Mid-Air at Winter Haven

I don't know the area. But I have flown in and around a lot of non-controlled fields. As others have said, you have to assume some people don't have working radios or don't use them. I don't necessarily see that as the problem here. Just me, I don't see ADSB as a solution here, either. If I'm 700' in the air in a cub, I don't know that I'm going to be looking at ATSB, and I don't in the pattern. I'm looking outside.

I don't know which tracks are which in the display, or what's normal down there. To me, flying through an airspace that's normal traffic pattern as a transient aircraft is kind of a bad plan, especially if it's a busy airport. I'm not sure if that's what happened, but from my skim of this that's what it sounds like it might be. So maybe one or the other planes was at an unusual attitude, or flying a wide pattern, or the cub was where it normally wasn't and flew into the pattern. No idea. And I'm not saying this is any violation of FAR, just that I generally keep either above or outside the pattern when I'm flying around, because why wouldn't I? Jack's has been around for a long time, and from everything I've heard they're not dummies, so I have to think something unusual happened.

My hope is that the finding is that for some reason the cub was a little close to the pattern, and the other aircraft running a little wide, neither had an ability to see each other because of some high/low wing thing, that this is a tragic accident, and that this particular lack of separation accident won't happen again for a long, long time.
 
Albany Tom said:
I don't know which tracks are which in the display, or what's normal down there.
Click to expand...

There’s only one track shown, the Warrior. He was making multiple T&Gs. The track ends at the crash over Lake Hartridge.

One of the Cub pilots was an experienced, long-time instructor at Brown’s. The other was a repeat customer. I’m sure they understood the airspace and where the pattern lies for rwy 29. If they had a radio (and it’s not 100% known they didn’t; jury is still out), they would have had multiple opportunities to hear the Warrior making laps around the pattern.


Albany Tom said:
Jack's has been around for a long time, and from everything I've heard they're not dummies, so I have to think something unusual happened.
Click to expand...

That’s true, but KGIF and the surrounding airspace have become busier and busier during that time, especially in the last few years. A plane doing pattern work for rwy 29 is not unusual, but perhaps the Cub flying over Lake Hartridge at that same altitude might be.
 
The warrior track doesn't appear to be abnormally wide. And even if it was "a little wide", the cub cant land there (not to say another plane couldn't). Colliding with an airplane not in the pattern when turning base is not something I'm really looking for. Another plane that is running a tighter or wider pattern, sure. But just a transient... I know how well respected Jack Brown's is, but it really looks like the cub was in a place it shouldn't have been. I could see this being an issue when using 05 at kgif. But 29...the cub being nordo and knowing what the active is...I just don't get why they'd be there.
 
That’s the rub… there seems no doubt the cub SHOULD have known, I’m guessing they did…

So, why? What was different THIS time?

This accident is not well documented. The answer is very likely simply not obtainable.

So what CAN we learn with what we have?

It’s akin to a gust lock, a mid-air in the most highly regulated of ALL airspace (airshow), running out of gas…. Things that are obvious yet still go wrong.

Complacently? Ineffective compartmentalization? A medical event? Who knows?

I’ve seen some interesting replies…

-no technology
-too much technology
-no radio
-over reliance on radio
-I don’t look for planes not in the pattern
(simple sampling, no offense intended)

All could be good answers, different perspective not so good… not relevant. They all have two things in common

1) even if the right answer, probably not the root cause
2) expectation bias

All of us should list ALL of those things AND conjure up another…. Assume someone is gonna hit you for ALL those reasons and don’t let them! It’s all we really have any control over…

Finally, there but by the grace of God go I.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
The warrior track doesn't appear to be abnormally wide. And even if it was "a little wide", the cub cant land there (not to say another plane couldn't).
Click to expand...


The pattern size varies with the type and number of aircraft in the pattern, of course, so one can't assume it will be tight. At that airport, we have almost anything you can imagine - Lears, a Stearman, weight-shift trikes, Ag Cats, PC12s, light sports, etc. And Cubs. Patterns can be tiny or enormous.

I was at the airport a couple of hours before the incident and IIRC the winds were light. Some planes were using 29, some were using 05. Pure speculation, but perhaps the Cub guys were assuming 05 was in use.
 
Just had an interesting email exchange with a buddy who is a CFI and instructs in seaplanes (he owns a Lake). I won't paste the conversation, but he uses Jack Brown's as the DPE for his students and he says that lately they want the students to fly 1000' altitude patterns. That makes no sense for lots of reasons. He's know Ben Shipp (owner of Jack Brown's) for a long time and plans to talk with him about this change, but obviously now is not a good time to call.
 
Half Fast said:
Just had an interesting email exchange with a buddy who is a CFI and instructs in seaplanes (he owns a Lake). I won't paste the conversation, but he uses Jack Brown's as the DPE for his students and he says that lately they want the students to fly 1000' altitude patterns. That makes no sense for lots of reasons.
Click to expand...
It's been posted how much encroachment/development has occurred since Jack Brown's started.

It may very well be neighbor complaints about low flying float planes driving the shift to a 1000' pattern.
 
ateamer said:
Doesn’t necessarily mean they are where they they say are. At least three times at Okeechobee I’ve been in the pattern when a trainer gave an incorrect position report.

Me: Close-in left downwind 23 making standard radio calls, Trainer: Reports downwind 23. Actual position very tight right downwind 5, between us and the runway.

Trainer: Left downwind 32. Actually turning left downwind to base 14.

Head on a swivel, expect BS position reports, don’t believe were they are until you see and confirm firsthand.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the truth, by co-incidence one encounter I had was at KGIF, I had called left mid field downwind for 05 and then some bod came on and also said mid field downwind for 05 !
My head began to swivel front, side to side up and down..I asked for confirmation of just where in the pattern he was and did he have eyes on me ?..I got no response. I was on the verge of turning mid field across the airport and leave the pattern when I eventually picked him out doing a 747 style approach about a mile or more outside of the pattern at the same altitude !
I did a short turn to base final and landed without incident and taxied to the ramp, when the other guy eventually arrived I was shocked to see he was with a CFI. When I pulled him about it his answer was "He didn't like his students to do tight patterns !
 
Xscaliber said:
I was shocked to see he was with a CFI.
Click to expand...
Flights with CFIs at our airport seem to be as bad as any others. We have right downwind for 17 and yet I'll see them over the town on a left downwind... with the name of their big flight school on the tail!

Years ago I was entering on a 5 mile 45 to left downwind for 35 in a flight of two. I made the call and immediately heard someone say, "I"m also on a 5 mile 45 to left downwind and I don't have you in sight." I started looking and couldn't find him, yet he continued to make radio calls, more and more panicked. I added that we were coming over the ski lake, which is a small pond just for skiing. He replied he was also on a 45 from 'the lake' (turned out he was talking about the big lake nearby). I saw something shine off to my left and realized he was NE of the field, basically on a 45 degree angle to cross mid-field. Even when I told him we were on the opposite side of the airport and no factor, he kept saying he couldn't see us and asking where we were. I finally told him to shut up, we were now on base and way ahead of him. When he landed, he and his instructor got out of the plane and quickly left.

Months later, I heard him telling his version of story and had to stop him and tell him I was one of the guys he was talking about. Until I explained what he had done wrong, he had no idea. Keep your head on a swivel... sometimes radios don't help!
 
Fearless Tower said:
It's been posted how much encroachment/development has occurred since Jack Brown's started.

It may very well be neighbor complaints about low flying float planes driving the shift to a 1000' pattern.
Click to expand...


Very possible. It may also be related to all the towers that have sprung up around the area.
 
Half Fast said:
The pattern size varies with the type and number of aircraft in the pattern, of course, so one can't assume it will be tight. At that airport, we have almost anything you can imagine - Lears, a Stearman, weight-shift trikes, Ag Cats, PC12s, light sports, etc. And Cubs. Patterns can be tiny or enormous.

I was at the airport a couple of hours before the incident and IIRC the winds were light. Some planes were using 29, some were using 05. Pure speculation, but perhaps the Cub guys were assuming 05 was in use.
Click to expand...

I did my tailwheel endorsement with my friend Tim Preston in his Stearman and his Cub when he still had it, Tim is the most good natured mild mannered guy you could ever meet, but on more than a few occasions I've seen him shake his head and curse at some of the antics witnessed at KGIF.... and it's not always student pilots !

Just thinking, with Sun n Fun coming up soon, I suspect Tim will be leaving his aircraft in the hangar that week !
 
Last edited:
Xscaliber said:
...on more than a few occasions I've seen him shake his head and curse at some of the antics witnessed at KGIF.... and it's not always student pilots !
Click to expand...


Of course not. Sometimes it's me! :D

Lots of flight training, lots of transient traffic, busy airspace with several nearby airports, wide variety of aircraft, etc., etc. I'll be glad when we get a tower.


Xscaliber said:
Just thinking, with Sun n Fun coming up soon, I suspect Tim will be leaving his aircraft in the hangar that week !
Click to expand...

Yep. I have a BFR the Saturday prior to SNF, and when we land the plane will go into the hangar and stay there until after SNF.
 
Xscaliber said:
Isn't that the truth, by co-incidence one encounter I had was at KGIF, I had called left mid field downwind for 05 and then some bod came on and also said mid field downwind for 05 !
My head began to swivel front, side to side up and down..I asked for confirmation of just where in the pattern he was and did he have eyes on me ?..I got no response. I was on the verge of turning mid field across the airport and leave the pattern when I eventually picked him out doing a 747 style approach about a mile or more outside of the pattern at the same altitude !
I did a short turn to base final and landed without incident and taxied to the ramp, when the other guy eventually arrived I was shocked to see he was with a CFI. When I pulled him about it his answer was "He didn't like his students to do tight patterns !
Click to expand...
Just this morning, a Bo was in the pattern ahead of me. He was making his calls, we coordinated with me following, and he said he’d keep it tight. “Tight” turned out to be a wider downwind than Citations fly, and a 1.5 mile final.
 
Xscaliber said:
I did my tailwheel endorsement with my friend Tim Preston in his Stearman and his Cub when he still had it, Tim is the most good natured mild mannered guy you could ever meet, but on more than a few occasions I've seen him shake his head and curse at some of the antics witnessed at KGIF.... and it's not always student pilots !

Just thinking, with Sun n Fun coming up soon, I suspect Tim will be leaving his aircraft in the hangar that week !
Click to expand...
Did my tailwheel with Tim a few years ago. There were certainly some squirrely situations we had to avoid that week I was there. Some not so bright people flying in those parts. Present company not included.
 
Half Fast said:
Update with video statement from NTSB:
https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-coun...er-last-plane-removed-from-winter-haven-lake/
Click to expand...
No wonder the media fails at airplane ID "Cherokee Piper 161". The NTSB doesn't help and continually calls it a Cherokee. Close enough.

Warrior was apparently doing a simulated engine out and making a tighter than normal pattern. Warrior wing departed aircraft and hasn't been recovered. Cub made an evasive "dive to the right". Planes hit "nose to nose"
 
Racerx said:
Warrior was apparently doing a simulated engine out and making a tighter than normal pattern. Warrior wing departed aircraft and hasn't been recovered. Cub made an evasive "dive to the right". Planes hit "nose to nose"
Click to expand...
This is the part that boggles my mind. If they were on a tighter than typical left base, how in the heck was there a conflict with the cub?

Not trying to poke Jack Brown's but I am genuinely curious why the cub would have even been anywhere close enough to that location to create a conflict.

Anyone seen the video of the collision that the NTSB referenced?
 
It wasn't that tight... regardless, what was the Cub doing at pattern altitude going opposite of the downwind to the runway in use?

But given the relationship of the water strip to the paved runways, it's surprising there haven't been accidents long before this.
 
Xscaliber said:
I eventually picked him out doing a 747 style approach about a mile or more outside of the pattern at the same altitude ! I did a short turn to base final and landed without incident and taxied to the ramp, when the other guy eventually arrived I was shocked to see he was with a CFI. When I pulled him about it his answer was "He didn't like his students to do tight patterns !
Click to expand...

Well, as a long time CFI I prefer tight patterns and try to point out to my students that if they are flying a B-52 pattern they are hurting all the other folks behind them and limiting their ability to make it to the runway if the engine hiccups.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If they were on a tighter than typical left base, how in the heck was there a conflict with the cub?
Click to expand...

If you look at posts 9 and 11 you’ll see that the pattern of the Warrior wasn't particularly tight but the student was flying a continuous turn. He was simulating engine-out, so probably he remained high at that point to ensure he’d reach the runway.


Dana said:
what was the Cub doing at pattern altitude going opposite of the downwind to the runway in use?
Click to expand...

Right. But how would he know, without a radio, which runway was in use? If he thought 05 was the active (it’s the calm wind runway), he might have assumed he was well clear of pattern traffic.
 
Half Fast said:
If you look at posts 9 and 11 you’ll see that the pattern of the Warrior wasn't particularly tight but the student was flying a continuous turn. He was simulating engine-out, so probably he remained high at that point to ensure he’d reach the runway.




Right. But how would he know, without a radio, which runway was in use? If he thought 05 was the active (it’s the calm wind runway), he might have assumed he was well clear of pattern traffic.
Click to expand...
And you've hit the nail on the head there, it's time to make radios mandatory not optional. Ok old aircraft with no electrics was once acceptable as there wasn't an alternative, but these days for a few dollars, you can install a battery powered handheld. Tim Preston had one in his non electrics Cub Trainer, easy enough to plug in and recharge overnight in readiness for the next day.

We can never say 100% but maybe 4 lives could have been saved if both aircraft had been in radio contact.

Disclaimer: My assumptions are that there was no radio in the Cub, I know when I flew with Jack Browns that was the case then.
 
Xscaliber said:
Ok old aircraft with no electrics was once acceptable as there wasn't an alternative, but these days for a few dollars, you can install a battery powered handheld.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier it can be a lot more than a "few dollars" if the aircraft doesn't have shielded ignition.
 
This is truly tragic. Looking at the location makes me think it's amazing there aren't more frequent accidents like this there.

I vote yes on making radio calls mandatory. I hate seeing these younger pilots perish when they do everything right. Maybe we should ban old folks from flying. ok I'm putting my flame suit on for that comment. ha
 
Xscaliber said:
And you've hit the nail on the head there, it's time to make radios mandatory not optional. Ok old aircraft with no electrics was once acceptable as there wasn't an alternative, but these days for a few dollars, you can install a battery powered handheld. Tim Preston had one in his non electrics Cub Trainer, easy enough to plug in and recharge overnight in readiness for the next day.

We can never say 100% but maybe 4 lives could have been saved if both aircraft had been in radio contact.

Disclaimer: My assumptions are that there was no radio in the Cub, I know when I flew with Jack Browns that was the case then.
Click to expand...

You remember that Keylime Air plane that got side swiped in the pattern by a Cirrus? Both had radios. There still will be accidents, and you cannot mandate or regulate a perfect world.
 
In my opinion, saying that it was a lack of radio calls, and that NORDO should now be illegal, and everyone should be required to have ADSB is silly. If those things prevented mid-airs, why are most mid-airs between planes with radios and ADSB? The plane I rent at the moment has ADSB, but I don't have enough eyes to stare at the screen to find airplanes while I am in the traffic pattern. I don't think most people do. I always make radio calls, but if you've ever flown where multiple airports share the same frequency, you know that half of them end up stepped on, and half of the ones you hear are wrong or leave out important info, like which airport they're at.

Does anyone know where the planes were in relation to the sun at the time? I was flying about a week ago, and I knew there were two other planes in the pattern ahead of me when I turned downwind, but I couldn't see either until they were on short final because of the sun's position.
 
I have a radio in my Cub but I have friends that don't have working radios in their Cub/Champ/Chief/etc and it doesn't bother me. Radios aren't really necessary in the rural area where I live and fly, but Winterhaven is a different situation. I did a seaplane refresher at Jack Brown last month and there was a lot of traffic at lower altitudes. But radios aren't going to solve the problem of someone who thinks it's OK to fly around at pattern altitude within the pattern at a busy airport.
 
Half Fast said:
And there might not be a singular root cause. Could be a chain, and breaking any one link might have prevented this.
Click to expand...

The chain stems from the root cause. It is possible, but typically not, to have more than one root cause. The root cause is the first thing that went wrong to start the chain.

Pretty much all mishaps are the end of a chain, that any break in the chain and the mishap does not happen.
 
Pinecone said:
The chain stems from the root cause. It is possible, but typically not, to have more than one root cause. The root cause is the first thing that went wrong to start the chain.

Pretty much all mishaps are the end of a chain, that any break in the chain and the mishap does not happen.
Click to expand...

Okay, then root cause might be having a seaplane base located beneath the pattern of a busy airport that should have become a delta by now.
 
Half Fast said:
How much do four funerals cost?
Click to expand...
Nice dramatic response! Reminds me of people who called my motorcycle a murdercycle or called me an organ donor.

It would be interesting to see actual data of accidents where the cause was determined to be NORDO, I'm guessing it's very low. The EAA and FAA both find it acceptable for NORDO planes to fly into Oshkosh and I don't believe there has ever been an accident caused by this. Blakesburg brings in hundreds of airplanes every year and they ask you not to use a radio. They use green flags to clear you to land, red ones for you to go around.
 
ahmad said:
I vote yes on making radio calls mandatory.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, how would you intend this to be enforced? Towered airports are easy, with FAA facilities on hand and people who track the aircraft using the field. But how would one implement enforcement at an uncontrolled field without an FAA presence? Either you place FAA police at every uncontrolled airport, or you expect pilots to narc each other out.

And even THAT will be difficult, being totally a "He said-She said" sort of situation (or rather, a "He didn't say - She didn't say" situation). Is the FAA going to implement enforcement action SOLELY because one pilot didn't hear another pilot's radio call?

Couple of months back, I made the radio call that I was departing my uncontrolled field. Rolled onto the runway, powered up, and a few seconds later raised the tail to find an airport service truck on the runway about a thousand feet down from me. We both claimed to have made the appropriate radio calls. Eventually realized we had probably "stepped on" each other, transmitting our intentions at the same time. But if someone had complained to the FAA for not making our radio calls, how would we have proven our innocence? And yes, I put in an ASRS form and encouraged the truck driver to do the same.

Many FAA regulations are basically guidelines to operations more than "laws"; used to help establish useful guidelines or help establish the cause of an accident rather than as true enforceable regulations. 91.113 is a classic example.

I'm not in favor of the implementation of more unenforceable rules.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top