Crash in Carrollton GA 2 airplanes down, 3 dead.

mscard88 said:
The million dolla question.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's right but this is what I do. If I'm on a straight in I give way to any traffic in the pattern that will be a conflict. I join the pattern on the upwind and sequence with established traffic or break out for the 45 to downwind. Which one depends on how much traffic there is and how far out I am. If I'm the guy in the pattern and someone is doing the straight in I do not turn until I have a visual on the traffic. If that means I sequence behind them the so be it.
 
Jay Honeck said:
The bubble canopy gives me a panoramic view of the pattern that is hard to beat. I'd like to think that I would be able to see and avoid the sort of traffic conflict that resulted in this tragedy.

Of course, if I was the Bo's assumed position, I still couldn't see down and to the left... :(
Click to expand...

Have you been in a da20? The bubble canopy in it gives great visibility in it.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I don't know if it's right but this is what I do. If I'm on a straight in I give way to any traffic in the pattern that will be a conflict. I join the pattern on the upwind and sequence with established traffic or break out for the 45 to downwind. Which one depends on how much traffic there is and how far out I am. If I'm the guy in the pattern and someone is doing the straight in I do not turn until I have a visual on the traffic. If that means I sequence behind them the so be it.
Click to expand...
Well said, struck me right off as good tactics. . .
 
When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.

So, where's the question? Seems to me that the plane on the bottom (...at the lower altitude...) had the right-of-way. Period. (for whatever that's worth to them). Facts and details are generally absent, but in addition to the many tips on good airman-ship already posted, I will add that straight-ins should be down to TPA several miles in advance, fully lit-up, broadcasting and listening for traffic, with eyes scanning, scanning, scanning.

Fly safely.
 
You're missing the second part about not taking advantage of being lower to cut in front of another plane on final.

What I've read above indicates that the Bo was on final, and the other plane cut in front of it and was hit from above. So the Diamond apparently did just what the second half if the "right of way" regulation specifically says not to do . . .
 
OK, I understand that point. In order for that to be true, we'd need some evidence that the DA20 deliberately "cut-off" the Bonanza, and the violation would be clear. However, how can we exclude the possibility that the Bo was on a straight-in from above TPA and descended into active traffic. One wonder,too, if the aircraft were incommunicado throughout the sequence leading up to the accident. Many more questions than answers at this point in time. I appreciate your comment. Be blessed
 
Maybe the student and instructor were concentrating in their lesson and planned a simulated engine out short approach and didn't see the Bo coming in. Maybe the CFI was concentrating to understand the student and missed the Bo's radio calls.

Since when does one have to "deliberately" cut someone off to be wrong? Isn't an inadvertent cut off just as bad? That's probably what happened here. One plane doing his thing, expecting the other to fly a normal pattern; a second plane, doing their thing, concentrating on communication inside the cockpit, and cutting short like they planned. That's why things like this are called "accidents," no one planned for it to happen . . .

At any rate, there will be an investigation dragging on for a year, with periodic releases of information. It's a bit premature to blame either pilot just yet. We're all just "what if-ing" with zero information and a p!ss pot full of individual prejudices that show in the conclusions being reached.
 
Hank S said:
Maybe the student and instructor were concentrating in their lesson and planned a simulated engine out short approach and didn't see the Bo coming in. Maybe the CFI was concentrating to understand the student and missed the Bo's radio calls.

Since when does one have to "deliberately" cut someone off to be wrong? Isn't an inadvertent cut off just as bad? That's probably what happened here. One plane doing his thing, expecting the other to fly a normal pattern; a second plane, doing their thing, concentrating on communication inside the cockpit, and cutting short like they planned. That's why things like this are called "accidents," no one planned for it to happen . . .

At any rate, there will be an investigation dragging on for a year, with periodic releases of information. It's a bit premature to blame either pilot just yet. We're all just "what if-ing" with zero information and a p!ss pot full of individual prejudices that show in the conclusions being reached.
Click to expand...


Your points are cogent and valid. I invoked "deliberate" to respond to the language in the regs pertaining to "take advantage (of being at a lower altitude)." The action doesn't need to be deliberate to be wrong, but it certainly seems to make it more wrong. As you noted, the investigation will be on-going, and our discussion allows us to suggest numerous "what-ifs" as possible starting points to explanations of the accident. I have encountered numerous conflicts in the traffic pattern in my flying, and several were the result of "non-standard" use of the traffic pattern and/or no effective radio communication (for whatever reason). Others and I have suggested the possibilities that can be examined for inclusion or exclusion to arrive at a rigorous conclusion: I don't believe that individual prejudices and conclusions are as firm as you might believe -- conjecture is a starting point to a theory. As airmen, we learn from these discussions, and often illuminate important tangents to add to our knowledge and instinct for the sake of safety.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The California Mentality, the idea that you can regulate and legislate every little situation, is what's killing GA. Make this required, make that required, make this cost more. Trust me, these days, there is 1 airspace type I'm completely comfortable operating in, Class A. Keeps you out of Indian Territory (where the Cherokee, Navajo, Archer, Warrior and other similar types play).
Click to expand...

Am I the only one that sees the irony in this dribble? The only place our typical Kansan feels safe is the most regulated airspace of all that is completely controlled by the government and out of reach of most people that participate GA, a segment of aviation that he is so concerned is being "killed" by the very regulations that allows him to feel safe. He seems fine with us low life flying below 18,000 ft doing whatever, however because he will be flying above in a safe and sane area well regulated by the government and out of reach of most "playing indians". That of course implies he is doing serious work upstairs where the proper airplanes and pilots are.

What a piece of work this guy is.
 
Dav8or said:
Am I the only one that sees the irony in this dribble? The only place our typical Kansan feels safe is the most regulated airspace of all that is completely controlled by the government and out of reach of most people that participate GA, a segment of aviation that he is so concerned is being "killed" by the very regulations that allows him to feel safe. He seems fine with us low life flying below 18,000 ft doing whatever, however because he will be flying above in a safe and sane area well regulated by the government and out of reach of most "playing indians". That of course implies he is doing serious work upstairs where the proper airplanes and pilots are.

What a piece of work this guy is.
Click to expand...

I wonder what kind of training airplane he learned to fly in above 18,000 ft - must have been some special kinda Cessna 172. ;)
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think the radio is a better tool than see and avoid.
I hear people on the radio that I can't see all the time.
For whatever reason, I have near perfect vision but I suck at visually identifying traffic.
Click to expand...
Me too (at least in one eye, the other's ok). But I can't locate traffic for sh*t, and I was hoping that I wouldn't fail the checkride because of it.
 
I look, as well as I can. I do all the things I can to mitigate the risks. In the end, it really is a big sky.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
In the big picture whenever people say things like "I don't know if more regulation would have helped but I know it wouldn't have hurt" I get very skeptical. More regulation most likely would have had zero impact on this accident other than you could say at some point someone not only screwed up and died but they were also violated a regulation while in the process of screwing up and becoming dead.

I'm sorry but none of your emotional rant and use of the word crap has convinced this member of the pilot community we need any more help from the regulatory department.
Click to expand...

Many have their mind set that nothing can be done to make flying safer. I get that. If you are of that mind set, then my rant wasn't for you. It was for the folks that have their mind open to possibilities, rather than "It's as good as can be now." BTW, less regulation has already demonstrated that it is not safer as accident rates have declined since the "good ol' days" of aviation.

I am proposing making radio use mandatory in the traffic pattern as well as turning on lighting when available. Which do find offensive, obtrusive, or a burden on your freedoms and why?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
You're right. It's pretty much every state these days. It has become popular to want more rules and government to fix things and no individual responsibility.
Click to expand...

What does individual responsibility have to do with this crash? All I can figure is, if you don't want to die in a plane crash, don't get in an airplane. I can agree with that, but it does little to further the cause of GA, if of course that is an actual goal.
 
Dav8or said:
Many have their mind set that nothing can be done to make flying safer. I get that. If you are of that mind set, then my rant wasn't for you. It was for the folks that have their mind open to possibilities, rather than "It's as good as can be now." BTW, less regulation has already demonstrated that it is not safer as accident rates have declined since the "good ol' days" of aviation.

I am proposing making radio use mandatory in the traffic pattern as well as turning on lighting when available. Which do find offensive, obtrusive, or a burden on your freedoms and why?
Click to expand...
Correct, it's not "as good as it can be"; but for some of us, it's as good as we want it to be.

Radio use is mandatory. At towered fields. Stick with those locations, and your personal goal is met, right?

Your opinion and observations are valid, if your goal is greater safety. But my goal is flying, as unfettered as is rational.
 
Sundancer said:
Correct, it's not "as good as it can be"; but for some of us, it's as good as we want it to be.

Radio use is mandatory. At towered fields. Stick with those locations, and your personal goal is met, right?

Your opinion and observations are valid, if your goal is greater safety. But my goal is flying, as unfettered as is rational.
Click to expand...
OK, why don't you want to use your radio at an un-towered airport? What makes that so burdensome?
 
All planes, Dave, don't have radios. Some don't even have electrical systems. Some certified planes, too . . .

Everybody cain't have a Mooney, they ain't built enough of 'em yet! :p
 
???? I do use the radio at un-towered fields. But I don't want it to be mandatory, or to force NORDO guys to buy a handheld.

Keep an open mind; there are valid viewpoints that don't align with uber safety. Ultimate safety isn't everyone's goal.

I might like to drift into a field just at dusk, not another plane in the pattern, sky all orange and blue, fading to black, ground already dark. And not say a effing word. . .and yeah, maybe overlook another guy who is also quiet. That is, to my mind, acceptable risk. I do get it, that it may not be acceptable to you. If not, you can continue on to a towered field.

I don't rocket into a full pattern on Saturday morning without a call; but I'm aware a NORDO might be in-bound, or someone tuned the wrong freq. That's the chances we take, to do this.
 
I enjoy good radio work and feel it is a fundamental part of flying well.

I spend a lot of time with clients helping them refine their radio skills in the hopes that they will carry good radio work forward and find the joy in it I do.

I find good radio work improves their situational awareness at pilot controlled airfields.

I have flown with many CFIs who do not feel radio work is important and don’t teach it.

I find poorly executed radio calls have little value.
 
Great radio work is an art and an enjoyable challenge to me personally. I do fine in towered, not so good in uncontrolled.

Unfortunately, well executed radio calls in uncontrolled are only well received if the recipient is also decent. It takes a careful listener to be a good communicator (in my opinion, and based on my personal experience in uncontrolled. I admit, I need to improve.)
 
Dav8or said:
What does individual responsibility have to do with this crash? All I can figure is, if you don't want to die in a plane crash, don't get in an airplane. I can agree with that, but it does little to further the cause of GA, if of course that is an actual goal.
Click to expand...
You really don't see the connection?
 
Hank S said:
All planes, Dave, don't have radios. Some don't even have electrical systems. Some certified planes, too . . .

Everybody cain't have a Mooney, they ain't built enough of 'em yet! :p
Click to expand...

True. But the ultra lights flying at my field don't have electrical systems either and they use both hand held radios and battery strobes. Hand helds just aren't that expensive and they are pretty good these days.

$209 at Sporty's-

10971_6.jpg
 
Sundancer said:
???? I do use the radio at un-towered fields. But I don't want it to be mandatory, or to force NORDO guys to buy a handheld.

Keep an open mind; there are valid viewpoints that don't align with uber safety. Ultimate safety isn't everyone's goal.

I might like to drift into a field just at dusk, not another plane in the pattern, sky all orange and blue, fading to black, ground already dark. And not say a effing word. . .and yeah, maybe overlook another guy who is also quiet. That is, to my mind, acceptable risk. I do get it, that it may not be acceptable to you. If not, you can continue on to a towered field.

I don't rocket into a full pattern on Saturday morning without a call; but I'm aware a NORDO might be in-bound, or someone tuned the wrong freq. That's the chances we take, to do this.
Click to expand...

Well there you go. Seven pages of this pointless typing and it just comes down to sheet happens sometimes. Don't want to die in a plane crash? Don't get in a plane. There is nothing that can be done to prevent mid air collisions.

I guess I said my piece and made my suggestions. I'll let this thread go to rest along side the three aviators.
 
Dav8or said:
Well there you go. Seven pages of this pointless typing and it just comes down to sheet happens sometimes. Don't want to die in a plane crash? Don't get in a plane. There is nothing that can be done to prevent mid air collisions.

I guess I said my piece and made my suggestions. I'll let this thread go to rest along side the three aviators.
Click to expand...

Can I get an Amen?
 
When I am on Base getting ready to turn final I know exactly where to look for traffic that is making an extended final even if they are not giving good radio.

When I am on an extended final I know exactly where to look for aircraft flying a normal base even if they are not giving good radio.

I feel good radio helps and don’t understand why some people don’t want to use a radio at pilot condoled airports.

Fortunately midair collisions are rare because most pilots work to avoid them.

It appears to me from what little I know that both pilots made errors and I hope discussing it will remind everyone that aviation can be very unforgiving of mistakes.

I hope when I make mistakes other pilots are looking out for me.
 
Nice (humble) post; I think you nailed it...don't we all hope that other drivers (in traffic) are vigilant and allow us occasional mistakes as we give breaks to many, as well? Seems like the same applies to uncontrolled traffic in the skies.
 
Jay Honeck said:
This brings to mind something that is rarely mentioned, but is true nonetheless: Visibility in most GA planes is lousy. Spotting traffic can be a real challenge, especially coming from the right rear and above, which it sounds like where the Bo was coming from.

It was one of the things I immediately fell in love with in our RV-8. The bubble canopy gives me a panoramic view of the pattern that is hard to beat. I'd like to think that I would be able to see and avoid the sort of traffic conflict that resulted in this tragedy.

Of course, if I was the Bo's assumed position, I still couldn't see down and to the left... :(
Click to expand...

RV-8 ought to be able to do a "clearing" aileron roll on final:eek:;)
 
Dav8or said:
I am proposing making radio use mandatory in the traffic pattern as well as turning on lighting when available. Which do find offensive, obtrusive, or a burden on your freedoms and why?
Click to expand...
+100%

The fact that in 2016, there are planes flying around, taking off, and landing without radio is absurd. Time to get some electrical. If it's not worth it for a 70 year old plane, then get a newer plane.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
ya....just make a new law and everything will be magically fixed. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, makes me think about all those laws making it illegal to use a cellphone while driving. Oh crap, I just posted this from my car on the 405! :eek::D

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 7 mere seconds from self-immolation
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
also on the take-off climb out.....I seen it with a friend once. :eek:
Click to expand...

Had a T-38 from another base taking one day. Departure end up he goes, rolling as he climbed. Another T-38 (call had a 02 or 03 which meant he was a Colonel) was taxing out and asked us (tower) call sign of the rolling T-38. It's the military so we had to tell and someone was in hot water.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
ya....just make a new law and everything will be magically fixed. :lol:
Click to expand...
No but what would help is better education about just how dangerous it is to remain silent at a non towered airport. To think just looking is sufficient is not very bright. These three people were obviously not communicating. It killed them. The cost of a hand held and an exterior antenna is very reasonable. I was not allowed to fly my stearman out of my home field until I got one. This was in the 80s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top