MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,684
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
He’s made this short trip before, probably many times. I gotta believe he was in a hurry for some reason this time.
Effectively eliminating the straight-in, increasing the hazards of multiple airplanes with grossly mismatched speeds in the pattern.Which is why the rule needs to be that aircraft established in the pattern have the ROW over straight in's. Might have to fill in a few more details around it, but we need to get away from multiple criteria to determine ROW. Who's on final, who's lower, etc. It only needs to be one yes/no variable.
I don't know about 'no good options'. Seems like anywhere but extended centerline would do.(and quickly)There was only about a 3-5 second delay between the C-152 calling his turn to base after the 340 called the 3 mile final. We don't know if he had actually started his turn before he made the call or not. It was 30s later, that the 152 stated that he had the 340 insight. Given that, he was pretty much in position to turn final. That is a position with no good options for the 152. He can't go straight. He can't turn right. All he can do is turn left and climb or descend. At this point, it is the 340 that has the best chance of avoiding the collision.
I would not fault a jury for giving some percentage of blame to the 152 pilot, but I would argue that at most he was a little careless, which might be a reflection of his being a newbie. The 340 pilot OTOH, was reckless. In my mind, reckless trumps possibly careless and this is on the 340.
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here.Thank you for taking the time to explain why it is unlikely. My son (the pilot in the family) has repeatedly said that the pilot of the 340 "got behind" (if I recall his terminology correctly). I just can't understand the excessive speed so, as a lawyer, am looking for an explanation. Perhaps if I was a pilot, it would be more apparent to me. Tragic, regardless of the cause.
ROW is nice, but if you count on ROW to keep you safe, your going to be sorry. Rules don't need to change, pilots need to smarten up.
Effectively eliminating the straight-in, increasing the hazards of multiple airplanes with grossly mismatched speeds in the pattern.
So what would be the “yes/no variable” that determines whether a straight-in can continue if anybody in the pattern has the ROW?No. Meaning straight-in's need to merge with the existing traffic, not bulldoze their way in.
A darker explanation is that he intended to "bump" the 152, possibly to get back at the student for "cutting in front of him." Sometimes when a person in a fast airplane sees a slower plane in front of him, they fly *under* the slow airplane and pull up right in front of the slow plane to give the pilot a scare (and "bump" him with their propwash). It's happened to me. Can't imagine anyone stupid enough to do that on final approach, though.
Ron Wanttaja
So what would be the “yes/no variable” that determines whether a straight-in can continue if anybody in the pattern has the ROW?
As the FAA sees it now, straight-ins need to merge with existing traffic, not bulldoze their way in.
Coming back from the Arlington Fly-In about twenty years ago. Never saw more than the tail-on view of an RV disappearing to the south, faster than I could throw a baseball bat at it....Never seen that one in person, and the only time I've previously heard of it is when various military pilots are playing jackass around international airspace and the like. The Hainan (sp?) EP-3 comes to mind. If that happened to me in the civilian world, it would be all I could do to avoid introducing the miscreant to my friend - Mr. Baseball Bat.
That’s exactly as it exists today. No change required.The yes/no decision is up to the straight-in guy. Can he merge without disrupting the other aircraft in the pattern? If so, have at it. If not, there are other pattern entries available.
Each pilot needs to make ROW evaluations any time there is another aircraft nearby. Each pilot also needs to have the situational awareness to determine that an unsafe situation is developing. Merely rewriting regs to be able to place blame is counterproductive.Unfortunately, and as expressed repeatedly in this thread, who has the ROW (or the way it is understood, at least) is that each pilot has an evaluation to make as to whether he or the other guy has the ROW. It is a multi-variable analysis and both need to come to the same answer. If they both think and act as if they have ROW, bad things happen. So change things to put the responsibility *clearly* on one of them.
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here.
As for why the excessive speed, I like Occams' Razor: The simplest explanation is that the twin pilot hadn't intended to land. It's possible he was going to do a high-speed low-altitude pass along the runway, then pull up and enter the pattern normally. He may have been concentrating on making a real high-speed low pass, and not seen the 152. The wreckage should tell the tale; whether the landing gear was down or not. If it was still retracted, he was doing a buzz job.
A darker explanation is that he intended to "bump" the 152, possibly to get back at the student for "cutting in front of him." Sometimes when a person in a fast airplane sees a slower plane in front of him, they fly *under* the slow airplane and pull up right in front of the slow plane to give the pilot a scare (and "bump" him with their propwash). It's happened to me. Can't imagine anyone stupid enough to do that on final approach, though.
Ron Wanttaja
Effectively eliminating the straight-in, increasing the hazards of multiple airplanes with grossly mismatched speeds in the pattern.
The C340 pilot was 75 years old and at the time of collision on short final to the aircraft final resting place at the other end of the field, the landing gear was never deployed.
How do you know that?
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here.
As for why the excessive speed, I like Occams' Razor: The simplest explanation is that the twin pilot hadn't intended to land. It's possible he was going to do a high-speed low-altitude pass along the runway, then pull up and enter the pattern normally. He may have been concentrating on making a real high-speed low pass, and not seen the 152. The wreckage should tell the tale; whether the landing gear was down or not. If it was still retracted, he was doing a buzz job.
A darker explanation is that he intended to "bump" the 152, possibly to get back at the student for "cutting in front of him." Sometimes when a person in a fast airplane sees a slower plane in front of him, they fly *under* the slow airplane and pull up right in front of the slow plane to give the pilot a scare (and "bump" him with their propwash). It's happened to me. Can't imagine anyone stupid enough to do that on final approach, though.
Ron Wanttaja
Was it a planned low pass, then? Or a go-around instead? How people concluded it was "never deployed" makes a difference.It's my home field and I know people.
I’d like to see that. I watched the video and I didn’t see anything that showed that.The 340’s gear was clearly up in this video.
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.ROW is nice, but if you count on ROW to keep you safe, you're going to be sorry. Rules don't need to change, pilots need to smarten up.
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.
So you landed anyway??? Or, you ceded your ROW, and went around (in which case @Salty is right).I thought I was going to have to agree with salty again, but no. I thought I never once considered who had the right of way until I remembered that time I was on short final and some jerk decided to pull onto the runway to back taxi. He was on frequency and could hear me but just didn't care.
He’s made this short trip before, probably many times. I gotta believe he was in a hurry for some reason this time.
One reason for even having ROW rules is to prevent two vessels from taking opposite evasive actions that cause them to collide, when having only one of them taking evasive action would not. For example, two aircraft at the same altitude approach each other at right angles. Each one politely turns to go behind the other one. That puts them on a head-on collision course rather than having one pass safely behind the other.Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.
Yep and if he hadn't reacted at all, or if he'd reacted later, same outcome. They met at one specific point in the air. Anything even slightly different would have changed the outcome.Had the C152 recognized his obligation to yield to a speeding goon on final and taken his own evasive action sooner it's highly likely that this accident would never have happened.
You're doing it wrong. The reason there are ROW rules is so everyone (theoretically) knows who should cede and what they should do to effect that. For instance, when two aircraft approach head-on, both are supposed to divert to the right (like the Chicken scene in Rebel Without a Cause). If one's only thought about this is "how to safely resolve," and not what the ROW rules are, he might just jink one way or another, increasing the odds of collision.Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.
I guess the 340 pilot was simply overwhelmed by the situation ( fast approaching the runway while looking for the 152) and forgot to configure the aircraft to land. Until the last moment, he did eyeball the 152 but too late to jink or slow down to land. I also wonder if he might have programmed the autopilot to follow the glide path, which is why the aircraft descended at a speed out of control when he forgot to pull the power and lower the gear.
ROW rules may help determine the best way to resolve the conflict, but I don't use them to determine if there is a conflict.You're doing it wrong. The reason there are ROW rules is so everyone (theoretically) knows who should cede and what they should do to effect that. For instance, when two aircraft approach head-on, both are supposed to divert to the right (like the Chicken scene in Rebel Without a Cause). If one's only thought about this is "how to safely resolve," and not what the ROW rules are, he might just jink one way or another, increasing the odds of collision.
Was there anybody else behind the 152 on downwind? If the 152 wasn’t broadcasting ADS-B, he may have not initially realized it was there, and been keeping his speed up to sequence in front of the next plane in line...
There was another plane in the pattern behind the 152. While there are certainly merits to the ADS-B system there is also the factor that people may tend to rely on it or trust it more than they should. It seems plausible that the 340 guy thought the guy on the radio was the second plane which would have shown on his ADS-B display. So even though he was looking for him he was looking in the wrong place.
I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict.
Pilots consistently following ROW is how to safely resolve conflicts. That is the purpose of ROW.
Nobody wants to write more regs, but here we have a clear instance where an ambiguity in regs caused fatalities. That can be fixed by clearly defining the start point of final approach for a straight in arrival, so that both pilots know who has ROW without having to do mathematics on the fly.
No, it wouldn’t be fixed…aircraft of vastly differing speeds are still involved. A jet having ROW on a (pick your number)-mile final is an entirely different animal than a Cub having ROW at that same distance.Nobody wants to write more regs, but here we have a clear instance where an ambiguity in regs caused fatalities. That can be fixed by clearly defining the start point of final approach for a straight in arrival, so that both pilots know who has ROW without having to do mathematics on the fly.