PDA

View Full Version : Accident recording



Bill Greenwood
12-22-2013, 11:50 AM
There is a recording and explanation of a Cirrus accident that I recommend everyone listen to. It is on the AOPA website and I don't think you have to be a member or sign in to hear it, although I expect most of us are members there also.
Unlike so many accidents this was not a normal gen av airplane in bad weather or a warbird or experimental lost doing acro. It was just a plane flying a normal flight in good vmc daylight weather and still was fatal to 3 people.
The essence:
1 Much of the focus with the tower conversation was which runway the pilot was going to land on, which is of much less importance than a safe pattern and landing.
2 The pilot when cleared to land, tried to cut short the pattern to do a base entry rather than a full downwind; not a good idea at a busy ariport.
3. When a traffic conflict developed with another Cirrus on a long straight in final, the accident pilot rolled back toward downwind with much too steep a bank, up to 60%, at full gross weight and only 100k airspeed,and stalled and spun it. A Cirrus is NOT certified to recover from spins, it would not do so in flight testing and in any event at 300 feet nobody would likely have recovered. The parachute was used, but too late.

rwanttaja
12-22-2013, 01:07 PM
A Cirrus is NOT certified to recover from spins, it would not do so in flight testing....
Are you implying that a Cirrus *cannot* recover from a spin? According to Cirrus, they had to perform spin testing for European certification. "A series of spins were performed on their [EASA] initiative. While not a complete program they reported no unusual characteristics."

http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx

In this accident, yes, the aircraft was outside the envelope of the CAPS. But otherwise, spin characteristics appear to be normal.

Ron Wanttaja

FlyingRon
12-22-2013, 02:00 PM
Spinning at 300 AGL in any aircraft is NOT a good idea and likely not recoverable. I disagree with some of the ASF video analysis. A lot of it is pure conjecture and really separate from the issue. The tower controller definitely issued instructions that were unclear both in the original clearance to land and in response to what the tower considered was an unexpected behavior from the pilot. That said, the pilot panicked which was the final cause of the crash.

As pointed out many times, CLASS C AND D TOWERS DO NOT SEPARATE VFR AIRCRAFT. All they do is try to maintain an orderly flow.

1600vw
12-22-2013, 02:04 PM
Are you implying that a Cirrus *cannot* recover from a spin? According to Cirrus, they had to perform spin testing for European certification. "A series of spins were performed on their [EASA] initiative. While not a complete program they reported no unusual characteristics."

http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx

In this accident, yes, the aircraft was outside the envelope of the CAPS. But otherwise, spin characteristics appear to be normal.

Ron Wanttaja


Ron no he is not implying this. This is about communication between ATC and PIC or lack of. You must watch this. All PIC need to watch this. This should have never happened, Panic set in all within seconds for the PIC.
Please watch...and pass this along.

Tony

1600vw
12-22-2013, 02:08 PM
This is about confusion. ATC told the PIC runway L and the PIC kept saying runway R and they did not listen to each other.

Bill Greenwood
12-22-2013, 04:46 PM
Guys, I am trying to get folks to listen to an accident report and learn from it, but some of you can seem to start a controversy out of whether water is wet or not.
1600, I believe you are wrong about runway L , the pilot was cleared to land on the right, despite some discussion of the left might become available.
Ron, the primary point of my post is to get folks to learn from how this accident came almost out on nowhere and was fatal. It is not primary intended to be about Cirrus spin recovery. Obviously short of maybe a Curtis Jenny, not many pilots are going to recover from a spin below a thousand feet. HOWEVER , and since you make it an issue, I believe I am correct that a Cirrus is NOT certified for spins or spin recovery in the U S. During testing, a test pilot was lost in a spin and Cirrus could not make the plane meet normal U S stall/spin recovery criteria so they were able to get a special waiver from the FAA on this point. What they may have done in Europe, I don't know, but if I am wrong I am sure someone is going to tell me. Some U S airplanes are tested and certifeid for spins and recovery, such as C 172, and Beech T-34, probably older types like Cub and Super Cub. And the Cirrus website says, "In short, modern general aviation airplanes are not certified for spins" and that is a verbatim quote, not something I invented. Their site goes on with a long sales pitch about how their design is to avoid spins. I regard much of this as smoke screen, thus if your design doesn't do what earlier ones do, like a 172, then you put out the sales pitch that tries to downplay the idea of spin recovery. I am not an expert on Cirrus accidents, but I think the record of Cirrus is no better than other more standard designs and certainly not free of spins, even some that were saved by the parachute as well as this one that was not.

The point of this recording was to learn from it, and fly safely especially in the pattern, nt to get into a debate about how great Cirrus is or not.

rwanttaja
12-22-2013, 05:33 PM
The point of this recording was to learn from it, and fly safely especially in the pattern, nt to get into a debate about how great Cirrus is or not.

Then why stick in a dig against Cirrus? You say most pilots wouldn't be able to recover in a spin below a thousand feet (which I fully agree with you), but WHY take a valid safety lesson and turn it into yet another attack against Cirrus?

If it didn't make a difference...then why did you feel you had to mention it?

Ron Wanttaja

Mike M
12-22-2013, 06:09 PM
As AOPA video said, "air traffic controller" is a misnomer. " Air traffic collision avoidance advisor" is a bit unwieldy. Marconi isn't flying, the tower operator isn't, the PIC is.

FlyingRon
12-22-2013, 07:15 PM
This is about confusion. ATC told the PIC runway L and the PIC kept saying runway R and they did not listen to each other.

Not true at all, the ASF stuff is a bit muddled. Read the NTSB report and supporting documents.

Mayhemxpc
12-22-2013, 08:21 PM
I am just trying to figure out what this thread has to do with simulation.

1600vw
12-22-2013, 08:44 PM
I am just trying to figure out what this thread has to do with simulation.

Good point. Why was this post in this forum?

From my take on it. The PIC was to cross the field midway and fly to 42L. But for some reason he flew to the end of the runway and was going for 42R.

1600vw
12-22-2013, 08:48 PM
Would not a TAS have helped here? I fly with one just so I see traffic out of eyesight.

Tony

rwanttaja
12-22-2013, 09:43 PM
Good point. Why was this post in this forum?
[Lotsa speculation about Bill's motives deleted. After all, Hal is watching.]

On that note, perhaps Hall will want to move this elsewhere....?


Would not a TAS have helped here? I fly with one just so I see traffic out of eyesight.
Consider: Over the 15 years in my homebuilt accident database, there are 41 midairs (some of which are two planes in formation), but almost 500 accidents where the NTSB cited bad airspeed control. Rule #1: Fly The Airplane.

Cockpit gadgets sometimes, IMHO, interfere with Rule #1.

Ron Wanttaja

Hal Bryan
12-22-2013, 10:32 PM
[Lotsa speculation about Bill's motives deleted. After all, Hal is watching.]

On that note, perhaps Hall will want to move this elsewhere....?


Hal is watching, but also traveling a lot during holiday vacation, so I'm running a little slow... thanks for the heads up. :)

Bill Greenwood
12-22-2013, 10:39 PM
I meant to put this topic under "Learning to Fly", which I thought was the last one in that column. I didn't realize there was even a topic about "simulation', this must be something new, and I see that it was started only 5 days ago.

Maybe Hal can move this to the learning part, less the comments about simulation.

As for my "motives" , well obviously I and probably AOPA are paid agents of Lancair and/or Van's and probably started the whole thing just to discredit Cirrus. After all everyone knows Cirrus is a special modern, smarter than everyone else design to be "spin resistant" just as their website says, so maybe the whole accident report is wrong and the plane really didn't spin.
Anyway, whatever the cause, and despite the 3 fatalities and any lessons to be learned, the important point is to make sure nary a discouraging word is heard about Cirrus. And of course the other vital point is which topic this is posted under, and nothing so boring and passe as safety.

And as for as a gadget to point out traffic, aren't these usually for enroute and shut off in the pattern? Anyway, whether the pilot saw the other traffic on the long straight in final by eyesight or on a TAS, he still would be in trouble if his reaction was a sudden 60* bank and pitch pull at 100 knots, perhaps even in the fabulous Cirrus.

rwanttaja
12-22-2013, 11:05 PM
As for my "motives" , well obviously I and probably AOPA are paid agents of Lancair and/or Van's and probably started the whole thing just to discredit Cirrus. After all everyone knows Cirrus is a special modern, smarter than everyone else design to be "spin resistant" just as their website says, so maybe the whole accident report is wrong and the plane really didn't spin.

Is the rate of spin accidents for Cirrus significantly different from other GA aircraft? When I say "Spin," I refer to cases where a spin is entered with sufficient altitude for a normal recovery, not a low-altitude stall. If Cirrus' figures are similar to traditional aircraft, then their approach (recovery from an establish spin using the CAPS) would appear to be a good approach.

Actually, I think the cases where this happen are rare, in *all* GA aircraft. As in this case, the vast majority of stall/spin accidents occur at altitudes too low to recover. I believe that's the impetus for the FAA's emphasis in stall avoidance, rather than spin recovery...it's why spins were removed from the Private Pilot curriculum in the first place. IIRC, this is why Icon got its weight exemption, claiming the extra weight was required for improved stall characteristics.

Cirrus has detractors for good reasons, and Cirrus had detractors for damned silly ones, too ("pilots should DIE if they make a mistake, not use a parachute"). I don't normally get involved, unless I see a statement that provably isn't true (e.g., Cirrus never spun the airplane).

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja
12-23-2013, 02:04 AM
Is the rate of spin accidents for Cirrus significantly different from other GA aircraft? When I say "Spin," I refer to cases where a spin is entered with sufficient altitude for a normal recovery, not a low-altitude stall. If Cirrus' figures are similar to traditional aircraft, then their approach (recovery from an establish spin using the CAPS) would appear to be a good approach.

Actually, I think the cases where this happen are rare, in *all* GA aircraft. As in this case, the vast majority of stall/spin accidents occur at altitudes too low to recover.

Well, shoot...I *hate* it when the data doesn't prove my point. ;) In-cruise stall/spins happen more often than I thought.

I used my copy of the NTSB accident database to dump out all accidents during 2003-2012 (e.g., ten years) that had "Stall" and "Spin" in their titles. I trimmed out the obvious cases that weren't stall/spin accidents, as well as the cases where the spin was deliberate (spin training/practice/demonstration).

Out of roughly 170 stall/spin accidents, 48 occurred while the plane was at cruise altitudes. I've attached a Zip file which has the raw dump in Excel (e.g., it isn't pretty).

You'll note several of them involved gliders, and several more were skydiving operations (bad CG as the jumpers positioned themselves?). Others involved loss of control in IMC, and several had icing as a contributing factor.

Four Cirrus cases, several of which had some interesting features.

Ron Wanttaja

Edit: Used the wrong filters in Access, got the number of cases wrong. Lots more cases, including Cirrus (Actual number of Cirrus spin cases is 12), see later post for NTSB numbers.

Bill Greenwood
12-23-2013, 10:08 AM
Ron, first of all, you write Cirrus never spun the airplane. I don't know where you got it, but using in a topic to try to discredit what I wrote is not a straight way to make or try to make your point. I never wrote those words or that line or that thought.
What I wrote was that Cirrus is not certified for spins, or spin recovery and obviously I mean U S certification.I believe a test pilot was killed during their spin testing,don't know the details, but maybe they didn't have the chutes in the early testing. I don't know Canadian or British spin certification regulations, but I would be surprised if it met them. Despite any amount of pr and sales propaganda from you or Cirrus, the laws of aerodynamics (re bank angles and g forces on accelerated stalls) as well as gravity are the same everywhere. A recent Aviation Consumer report puts Cirrus in the middle of gen av accidents, not better or worse, and notes that despite the supposed safety features, except the parachute, Cirrus is not showing to be safer than all others.
There are a number of Cirrus accidents, I believe at least 80 fatalities) that involve stall/spins. Most are not beginners, rather pilots with a fair number of hours (1100) even with an instructor on board. So the idea that Cirrus is "spin resistant" is likely good pr, but really should be regarded like some late night t v infomercial. I don't call using the parachute to survive an out of control situation as spin recovery, it is rather a method of a survivable crash.
So if you like Cirrus or own one or sell them or in some way are getting paid by Cirrus, that is your right. The parachute is a good idea, if I had a Cirrus I'd want the chute also.
I am not, nor am I getting money from any other aviation company.

But, most of all, in this topic I was trying to help folks learn from a fatal accident and instead you have tried to make the topic about Cirrus spin safety.
The lesson in brief, for those of us who don't fly Cirrus, is to be very careful about bank angles and g forces in the traffic pattern at slow speeds and low altitude. And if I flew something like a Cirrus or a Grumman Tiger which is known to have bad spin recovery response, I would try to make sure that I was extra cautious about this at any altitude.

By the way, if you are so certain that Cirrus will recover from spins okay, how about going up and doing some and posting the video on this forum. I and probably others would like to see it.

1600vw
12-23-2013, 11:09 AM
Bill while I agree with everything you state, my take on this was Communication. I agree bank angles and such but how about not getting in that place in the first place. If this pilot or ATC had GOOD communication with each other, one would have known the other was not saying the same thing they are saying.

Communication break down caused this. Nothing else. Lose of control from panic was the outcome.

Tony

Bill Greenwood
12-23-2013, 11:22 AM
Tony, I agree with you in part, that the first step to this accident was the time spent and the emphasis on the conversation with the controller with so much attention focused on the possibility of using the left runway. The controller in this case seemed to be friendly and a nice guy and just assumed that the pilot preferred the left when actually he was going to an FBO at the far end and the right runway was even better.
I only listened to the recording once, but I don't hear as much confusion as you do, the pilot was only and always cleared for the right and he said he was okay with that.

One reason I prefer to use a non tower airport is that I can fly the pattern that I want and is best for me and my plane and not the pattern that some controller who most likely is not a pilot is trying to steer me into.

When I fly into an airport, I try to be aware of three main things: first of course is other traffic, see/or hear and avoid, and part of that is if you can to fly a normal full pattern, not generally to short cut it. Next I think about making sure the gear is down and checked as locked. There may be other nice to have things on the landing checklist, but only the gear is vital each and every time. Last, I want to fly a normal landing, that is normal pattern speed and final speed and certainly any bank angle much over 35 degrees is getting into the abnormal category. If there is other traffic, I may have to adjust my pattern or if the tower controller is yakking away , I try to minmize that distraction and still concentrate on a normal landing. If I can't do a normal landing, I may extend downwind or even go around and start the pattern over.
In any event, don't let complacency or a controller or other pilot distract or influence you into flying unsafely, especially when low and slow in the traffic pattern.

One huge distraction is when you fly into a VERY BUSY place like Oskosh, you still have to maintain the level of focus to fly the plane.

1600vw
12-23-2013, 12:13 PM
Bill I like you hangar at a non towered air park. When coming into the pattern or entering the pattern, I over fly the runway midsection. I then enter down wind. I also use a TAS. There has been a couple times on takeoff and climb out I had GA traffic cross the air park mid section at pattern height just passing through. They are trying to stay under class c airspace for class c airspace starts on the north side of our 27 -9 runway.
Enter the pattern midsection and use a TAS along with your eye's...

Smart flying is safe flying.
Tony

rwanttaja
12-23-2013, 01:07 PM
Ron, first of all, you write Cirrus never spun the airplane. I don't know where you got it, but using in a topic to try to discredit what I wrote is not a straight way to make or try to make your point. I never wrote those words or that line or that thought.

Good gosh, Bill. I've been writing all along that Cirrus did some spin testing. I *never* wrote that Cirrus didn't do any spin testing. You're the one who says that Cirruses can't recover from spins. Look at your first post on this subject: "A Cirrus is NOT certified to recover from spins, it would not do so in flight testing..."

I asked you, "Are you implying that a Cirrus *cannot* recover from a spin?"

How about a simple yes or no answer? Has Cirrus ever spun the airplane, and did it recover? Their web posting regarding European testing says they did.


What I wrote was that Cirrus is not certified for spins, or spin recovery and obviously I mean U S certification.

I agree there.


I believe a test pilot was killed during their spin testing,don't know the details....

Yep, details never matter. Like the fact that the crash you're apparently referring to was a Cirrus VK-30 pusher.

CHI96FA116


I don't know Canadian or British spin certification regulations, but I would be surprised if it met them.

The spin requirements for Canada can be found in CAR 523.221...which says the same thing as US Part 23.221. I doubt Canada is required to automatically accept US certification; one report I saw said that the Type Certificate was granted after negotiation with Canadian officials. Like the FAA, the Canadian authorities have accepted that the Cirrus meets the "Equivalent Level of Safety" argument. It's essentially the same way the Icon got approval for weight over the LSA limit.

The British use the EASA standard, and the Cirrus link I posted earlier says that they did sufficient spin testing to satisfy them.


Despite any amount of pr and sales propaganda from you or Cirrus, the laws of aerodynamics (re bank angles and g forces on accelerated stalls) as well as gravity are the same everywhere. A recent Aviation Consumer report puts Cirrus in the middle of gen av accidents, not better or worse, and notes that despite the supposed safety features, except the parachute, Cirrus is not showing to be safer than all others.

So the Cirrus is no safer...but no worse...than any other GA aircraft? That's good news, really, for a high-performance aircraft marketed to low-time pilots.


There are a number of Cirrus accidents, I believe at least 80 fatalities) that involve stall/spins.

Really?

I took another pass through my database, opening up the time instead of just ten years. I see 47 Cirrus accidents where a stall or spin was mentioned in the narrative. Total fatalities, 58.

On twelve of those, spins resulted. Total fatalities, 19.

Of those twelve, two involved icing, one spun out after continued VFR into IMC, and at least two were at altitudes too low to recover.

ATL04FA096
ATL06LA035
CHI06FA043
CHI06FA245
CHI06LA078
CHI08FA039
ERA09FA053
ERA09FA169
ERA09LA200
LAX07FA021
WPR10FA383
NYC02FA089

Of course, this is only the US accidents. Them furriners, they just can't fly, can they?

So we're looking at 19 fatalities over 12 years (2001 to 2012). That's some death trap, Bill.


Most are not beginners, rather pilots with a fair number of hours (1100) even with an instructor on board.

Of the twelve case, nine had Private tickets. One case was a Commercial pilot receiving instruction from a CFI. The pilots involved in spins had a median flight time of 865 hours, with 170 in type. Lowest time in the spin cases was 222, highest time was a ATP with 12,000+ hours.


But, most of all, in this topic I was trying to help folks learn from a fatal accident and instead you have tried to make the topic about Cirrus spin safety.

So why not clarify your original gratuitous (e.g, not required in the context of the accident report) statement that implied that Cirruses could not recover from a spin?


By the way, if you are so certain that Cirrus will recover from spins okay, how about going up and doing some and posting the video on this forum. I and probably others would like to see it.

Because I am not qualified (haven't spun an airplane for ~40 years), am not properly certified (cannot fly a Cirrus as a Sport Pilot), and do not fly aircraft outside their published limitations. Nor do I try to goad people into violating FAA regulations, but that's just me....

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja
12-23-2013, 02:21 PM
Bill I like you hangar at a non towered air park. When coming into the pattern or entering the pattern, I over fly the runway midsection. I then enter down wind. I also use a TAS. There has been a couple times on takeoff and climb out I had GA traffic cross the air park mid section at pattern height just passing through. They are trying to stay under class c airspace for class c airspace starts on the north side of our 27 -9 runway.

We have much the same problem here, only it's bizjets! My home field is just outside a southerly extension of the Sea-Tac Class B, and sometimes small jets "hook" around the extension, passing over my airport as they turn North to go to Boeing Field. They're low, so I figure they're not talking to the controller for the Class B.

This sort of thing actually caused a problem with Air Force Two about thirty years ago; AF2 exited the Class B early to go into Boeing Field, and had a near-miss with a Mooney. Turns out the Mooney had the right-of-way, but try telling the media that....

Most of the pilots at my home field use a 45 entry to downwind. There's a water tower on a hillside that makes a very obvious landmark for the 45. Coming from the opposite side of the field, I still overfly at +500 feet and teardrop around to enter the 45. Gives me a chance to scope out the existing traffic and flow. Kind of a leftover from my seven years flying NORDO from this field. Guess good habits die hard. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Bill Greenwood
12-23-2013, 03:32 PM
Anyone can look up "Total Cirrus accidents" and get Dick Collins article that says more than 80 Cirrus fatals ( from NTSB) and that is as of May 2012, a year and a half ago.

And anyone can look back today to your post at 12:05 and read the last 5 words you wrote before your name, if you haven't edited or altered them.

As for me, I am tired of the spin about Cirrus spins.

rwanttaja
12-23-2013, 04:38 PM
Anyone can look up "Total Cirrus accidents" and get Dick Collins article that says more than 80 Cirrus fatals ( from NTSB) and that is as of May 2012, a year and a half ago.

You posted: "There are a number of Cirrus accidents, I believe at least 80 fatalities) that involve stall/spins."

Collins' blog: "Since that time the NTSB shows 80 fatal Cirrus accidents in its database."

Eighty fatal accidents, yes. But not eighty due to stall/spins, like you posted.

For those keeping score, my current database (downloaded from the NTSB on 1 December) shows 238 total Cirrus accidents, 96 of which involved fatalities, with 190 total deaths.

One interesting thing about Cirrus is its high fatality rate in crashes. 40% of Cirrus accidents see fatalities, vs. 25% for the Cessna 210, 28% for the Beech single-engine line, and 28% for Van's as well. The Cirrus' rate is roughly equal to the two-seater Lancairs (43%). The Lancair IV is, ummmm, higher.

Ron Wanttaja

1600vw
12-24-2013, 06:52 AM
This conversation is doing a disservice to this post. No one is learning a thing. This is not about an airplane but about break down of the system we use, how that break down accrued can be argued but this is not about any certain type of airplane. This would have happened in any small airplane with how this played out.
Argue the Cirrus debate on another post but leave it be in this post. No one is learning a thing debating it here. No one is posting about the context of the events that happened, but its all about the airplane.
This is not about a Cirrus or any airplane but about a break down in our system, now listen to it and learn.
My 2 Cents
Tony

Mike M
12-24-2013, 07:46 AM
... coming into the pattern or entering the pattern, I over fly the runway midsection. I then enter down wind. I also use a TAS....Enter the pattern midsection and use a TAS along with your eye's...Smart flying is safe flying. Tony

Smart flying is safe flying. CONCUR! As to flying over the runway midsection, depends on what nation you're flying in and at what altitude. Flying over midfield ABOVE traffic pattern altitude first, exiting the area, then entering the pattern as you suggest is smart. For standard left-hand traffic patterns in the USA, please do what the FAA recommends. People, please PLEASE don't misunderstand Tony and fly over the runway midsection at traffic pattern altitude:

35853586358735883589

Yes, you will hear a LOT of people disagree with me. are any of them from the FAA enforcement branch or legal branch?I f so, let me know, i'll change my advice to "disregard all FAA advisory circulars concerning traffic patterns."

1600vw
12-24-2013, 08:01 AM
The way it played out in this event, the pilot was going to over fly the airport midsection. At the last min he diverted and flew to the end of the runway. We all know they way you enter a traffic pattern. But that is not what happened here. He should have stayed with the original plan of over flying midsection and then entering the pattern from the other side. A TAS would have told him about the traffic out 1 -2 NM and he would have avoided it without the suprise and then sudden movements.
Tony

1600vw
12-24-2013, 08:27 AM
In the airplane I fly,EAB, if I flew according to your diagram I would not be here typing this today. I fly like a Navy pilot holding it close. Now if I flew something with a Certified engine I would do things different.

But I fly my airplane for what it is, a non certified airplane, nothing on that airplane is airworthy and I fly it like such. You will NEVER see me fly and depart straight out, not until I am at 1000', I am circling above keeping the runway within glide distance at all times. This has saved me more then once or twice.

Now if I was flying over or into a towered airport I would be in contact with ATC and never attempt to over fly midsection unless told to do so. I doubt I would be vectored to over fly midsection but I am sure it has happened as it did here in this event. ATC expected this PIC to overfly midsection and then PIC changed his mind.

Tony

Mike M
12-24-2013, 08:37 AM
The way it played out in this event, the pilot was going to over fly the airport midsection. At the last min he diverted and flew to the end of the runway. We all know they way you enter a traffic pattern. But that is not what happened here. He should have stayed with the original plan of over flying midsection and then entering the pattern from the other side. A TAS would have told him about the traffic out 1 -2 NM and he would have avoided it without the suprise and then sudden movements.
Tony

Mebbe I'm viewing the wrong video. We discussing "Accident Case Study: Communication Breakdown" ???

At no point in that video does it even hint the PIC of 544SR intended to overfly the airport. Every xmsn indicates he planned for 5R the entire time. What video did I miss about overflying MLB?

Bill Greenwood
12-24-2013, 10:08 AM
Me too, Tony. While the controller talked about perhaps the left runway becoming available, the only clearance the pilot was ever given was to the right runway and the pilot even said the right was fine with him and that he was actually going to the FBO at the far end which is just as close to the right. The pilot was cleared for the right, and only for the right runway. The confict or confusion seems to be that the controller expected the pilot to continue on a normal lenght downwind, but once cleared the pilot cut the pattern short by turning base, thus setting up the conflict with the other Cirrus that was on the straight in approach.

As a separate matter, overflying an runway at midfield can be used in the US, but you must be careful to stay above pattern altitude and remember that just 500 feet may not be enough. While some planes use an 800 or 1000' pattern, larger ones and jets may use 1500' agl. You don't want to be descending directly onto downwind from just 500' above and opposite to any traffic coming in on a 45*.

Here in Aspen, we (piston singles) are often sent by the tower to Snowmass Village, the ski area base that is about 2 miles west of the airport and told to cross over midfield to enter downwind which can be either right to rwy 33 or left to rwy 15 which is the normal landing direction.
Basically, the tower arranges it so all is cleared for whatever fat cat is coming in on their IFR approach in their corporate jet or charter on a long straight in final. I have never seen a jet sent to Snowmass Village, and they always fly IFR no matter if there isn't a cloud in the state.

And Tony, I just went back and listened to the recording again, the pilot was cleared to rwy 9right and he acknowledged and never the left. He even said he was going to Baer FBO at the east end and so 9 R was better than 9L.
The problem seems to start the this Cirrus pilot didn't know about the other Cirrus which was already on long straight in final to the same 9R runway.

Mike M
12-24-2013, 10:14 AM
In the airplane I fly,EAB, if I flew according to your diagram...

whose diagram? not asking you to fly according to mine. the one "do it this way" isn't mine, it's the FAA's AIM figure 4-3-2. two of the others i plagarized and posted with "don't do it this way" , the last is a composite of "don't do it this way" diagrams from other sources.


...You will NEVER see me fly and depart straight out, not until I am at 1000', I am circling above keeping the runway within glide distance at all times...

uh, yeah, and you can do that just fine in the traffic pattern, but this was about arriving, not about departing.



...vectored to over fly midsection...as it did here in this event. ATC expected this PIC to overfly midsection and then PIC changed his mind.

we're entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts:

aopa.org/AOPA-Live.aspx?watch={384817B3-70C4-4147-9C4C-2A5517FD5DEE}

1600vw
12-24-2013, 10:27 AM
Again I screwed up. I posted to the wrong thread. Miss communication on my part. I thought this was about the AOPA report that I posted about earlier. The one with 42L and 42R. Please strike everything I have said in this post....Again posting before coffee, I should know better.

I will admit when I make a mistake and I did here. I posted to the wrong topic or thread. Sorry

Tony

Bill Greenwood
12-24-2013, 10:41 AM
Tony, have you been into the Christmas wine a little early? I'm glad that you see that you made a mistake, but I have to disalusion you one more time.
There is no runway 42 either left or right; there are only 360 degrees in a circle not 420. I assume you mean rwy 24, wherever you are getting that discussion from.
If you look down and see number 42 on a runway, it probably means you just overflew runway 24 in the opposite direction to traffic landing on 24 or maybe you took off on rwy 6.
Is that Irish coffee you are drinking before flying, and strong?

As for keeping the discussion to that accident scenario, I was all for that, it was " Ron" who wanted to divert it to an argument of how safe a Cirrus is, which may be a good OTHER topic, and one which I hope he starts.

rwanttaja
12-24-2013, 10:43 AM
Oh, goody, another pattern-entry argument. Remember, it ain't official until someone mentions 91.126(b)!

I'm on cdrmuetzel's side on this one (e.g., 45-degree entry) but solely from the desire for standardization. I think it's safer when everyone's following the same route; the closure rates and angles are lower.

To me, the main safety drawback for the cross-runway entry comes to play when a side-by-side two-seater or a four seater approach the downwing leg and make their left turn to join it. The visibility to the right is reduced in these cases (sitting in the left seat, looking across the cabin out the right side), especially if the plane is higher and descending. When it makes the left turn to downwind, the windowsill on the other side rises and the pilot loses all sight of any converging aircraft.

Not so bad with a single-seat or a tandem aircraft, of course. And if the pattern's right-hand, the joining aircraft has a pretty good view. But in a standard left-hand pattern, an aircraft joining from the 45 will have the same good view, at a lower convergence angle.

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja
12-24-2013, 10:54 AM
As for keeping the discussion to that accident scenario, I was all for that, it was "Flying Ron" who wanted to divert it to a discussion of how safe a Cirrus is, which may be a good other topic.

I thought you said you were done with that topic, Bill?

If someone posts a false or misleading statement (e.g., Cirruses can't recover from spins, or that a Cirrus VK-30 pusher lost during spin testing had ANYTHING to do with any production model, or that Richard Collins claims 80 Cirrus fatalities due to spins when he said no such thing), I reserve the right to make a correction, if I have the evidence to back it up.

Ron Wanttaja

Mike M
12-24-2013, 11:19 AM
Oh, goody, another pattern-entry argument.

oh, no, not an argument! and nope, i didn't mean to advocate for the 45 entry, that was the friendly aviation advisers. i just recommended following FAA guidance.

here's a composite of "standard" left traffic entries from FAA guidance documents:

3590

pretty wide-open. if you can't find one that works for you, well, whatever.

WLIU
12-24-2013, 12:47 PM
Ron,

I will take this opportunity to say thanks for spending so much time with the statistics and the patience to calmly lay them out when folks go off the rails with wild claims. Patience is hard. And the internet tends to be the wild west.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to all.

Wes
N78PS

pacerpilot
12-24-2013, 01:24 PM
Would not a TAS have helped here? I fly with one just so I see traffic out of eyesight.

Tony

No, I wouldn't. You can bolt every gadget ever made for an airplane to your bird and still fly it into the ground-especially if you're staring at all those gizmos on the panel and not out the windshield. No amount of gizmos can prevent an accident. The only one that can is the nut behind the stick. By the way, what would have happened if the accident aircraft were a non-electrical plane like a Taylorcraft? The gizmos don't work well in those.

pacerpilot
12-24-2013, 01:31 PM
oh, no, not an argument! and nope, i didn't mean to advocate for the 45 entry, that was the friendly aviation advisers. i just recommended following FAA guidance.

here's a composite of "standard" left traffic entries from FAA guidance documents:

3590

pretty wide-open. if you can't find one that works for you, well, whatever.

Wow. I see they left out the 45 degree inverted downwind entry with split "S" to final. My favorite:D.

Floatsflyer
12-24-2013, 02:09 PM
I'm getting somewhat fearful--not for me but for others with respect to pattern entrance. I got my private and commercial in the mid-70's at an uncontrolled field. Am I the only one in North America who was taught to enter on the non-active side of the runway at circuit height at a 90 degree angle to the downwind with the appropriate call out, "Maple traffic, XXX, Cessna 182 overhead the field, joining mid downwind left (or right) for 32 Maple." Just askin', am I missing something?

pacerpilot
12-24-2013, 02:28 PM
Fear not Floats, there's two of us. I use the "midfield entry to down wind" all the time-today in fact. I use whichever entry suits where I am relative to the field and for traffic separation. Since I rarely have a radio with me so "see and avoid" is my biggest asset in the pattern. When I do have my radio, I hear position calls of other aircraft, and subsequent turns etc. , with what appears to be no pilot observation at all. I've flown many "formation finals" with guys out of the larger controlled airports because they're used to flying their radio rather than looking for traffic on their own. I have always seen them coming-so far-and been able to react. But I understand your concern. We have become reliant on someone else's eyes and info. Unfortunately some have paid the ultimate price for this reliance.

Sam Buchanan
12-24-2013, 02:40 PM
I'm getting somewhat fearful--not for me but for others with respect to pattern entrance. I got my private and commercial in the mid-70's at an uncontrolled field. Am I the only one in North America who was taught to enter on the non-active side of the runway at circuit height at a 90 degree angle to the downwind with the appropriate call out, "Maple traffic, XXX, Cessna 182 overhead the field, joining mid downwind left (or right) for 32 Maple." Just askin', am I missing something?

When I received primary training in 1990 the "cross mid-field for left downwind" entry was taught and commonly flown. But in the past decade or so it has fallen out of favor as the 45* entry to left downwind has proven to be safer for both high and low-wing aircraft and is now the entry advocated by the AIM and up-to-date instructors.

I will occassionaly use the midfield option at our well-equipped but un-towered airport if I'm confident there is no traffic conflict. But it is maddening to see pilots entering downwind over the field at a heavily populated Saturday morning breakfast. Crashing a line of traffic on downwind by entering over midfield means somebody will get cut off and evasive action will have to be taken by an aircraft already established on downwind. I just don't understand what is happening in a pilot's brain when they willingly create chaos in this manner when adding a couple of minutes of quality flying time to join the flow on the 45* entry would enhance safety and prevent conflicts. But it happens every Saturday....even at the airport where jumpers are landing at mid-field...wow....

Maybe they were trained in the 70's........ ;)

Floatsflyer
12-24-2013, 04:01 PM
When I received primary training in 1990 the "cross mid-field for left downwind" entry was taught and commonly flown. But in the past decade or so it has fallen out of favor as the 45* entry to left downwind has proven to be safer for both high and low-wing aircraft and is now the entry advocated by the AIM and up-to-date instructors.
Maybe they were trained in the 70's........ ;)

From a logical standpoint, I can see the merits of the 45 degree approach to an uncontrolled field but only with respect to the fact that not everyone flies the downwind at the same equa-distance from the active. With the mid-field approach, I also learned those procedures that would allow for safe entry and proper separation in the event of high traffic situations.

As to your"maybe they were trained in the 70's" deeply cutting to the quick remark, let me just say, I learned the golden rule of airmanship--see and be seen; I can still gloriously map read; I can still dead reckon navigate; I can still use a VOR to and from; I can still look at a body of water and know the wind direction. I don't constantly have to keep my head in an IPad or on some glass to know where I am and what to do. (Yes, I use a GPS and Foreflight with IPad but they only compliment my skills, not the other way around!!)

WLIU
12-24-2013, 05:04 PM
On the topic of bolting every gadget into the panel, last year I think, we have a pilot fly down final watching all of the fancy displays right to impact on the runway. Never flared.

I was taught 360 overhead approaches. In a couple of airplanes that I fly, if traffic permits, it works real well to use "G" to bleed off speed to throw out the gear and flaps before leveling the wings and flaring. The local towered airport accomodates this whenever they can. And at non-towered airports you might hear the call "On the break for runway XX".

The other thing that you might want to listen for is the formation of two or more ships that fly downwind and break to base in sequence. You might hear lead call on downwind as a flight of X. That means that rather than you being #2 for the runway you are #X+1 and you likely want to slow down. That said, if that type of flight knows what they are doing, you should see multiple airplanes on the runway at the same time and they should get out of the way relatively quickly.

But the point is that there is more than one way to arrive and depart and the FAA has not diagrammed all of the accepted practices. So take what you see in their book with a grain of salt and as someone above said look out the windshield, keep aware of your relationship to the airport, and fly the airplane.

Merry Christmas,

Wes
N78PS

Sam Buchanan
12-24-2013, 10:59 PM
From a logical standpoint, I can see the merits of the 45 degree approach to an uncontrolled field but only with respect to the fact that not everyone flies the downwind at the same equa-distance from the active. With the mid-field approach, I also learned those procedures that would allow for safe entry and proper separation in the event of high traffic situations.

As to your"maybe they were trained in the 70's" deeply cutting to the quick remark, let me just say, I learned the golden rule of airmanship--see and be seen; I can still gloriously map read; I can still dead reckon navigate; I can still use a VOR to and from; I can still look at a body of water and know the wind direction. I don't constantly have to keep my head in an IPad or on some glass to know where I am and what to do. (Yes, I use a GPS and Foreflight with IPad but they only compliment my skills, not the other way around!!)

Was just having a little fun with the 70's remark, hope it didn't cut too deep. :)

Yep, I really don't know where the guys eyes/ears are when they blindly cut across mid-field and straight into a fur ball lined up on downwind. The reason the 45 entry with planes in trail seems to work safely in heavy traffic is it gives us a chance to view the big picture and hopefully figure out where everybody is located. It is also easy to bail out with a right-hand 180 if it appears a slot has closed up as we approach downwind. Having 6-8 planes in a non-towered pattern at the same time can be stressful if everyone doesn't have their head on a swivel! But it has been my experience that most pilots handle this situation in a professional manner.

VOR...what's that?? :D

1600vw
12-25-2013, 07:03 AM
Is this what every here is talking about?

http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live.aspx?watch={384817B3-70C4-4147-9C4C-2A5517FD5DEE}

1600vw
12-25-2013, 07:20 AM
[QUOTE=1600vw;37707]Is this what every here is talking about?


http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live.aspx?watch={384817B3-70C4-4147-9C4C-2A5517FD5DEE}

Bill Greenwood
12-25-2013, 10:06 AM
1600 , yes that is the one. It was one of the featured articles on the AOPA website 3 days ago, but then was moved off.
What were you looking at with the rwy 42 ?

And have a good Christmas. As for me, it is cold this morning, around 0, but is a beautiful blue sky day and I'm going skiing!
We have the best early season snow that we have had in about 6 years, and the town is starting to get pretty full. I haven't been out to the airport in a few days, but I'll bet it is wall to wingtip with diesel stinkers.

I'm still waiting for Santa to get around to bringing that P-51 that I asked for a few years back. I know I have been good enough for it.
On a broader scale I'd settle for Peace On Earth. but not much chance of that either.

1600vw
12-25-2013, 10:58 AM
1600 , yes that is the one. It was one of the featured articles on the AOPA website 3 days ago, but then was moved off.
What were you looking at with the rwy 42 ?

And have a good Christmas. As for me, it is cold this morning, around 0, but is a beautiful blue sky day and I'm going skiing!
We have the best early season snow that we have had in about 6 years, and the town is starting to get pretty full. I haven't been out to the airport in a few days, but I'll bet it is wall to wingtip with diesel stinkers.

I'm still waiting for Santa to get around to bringing that P-51 that I asked for a few years back. I know I have been good enough for it.
On a broader scale I'd settle for Peace On Earth. but not much chance of that either.

Cold here to, was around 0 here.
I was reading two different things and got them mixed up. I have no idea how I came up with runway 42. No idea. To much holiday spirit I do believe.

I was lucky and got me a new airplane for Christmas. Sonerai 2 stretch built as a single or a 1ls for a taller pilot and continental engine. I will not have it until after the first of the year but she is mine.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

rwanttaja
12-25-2013, 11:18 AM
On a broader scale I'd settle for Peace On Earth. but not much chance of that either.

Hard enough to find it in the EAA forum pages. :-)

Good Yule, y'all...

Ron Wanttaja

Mike M
12-25-2013, 03:45 PM
Am I the only one in North America who was taught to enter on the non-active side of the runway at circuit height at a 90 degree angle to the downwind with the appropriate call out, "Maple traffic, XXX, Cessna 182 overhead the field, joining mid downwind left (or right) for 32 Maple."

no. not the only one. thousands do it that way. because that's the appropriate circuit entry FOR CANADA.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp185-4-09-letter-754.htm

35963595

i believe entering the traffic pattern in the USA almost head-on to traffic which is following the FAA-published procedure is legal, but stucking fupid. but hey. don't let that bother anybody. i believe in santa claus, too. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Sam Buchanan
12-25-2013, 04:58 PM
no. not the only one. thousands do it that way. because that's the appropriate circuit entry FOR CANADA.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp185-4-09-letter-754.htm

3595

i believe entering the traffic pattern in the USA almost head-on to traffic which is following the FAA-published procedure is legal, but <not smart>

Yep, that is the conflict scenario we see in a busy pattern when a knucklehead comes wandering over midfield into a solid line of traffic joining the downwind from the preferred 45* entry. And it is usually an aircraft on the preferred entry that has to give way because the crossing pilot is oblivious (or doesn't care) to the mess he has created.

Floatsflyer
12-25-2013, 10:03 PM
no. not the only one. thousands do it that way. because that's the appropriate circuit entry FOR CANADA.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp185-4-09-letter-754.htm

35963595

i believe entering the traffic pattern in the USA almost head-on to traffic which is following the FAA-published procedure is legal, but stucking fupid. but hey. don't let that bother anybody. i believe in santa claus, too. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Good to know I fly right(or left) on the north side of the border where it isn't Stucking Fupid. O CANADA!!! And a very Merry Christmas to you and all from Toronto.

Mike M
12-26-2013, 06:00 AM
Good to know I fly right(or left) on the north side of the border where it isn't Stucking Fupid. O CANADA!!! And a very Merry Christmas to you and all from Toronto.

Floatsflyer, neither procedure is fupid. They're incompatible, that's all.

Bill Greenwood
12-26-2013, 11:58 AM
This accident was not a midair collision though it was perhaps brought on by the pilot and.or controller thinking that a conflict was developing between the accident Cirrus and the other one on the long straight in final.
One problem that can develop at tower controlled airports is that they have planes flying different patterns rather that all joining on downwind.

I don't see just crossing over midfield as necessarily dangerous. At Boulder, Co. it is the standard entry procedure for gliders. Most of the time we land on rwy 8 so we circle to descend just south of the field and cross midfield at 800 to 1000 feet AGL and join left downwind, same as if we join right downwind for rwy 26. The gliders mostly land on the grass on the north side, not on the main runway and they fly a tight pattern especially on base. Many have no radio. I have never heard of a midair between two gliders or between a glider and a power plane WHILE LANDING, so it works ok. The power planes mostly, not all, come in on a 45 to downwind on the north side. The power tow planes ( Pawnee, Cub) fly the same pattern as the gliders and land the same spot.
There was a collision between a Cirrus coming over the field from the north and hit a tow plane which had taken off with a glider and was climbing west just north of the field, unfortunately fatal to 2 in the Cirrus and 1 in the tow plane, with the glider unhooking and landing safely. The Cirrus chute did deploy, don't know whether it was pulled or just by impact, and it lowered the plane down but it was on fire by then.

If there is traffic, the safer way to overfly midfield if I am in a power plane and going to use the full pattern and land on the main runway is to stay AT LEAST 500 to 1000 feet higher than the pattern and move a couple of miles north of the field before descending and joining on 45 entry. Coming right over the field at pattern altitude seems more dangerous, but can and has been done IF you really keep a close lookout for traffic on a 45 or long downwind.
I have flown in Canada a few dozen times, have a Canadian license and I entered the pattern both ways and no one ever told me that their standard way was midfield. In a faster plane, I often use an overhead approach in either country, and I do at my home airport.