Lack of electronic warning at uncontrolled gliding airfield
Civil Aviation Authority received 2 coroners' reports about this hazard between 12 Jan 2018 and 17 May 2019.
They came from 2 different coroners in 2 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 1 time after the first warning.
A published response was found for 1 of the 1 earlier reports, stating 0 specific actions.
The story, report by report
Spacing grows with the time between reports.
“(2) There was no Air Traffic control over Husbands Bosworth airfield even though there is a gliding club at the airfield and therefore, one would assume, a higher usage of airspace and likelihood of a collision.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Civil Aviation Authority responded.Response (PDF) ↗
- 1 year 4 months laterClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · higha different coroner
“operate in unregulated Class G airspace such as exists in the area of this collision without the requirement to carry any inter-craft electronic proximity warning or collision avoidance devices”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Repeated from the earlier report:airspacecollision
Civil Aviation Authority responded.Response (PDF) ↗
- All reports to Civil Aviation Authority
Each row is one judged link between an earlier and a later report. Open a row to read both quotes, found word for word in the originals.
2018 → 2019Jaspal Singh Bahra1 year 4 months after John Armstrong · different coronerClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · high
Closely relatedConfidence 0.90 · highBoth reports highlight reliance on the 'see and avoid' principle as insufficient to prevent collisions due to lack of electronic warning or air traffic control. They differ in setting: one concerns an uncontrolled airfield with a gliding club, the other concerns unregulated Class G airspace for light aircraft.
John Armstrong · 12 Jan 2018
“(2) There was no Air Traffic control over Husbands Bosworth airfield even though there is a gliding club at the airfield and therefore, one would assume, a higher usage of airspace and likelihood of a collision.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Jaspal Singh Bahra · 17 May 2019
“operate in unregulated Class G airspace such as exists in the area of this collision without the requirement to carry any inter-craft electronic proximity warning or collision avoidance devices”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗
No specific action could be extracted with a verified quote.
No specific action could be extracted with a verified quote.
- Each report's concerns were extracted by Nemotron 3 Nano on Nebius Token Factory, each with a quote copied from the report.
- Concerns from reports to Civil Aviation Authority at least six months apart were compared by meaning (Qwen3 embeddings) and wording (TF-IDF).
- The closest pairs were judged by Nemotron 3 Super with reasoning on. Only identical or closely related, with confidence of at least 0.70, are shown.
- Every quote was checked by code as an exact substring of the original text. Names of staff and family are redacted, and the deceased are named by report title only.
| Link | Meaning | Wording | Judge | Coroner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 → 2019 | 0.69 | 0.17 | Closely related · 0.90 | different |
Judge model: nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b. How Nemotron did the work · Full methodology.
Next
This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.