes with highly restricted sight-lines and a multitude of other deficiencies and an ad-hoc " there could be something there" distraction light which can’t work because some people object to having their aircraft identified, is maybe a little archaic?
