Crash in Arizona (Marana, Feb 19, 2025)

Rene said:
Fortunately, I don't have ADSB (I hear that it requires a SI). I have an earlier system: W-I-N-D-O-W-S. But my understanding, not to make light of those who perished, is that both the old and new require some amount of situational awareness.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, that not everybody flies a helicopter with glass floor panels. :rolleyes:
Most of us have a cowling and a solid floor in front / underneath them, what unfortunately creates a pretty big blind spot if two aircraft are converging vertically.
 
geezer said:
I have had a couple of posts removed elsewhere, and am not offended, but there was no claim by Council who did it. nauga is brave
Click to expand...
I had a few removed from this thread, and I totally agree with it. I got off topic and totally agree with the removal. PoA has always had great moderation, in my opinion. So thanks, nauga or whoever deleted my stuff :) !

Back on topic - just watched Juan's video on it and I think that was a good first analysis of this incident. And that student and instructor are absolutely lucky to still be breathing. While it's a terrible tragedy for the Lancair occupants, hopefully those of us who do fly into busy, non-towered airports will take note and sharpen our skills even further.... Something something always learning.... or something like that...
 
German guy said:
Most of us have a cowling and a solid floor in front / underneath them, what unfortunately creates a pretty big blind spot if two aircraft are converging vertically.
Click to expand...

Quite true. But part of being a competent pilot is being aware of your blind spots and proactively maneuvering to clear them. Hence the advocacy by numerous posters of a sidestep to keep departing traffic in sight during go around.

ADS-B is a valuable tool for traffic awareness, but would not have changed the outcome of this particular accident. The Lancair was fully aware of the 172, but failed to maintain visual contact.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Quite true. But part of being a competent pilot is being aware of your blind spots and proactively maneuvering to clear them. Hence the advocacy by numerous posters of a sidestep to keep departing traffic in sight during a go around.

ADS-B is a valuable tool for traffic awareness, but it would not have changed the outcome of this particular accident. The Lancair was fully aware of the 172, but they failed to maintain visual contact.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% and the Lancair pilot should have sidestepped in order to keep an eye on the Cessna.
Still, there are a ton of scenarios, in which ADS-B is vital in covering blind sports. So, yeah, "W-I-N-D-O-W-S" are great and we pilots need to stay vigilant, but this doesn't make ADS-B useless.
 
German guy said:
I agree 100% and the Lancair pilot should have sidestepped in order to keep an eye on the Cessna.
Click to expand...
I have an open cockpit airplane, but can't see behind very well. There's a limit to how far I can twist with the harness tight, and the goggles give me a bit of tunnel vision. With my little putt-putt airplane, this does prey on my mind when there's a fast-mover in the pattern.

Always been thinking of hanging a mirror on the windshield to cover my six. Probably wouldn't have helped in this case, with the Lancair coming fro below.

Ron Wanttaja
 
German guy said:
Still, there are a ton of scenarios, in which ADS-B is vital in covering blind sports.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I find it essential for enroute avoidance. My maximum visual range for spotting GA traffic is ~3 miles. If I am on a heading of 181 and a Mooney is on 359, both at same altitude, our closure rate is 300 mph, or one mile per 12 seconds. ADS-B tells me where to look for that rapidly growing speck in the sky.

I'm less a fan of use in the pattern. At busy airfields I'll glance at it about 5 miles out to understand traffic flow. But once I get within a few miles of the pattern, it's eyeballs outside and head on a swivel. Plus standard radio calls, of course.
 
wanttaja said:
I have an open cockpit airplane, but can't see behind very well. There's a limit to how far I can twist with the harness tight, and the goggles give me a bit of tunnel vision. With my little putt-putt airplane, this does prey on my mind when there's a fast-mover in the pattern.

Always been thinking of hanging a mirror on the windshield to cover my six. Probably wouldn't have helped in this case, with the Lancair coming fro below.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I loved that some Cessna 150/152s have a rear view mirror. I joke they are to make sure you don't get rear ended by a duck!
 
Can't help but think that it was a very poor decision of the Cessna to do stop-and-goes on a runway with active traffic in the pattern. Touch-and-go? Fine, keep it moving. Want to land, exit the runway and clean it up, then taxi back after a new space in the traffic has opened up? Fine, too. There's a time and place for stop-and-goes, and taxiing back down the runway; this doesn't appear the correct time & place for it.
 
Some reports are touch and go… still, the responsibility is on the Lancair to keep traffic in sight on a go around. A 50 foot side step is all it would have taken and ADS-B wouldn’t have helped. Eyeballs in the pattern please.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Can't help but think that it was a very poor decision of the Cessna to do stop-and-goes on a runway with active traffic in the pattern. Touch-and-go? Fine, keep it moving. Want to land, exit the runway and clean it up, then taxi back after a new space in the traffic has opened up? Fine, too. There's a time and place for stop-and-goes, and taxiing back down the runway; this doesn't appear the correct time & place for it.
Click to expand...
But a competent aviator knowing a student is in the 172 should be aware of the possibility that a student might end up needing to go full stop, or go-around as well. Good decision or not, if it was announced, it’s the next plane’s responsibility to adjust.
 
RyanShort1 said:
But a competent aviator knowing a student is in the 172 should be aware of the possibility that a student might end up needing to go full stop, or go-around as well. Good decision or not, if it was announced, it’s the next plane’s responsibility to adjust.
Click to expand...
I agree, however the fact that it was noted earlier that he had already side-stepped for a go around once makes me wonder about the participants in the pattern showing proper etiquette so-to-speak. He ended up paying the price either way, but I'm not sure the event leaves everyone else without fault.
 
I would say to the comment about others not being without fault, that one should never assume the actions of another in the pattern. I fly like a feral cat. So the responsibility is on the plane on final while a plane hasn’t cleared the runway. The last clear chance to avoid an accident is solely on the Lancair. Anything else comes close to blaming a victim, at least with the information we have at present. If the Lancair ran over the plane completely or not, it does not change failure to slow down and yield for a plane on the runway. He also did a 360 in the pattern, which tells me a bit about the decision making.
 
Last edited:
SoonerAviator said:
I agree, however the fact that it was noted earlier that he had already side-stepped for a go around once makes me wonder about the participants in the pattern showing proper etiquette so-to-speak. He ended up paying the price either way, but I'm not sure the event leaves everyone else without fault.
Click to expand...
The Lancair came into the pattern doing 165 knots groundspeed almost head on to a Cessna (“middle”) that was doing 90 GS from crosswind to downwind. The Lancair did the 360, came out of it doing 140, while the middle Cessna was still doing about 90 abeam the numbers on downwind. That middle Cessna had to extend for the accident Cessna, who had extended for an SR20.

By the time the Lancair turned onto final, the accident Cessna was over the numbers, the middle Cessna was about a mile in trail doing 65 over the ground and the Lancair a mile in trail of that doing 90. The accident Cessna did either a low approach or touch and go. The middle Cessna did a full stop and left the picture, but the Lancair had caught up to it and did go around #1.

For pattern #2, the Lancair was now behind the accident Cessna. It was doing 140 on the downwind, a mile and a quarter in trail of the accident Cessna that was doing about 110. The accident Cessna extended for the SR20, which put it on about a 1.5 mile final, which also allowed a Skyvan to depart. By the time the Lancair turned final it was doing 90-95 knots, 1.5 miles behind the accident Cessna, who was still on a one mile final, doing 55 knots.

It ended up chewing up that space pretty rapidly, and of course, the Cessna did a stop and go or whatever. Even if they had taxiied off, it would have taken long enough that I the Lancair would have had to go around again.

You really need to watch the big picture playback to get an idea. We have yet to hear what intentions were being broadcast, but other than maybe the stop and go, (edit: based on the ADS-B data,) nothing the accident Cessna or any other aircraft in the pattern did prior looked out of the ordinary.
 
Last edited:
mandm said:
Yikes, did they both have adsb?
Click to expand...
We managed traffic at non towered airports for almost a century before the implementation of ADS-B. Even now, not every aircraft is so equipped. We all still need to fly with a swivel neck to go along with as much technology as we can muster without developing total dependency on either.
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
I have an open cockpit airplane, but can't see behind very well. There's a limit to how far I can twist with the harness tight, and the goggles give me a bit of tunnel vision. With my little putt-putt airplane, this does prey on my mind when there's a fast-mover in the pattern.
Click to expand...
Clearly you just need to fly with a friend:
rear gunner.jpg
 
Does anyone know if there are any communications recorded associated with these planes?

Thanks Flying keys for the information about the crash. I heard that the Lancair pilot was a former NASA engineer and had won awards for building that plane.
 
Last edited:
I've had a Citation almost rear end us in the pattern, in the pre ADS-B days. Good thing we had TCAS.
I've had a twin almost run into me on downwind, because he was going way faster than he should have and not paying attention. And a couple more at angles where I could've never seen them.

My closest call in the pattern? A NORDO Cub, flying a non-standard pattern below pattern altitude, coming up in front if me below my nose. Close enough to recognize the people in the plane.
And at the end of the day, all of us would'be dead, "Because I don't need to have a radio and it's too hot for me to climb to pattern altitude"
 
AV8R_87 said:
I've had a Citation almost rear end us in the pattern, in the pre ADS-B days. Good thing we had TCAS.
I've had a twin almost run into me on downwind, because he was going way faster than he should have and not paying attention. And a couple more at angles where I could've never seen them.

My closest call in the pattern? A NORDO Cub, flying a non-standard pattern below pattern altitude, coming up in front if me below my nose. Close enough to recognize the people in the plane.
And at the end of the day, all of us would'be dead, "Because I don't need to have a radio and it's too hot for me to climb to pattern altitude"
Click to expand...
Yeah, my view of Nordo fliers is similar to that of a**hole drivers who zoom around with that “f*** you and your road rules” attitude …
 
Warmi said:
Yeah, my view of Nordo fliers is similar to that of a**hole drivers who zoom around with that “f*** you and your road rules” attitude …
Click to expand...
The flip side of that is drivers who think if they announce their actions on the radio, it makes it all right. Back in my NORDO days, I was once on final, behind a Cessna who decided he was too close to the plane touching down. So he did a 360 on final. Came out behind me, about the same (too close) distance he'd been to the other airplane. I did wave as he went by.....

The more-typical attitude I got was, "I can't see you if you don't announce on the radio."

In my NORDO days, I did pay strict attention to the standard pattern entry. Made my life easier when other pilots did as well, but I would do the "NORDO Shuffle" on the 45, yawing and rolling to see behind the blind spots.

Typical cabin airplane has so many blind spots, I'd be really nervous flying NORDO. Much better visibility in an open-cockpit single-seater....
1740192562860.png

Ron Wanttaja
 
I did a study on midairs last year, covering 2008 through 2021. Total of 144 midairs. One odd result is that only a third of them were in in the traffic pattern. "Maneuvering" or "Enroute" conditions for two-thirds of the midairs. Radios don't help much, there.

Ten of the 144 involved at least one NORDO airplane. Five were on final, two on initial climb. The others were scattered around a bit. A couple cases involved airplanes operating from adjacent airports with no common frequency.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I did a study on midairs last year, covering 2008 through 2021. Total of 144 midairs. One odd result is that only a third of them were in in the traffic pattern. "Maneuvering" or "Enroute" conditions for two-thirds of the midairs. Radios don't help much, there.

Ten of the 144 involved at least one NORDO airplane. Five were on final, two on initial climb. The others were scattered around a bit. A couple cases involved airplanes operating from adjacent airports with no common frequency.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Well, makes sense to me except perhaps your reference to “only a third “ ….. 30% of all midairs occur at a location we tend to be maybe 3% of time ..if we were to assume a typical cross country flight, that is.
 
Driving, there are people who never, ever, use their turn signals. Then there are people who think, that because they put on their left blinker, they don't have to stop at the entrance to the state highway. No, they can just cross a lane of traffic in a 55 MPH zone because they signaled.

It isn't the blinker, or even its use or non-use. It's the attitude and behavior of the driver that is unsafe.
 
I'm surprised to learn that only a third of mid-airs are in the traffic pattern. Because the accident rate isn't dependent on how often we are at a particular location, everything else equal it is dependent on how often two or more aircraft are at a particular location...pretty much by definition of mid-air. That's telling me that we're actually not bad a avoiding mid-air collisions in the traffic pattern, overall. I tend to view it a bit like riding a motorcycle. I assume that unless they've said otherwise, the other aircraft are going potentially going to do something goofy. So I don't assume the guy is necessarily going to hold short when I'm on final, don't assume the guy is going to clear the runway until he does, etc. And I think most people do that.

This particular story is sad, but I'm betting most of the time the aircraft going around side steps a bit, as I do when avoiding traffic, and it's all harmless.

Re ADSB, it wouldn't have helped me here, I use it before and after pattern entry, but not in. I'm looking outside. But given the 1/3 - 2/3 statistic, I'm glad I use it and/or flight following nearly all the time.

Oh, re the cubs, I have done the no radio thing. But that's not always on purpose. Using an HT in a cub isn't always that reliable. Batteries die, antennas don't work well, it's a PITA to use most HTs solo, and even a great headset doesn't always work great with all the wind. It's a good thing most of them are painted bright yellow.
 
Rene said:
Driving, there are people who never, ever, use their turn signals. Then there are people who think, that because they put on their left blinker, they don't have to stop at the entrance to the state highway. No, they can just cross a lane of traffic in a 55 MPH zone because they signaled.

It isn't the blinker, or even its use or non-use. It's the attitude and behavior of the driver that is unsafe.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, it is the attitude for sure but using turn signals is not just for virtue signaling and actually does serve a purpose.
 
Albany Tom said:
I'm surprised to learn that only a third of mid-airs are in the traffic pattern. Because the accident rate isn't dependent on how often we are at a particular location, everything else equal it is dependent on how often two or more aircraft are at a particular location...pretty much by definition of mid-air. That's telling me that we're actually not bad a avoiding mid-air collisions in the traffic pattern, overall. I tend to view it a bit like riding a motorcycle. I assume that unless they've said otherwise, the other aircraft are going potentially going to do something goofy. So I don't assume the guy is necessarily going to hold short when I'm on final, don't assume the guy is going to clear the runway until he does, etc. And I think most people do that.

This particular story is sad, but I'm betting most of the time the aircraft going around side steps a bit, as I do when avoiding traffic, and it's all harmless.

Re ADSB, it wouldn't have helped me here, I use it before and after pattern entry, but not in. I'm looking outside. But given the 1/3 - 2/3 statistic, I'm glad I use it and/or flight following nearly all the time.

Oh, re the cubs, I have done the no radio thing. But that's not always on purpose. Using an HT in a cub isn't always that reliable. Batteries die, antennas don't work well, it's a PITA to use most HTs solo, and even a great headset doesn't always work great with all the wind. It's a good thing most of them are painted bright yellow.
Click to expand...
Guessing there's a lot of formation incidents in the "maneuvering" category skewing the results? I agree that 1/3 seems strangely low.
 
It does seem weird...but Ron's statistical skills and dedication to it are way better than mine, so I trust the results.

Oh, and re turn signals, I think that's a Boston thing. I don't think they signal much because to do so provides a warning to block. And they do merge at 45 degree angles at full highway speed. Visit there all the time, always a fun time.
 
John Spartan said:
Marana has a flight school that flies pipers and 172s. Hoping it’s not students in the 172. Fast plane overtaking a slow plane or some variation of the usual issues with straight ins vs pattern flight come to mind so far. Not seeing any details at all yet though. Always a tragic loss of fellow fliers. :(
Click to expand...
Aeroguard out of KCHD. It appears the Aeroguard C172 was not in the wrong.... but we'll let the NTSB sort it out. RIP to the deceased and prayers to the families.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
I was on final with a student pilot when a "Texas taildragger" Cessna 150 pulled onto the runway and started his takeoff roll. I told the student to go around, and she did the sidestep, and the other airplane (obviously more powerful than our 150) climbed up next to us and passed us. No radio calls. I don't think that pilot was aware we were there. Pretty sure he was on the wrong frequency.
Click to expand...
BINGO! Side-step if you are executing a go-around. Safe protocol to prevent a from colliding with a departing aircraft from the same runway. I am a CFI. I was taught about a side step when i first started flying in 1986, and have always taught the side-step to my students. I'm shocked to hear that some folks don't do it or some never heard of it. Please do the side-step if you are going around. You can look down and see any departing aircraft from the runway you were about to land on... and they wont climb and hit your belly...............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top