Crashes in the News - Thread

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Mark Schoening

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
114
Location
KRHI
Years ago, in the evening, calm winds, crossing the threshold, landing on rw 09, saw airplane on short final for rw 27. Power and left turn, the other plane landed. In FBO asked other pilot if he saw me or announced his position, He said "I was IFR and had clearance. I Had priority."
I walked.
My Point: Instruments and controllers perhaps give feelings of safety, rights, and arrogance.
Be prepared for all eventualities, sooner or later you will be tested. You'd better pass.
 

Mike Stewart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
57
Location
San Diego, CA
Thanks for all the additional info on this collision. Dealing with passangers can be an awful distraction. I try as much as possible to keep a bulkhead (or at least a curtain) between me and the SLF in back. Tour operators are in special jeopordy for distraction.

Thanks for the apology Radfordc. I shoot off without thinking sometime.

Although wrong to speculate on this crash - my main objective is to draw attention to how extra vigalance is called for to keep eyes out the windscrean in high traffic density areas and in unusual circumstnces such as this one. We're gradually becoming screen-centered instead of see and avoid centered and I've already recently seen two clear instances of accidents due to this phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,826
Location
Port Townsend WA
I think there needs to be a switch from screens to some sort of ADS-B enhanced heads up glasses, that let the pilot "see" the traffic, terrain, etc. I had discussions about this with the Alaska Capstone Program director.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
771
Location
SW Ohio
This accident occurred while one or both aircraft were landing on the water in a fairly remote area. You can technically receive TIS-B data at surface levels, but not to a degree where aircraft in a pattern or taxiing could be deconflicted without ASSC/ASDE-X. The fact that Alaska was used as the test area for ADS-B is irrelevant. That’s even more true when you consider the test area was nowhere near where this accident occurred. Anyone familiar with ADS-B In can also tell you there really is no ‘ADS-B screen’ to stare at. TIS-B data is typically integrated or overlayed onto existing screens. I can’t say that a TIS-B stand-alone, dedicated display doesn’t exist, but I’ve never seen or heard of one (portables possibly excepted). I’ve never seen a panel with enough available real estate to make something like that practical. For the displays I’ve seen with integrated TIS-B data, there really isn’t anything to stare at. Pilots typically don’t even look at TIS-B unless they receive an audio alert of if they’re in an area where the volume, density or nature of traffic makes it advisable (kinda fun to watch Airventure and Sun N Fun arrivals). There’s nothing to suggest either aircraft would have been utilizing TIS-B in or near a landing pattern, there’s nothing to suggest that anyone would ever be inclined to attempt anything of that sort, and there’s nothing to suggest using it in such a manner is even feasible or practical. We’ve all learned that stupidity often knows no bounds, but this really boils down to, what are the odds?

I don’t think anyone here would argue that relying on cockpit displays to the point that it diverts attention away from see and avoid, is a good thing. And I don’t think anyone would dispute that heavier reliance on in-cockpit technology has in many cases made that problem worse, maybe even much worse with the ‘smart phone’ generation. It’s simple human conditioning, which has always been a difficult thing to overcome. Nobody’s saying that couldn’t happen or that such things can be more prevalent as new technology is introduced. I think some just consider it distasteful that anyone would assume what amounts to stupidity on the part of a flight crew when there’s nothing evidentiary at this point to suggest that’s the case.

I can’t help but grin and wonder if old pilots complained that see and avoid accidents would become far worse when they implemented such radical new technology as NDBs, VORs or ILSs.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,389
Location
Seattle, WA
This accident occurred while one or both aircraft were landing on the water in a fairly remote area.
Are you sure? The accident happened on the way back from remote activities, and about seven miles from where the cruise ships were docked. The hand with the pen is showing where the cruise ships were.


Ron Wanttaja
 

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,826
Location
Port Townsend WA
I don't know what those flight tracks came from. TIS-B requires radar coverage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_information_service_–_broadcast
Ketchikan doesn't have a Tower. Maybe Anchorage Center? Looks like some blips when below the mountains out of radar coverage. Apparently they both had transponders?

They were likely reporting inbound to land on 123.6 to KetchiKan traffic (FSS) CTAF.
 
Last edited:

Derswede

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
897
Location
Central North Carolina
Will have to dig up the pilots name, but did a private hire tour from that while on a "geriatric cruise" in Alaska. The pilot did have ADSB but mentioned that targets would blink on and off due to terrain. He did not trust it but used it as an extra warning system. The flight path into Misty Fjords is tight, and my first observation when we entered the fjord was that if you were not being VERY observant, it would be a disaster. We went early so had little traffic to deal with. The contracted tour operators tended to bunch up around mid-day. My pilot said, lets get in and out before the big guys. Cessna 182 on floats. My wife and I were by far the youngest ones on that cruise.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,260
Location
Fresno, California
Some good info here on the Alaskan midair:

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/05/de-havilland-canada-dhc-2-beaver-mk-i.html?m=0

According to NTSB, the two planes merged obliquely. The Otter was descending and going 20 knots faster than the Beaver, so I would guess that the Otter was hidden from view from the Beaver pilot.

The Beaver wreckage was scattered widely (1000’ by 3000’) which tends to indicate severe damage or breakup at altitude (approx 3000’ AGL). The main wreckage was approximately below the collision point.

The Otter sank approximately 1 mile away after nosing over, on a backtrack course from their original direction of travel. 10 of the 11 on board were able to extricate themselves and were rescued by boat. This seems to me to indicate that the Otter was possibly still partially flyable and attempting a water landing.

**************************************************

Now, my own input on the forum debate about ADSB and its possible role as a distractor. IF it was available and showed both planes, I think its best possible contribution could have been identifying a convergence LONG BEFORE they got close enough to trigger any proximity alerts. When I have a screen available to me, I watch for traffic much further out that may be converging. This gives me time to see and avoid before they become an issue. I also know that the system may not show all traffic and that see and avoid is still one of our best tools at hand. ATC support (like flight following) falls into the same level as ADSB.

The bottom line is that we should use all of the tools in our bag that are available to us at the time. Use see and avoid, but if available, we should back that up with ATC and ADSB. We also need to acknowledge that none of these techniques are infallible, so we need to remain diligent at all times and not rely 100% on just one tool if others tools are available. Use of all tools is as true here as it is in many accident cases, like the Air France that stalled into the Atlantic. So, you may not be required to have all of the tools, but prioritize and use all of the tools at your disposal... your life might depend on it.
 
Last edited:

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,373
Location
North Carolina
To change the topic. There seem to be a lot of aircraft that hit wires and poles. Most recently, Bob Barrows flew into wires that weren't there the last time he flew to that airport. It woudn't be that hard to fix an orange disc to the top of new or replacement poles. I think this should be compulsory within a mile of airports and good idea elswhere, too.
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
4,952
Location
Upper midwest in a house
To change the topic. There seem to be a lot of aircraft that hit wires and poles. Most recently, Bob Barrows flew into wires that weren't there the last time he flew to that airport. It woudn't be that hard to fix an orange disc to the top of new or replacement poles. I think this should be compulsory within a mile of airports and good idea elswhere, too.
It's been my experience that planes have to tangle with the same wires 3-4 times before there is any effort to mark the wires with visual aids.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
10,504
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
To change the topic. There seem to be a lot of aircraft that hit wires and poles. Most recently, Bob Barrows flew into wires that weren't there the last time he flew to that airport. It woudn't be that hard to fix an orange disc to the top of new or replacement poles. I think this should be compulsory within a mile of airports and good idea elswhere, too.
Ask me at Oshkosh and I will tell you a story - sad, funny, and true - about CP&L / Progress Energy (now Duke Energy) and orange balls on power lines.


BJC
 

Hot Wings

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
6,765
Location
Rocky Mountains
S I watch for traffic much further out that may be converging. This gives me time
Not having ever used one of these............

I would have expected the software to take care of this chore. I'd want to only be bothered with targets that are likely to be a threat within a 3 minute radius. Anything outside a 3 minute radius is just another bit of information that is distracting from the job of flying the plane. If Phalanx radar can ignore missiles outbound or needing greater than a 10G turn to be a threat we should be able to do similar?
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,260
Location
Fresno, California
Not having ever used one of these............

I would have expected the software to take care of this chore. I'd want to only be bothered with targets that are likely to be a threat within a 3 minute radius. Anything outside a 3 minute radius is just another bit of information that is distracting from the job of flying the plane. If Phalanx radar can ignore missiles outbound or needing greater than a 10G turn to be a threat we should be able to do similar?
I just meant that it becomes part of the scan and help identify quadrants that might need a extra bit of scrutiny during the visual scan, same as when ATC advises you of nearby traffic during flight following.

Most of my use of a screen has been as passenger and auxiliary spotter for the pilot, so it lends itself a little better to that scenario. I will say that, like a cluttered sectional, traffic markers can sometimes go unnoticed if you scan too quickly.
 

mcrae0104

Armchair Mafia Conspirator
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,147
Location
BDU, BJC
I would have expected the software to take care of this chore.
It does. Here is a snippet of the manual of the transponder that was recently installed in the plane I rent most often. I have not fully digested the whole manual yet.

Pages from L3 Transponder Page 001.jpg Pages from L3 Transponder Page 002.jpg Pages from L3 Transponder Page 003.jpg
 

Mike Stewart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
57
Location
San Diego, CA
I do agree with you regarding people making authoritive-sounding statements about accident causes when causes are not yet known. My post was a sarcastic recognition that as we get more and more into the ADS-B world, "see and avoid" is giving way more and more to screen addiction. It's happened in a huge way with ground vehicles and it logically follows that the same phenomenon is happening in the air - witness the Citation that recently did a straight-in to a non-towered airport (Kansas I think) for a fuel stop where they drove straight through a 172 killing both instructor and student. The pattern-work plane was announcing their turns but the cockpit-fixated Citation pilots didn't even have the CTAF dialed in and as for looking for traffic - well, that's what the TCAS and ADS-B is for isn't it? Their heads were completely in the cockpit. We've seen it with soccer moms driving full speed into the rear of semis while texting and we're starting to see the same phenomenon with aircraft. I meant not to proclaim any presumptive cause regarding the Beaver(s) collision, but rather to point to a possible factor. I I did use the word "probably" - a poor choice of words. I too get annoyed with Monday-morning quarterbacking when it comes to aircraft accidents. I could have been a little more conscious of my wording in my post and will take more care in the future.

Speaking of another possible contributing factor, I wonder if either of the Beaver pilots had broadcast their position and intention as one was landing and the other taking off? In a high traffic area as they were, it's possible they had become a bit blase. Just a thought, not a presumption. Operating in what was a very familiar area to them and perhaps having ADS-B In/Out to possibly relieve them of their normal SOP, I'm just throwing out possible scenarios. As commercially operated aircraft I think it's very likely they were equipped with ADS-B . . . for a variety of reasons. One - help with weather in an area where weather is a daily critical issue. Two, Alaska aircraft started off this whole ADS-B thing with Capstone so it's been considered standard equipment up there for two decades at least and they were commercial operators, and Three - as commercial operations I'd imagine their insurance would have prompted them to have it on board, perhaps even required it or at least induced them through lower premiums to have it.

Anyway. What really prompted my comment was a wish to publically bring attention to the gradual, insidious migration of pilot attention from outside to inside, just as what is happening with ground vehicles. In the Citation/172 case, not having the CTAF dialed in is unforgivable. The jet landed safely. The instructor and student in the 172 never knew what hit them.
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
972
Location
Louisville, KY
witness the Citation that recently did a straight-in to a non-towered airport (Kansas I think) for a fuel stop where they drove straight through a 172 killing both instructor and student. The pattern-work plane was announcing their turns but the cockpit-fixated Citation pilots didn't even have the CTAF dialed in and as for looking for traffic - well, that's what the TCAS and ADS-B is for isn't it? Their heads were completely in the cockpit.
This is not proof, in any way, shape, or form, that the pilots of the Citation had their heads completely in the cockpit. It is only proof that they had their heads completely up their own asses. If they had their heads completely in the cockpit they should have noticed they did not switch to the CTAF. Depending on the environment, it can be quite difficult to spot planes even when you have a position report. Lacking the position report, it can be even more difficult.

Speaking of another possible contributing factor, I wonder if either of the Beaver pilots had broadcast their position and intention as one was landing and the other taking off?
No, this is not supported by the flight tracks, which were posted here several times.

Look, we get it, you don't like ADS-B. But rampant, wild speculation is not really beneficial to the conversation on this crash, and is unsupported by any of the available facts.

If you want to start a speculative discussion about the dangers of new technology, start a post in Hangar Flying. This is not the thread you're looking for.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,389
Location
Seattle, WA
Speaking of another possible contributing factor, I wonder if either of the Beaver pilots had broadcast their position and intention as one was landing and the other taking off? In a high traffic area as they were, it's possible they had become a bit blase.
Again, what confirmation do we have that either was landing or taking off? The maps I've seen show the collision occurring over an inlet about 7 miles from the cruise ships.

Did this accident actually occur in Ketchikan harbor? Or was there some other destination in the inlet where the planes collided?

Ron Wanttaja
 

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,284
Speaking of another possible contributing factor, I wonder if either of the Beaver pilots had broadcast their position and intention as one was landing and the other taking off? In a high traffic area as they were, it's possible they had become a bit blase. Just a thought, not a presumption. Operating in what was a very familiar area to them and perhaps having ADS-B In/Out to possibly relieve them of their normal SOP, I'm just throwing out possible scenarios.
Again, the misunderstanding of how/where the accident occurred....not anywhere close to the runway environment. I believe that the early poster who alleged that the pilots had their heads "down and locked" has somehow created a belief that the accident was related to operations in/near the traffic pattern, when in fact it occurred at 3000 MSL and miles away from the landing site.
 
2
Group Builder
Top