Mid-Air at Winter Haven

SkyChaser said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be fair, only ADS-B out is required. If one doesn't have a receiver for same, it's literally useless in uncontrolled airspace.
 
These comments are typical with a lot of conversations. Someone recommends an improvement (i.e have mandatory ads-b and radios) and then the others cherry picking situations where it didn't make a difference. IDK what peoples concerns are with getting radios and ads-b installed in their planes but having both these things are better than not having them
 
At the boat there would be 20 planes holding overhead, we would launch 20, 5 would interact with some overhead, then the overhead birds would leave holding and recover at the rate of one landing every 30 seconds, everyone flying 300-400 kts, not ONE word on the radio. Training…

I think we should mandate checkrides every quarter and a minimum of 30 hrs a month and 100 landings to maintain currency. Geesh….

The radio idea MIGHT work if it were implemented correctly… that means full IFR, 100 percent, with accompanying certification and backups. Also a real radio station license and training and testing. Probably should go 2 person minimum, no more single pilot. And extend RVSM to the surface meaning autopilots and dual altimetry as well….

No radio did not CAUSE this. May have been able to fix it, it’s a mishap, a hundred things may have been able to fix it. Fix all hundred things, or go looking for the CAUSE.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
To be fair, only ADS-B out is required. If one doesn't have a receiver for same, it's literally useless in uncontrolled airspace.
Click to expand...

It is useless at new towers… no radar. Two pairs of binoculars.
 
Lowflynjack said:
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.
Click to expand...
There were ~1800 homebuilt accidents from 2011 to 2020 (inclusive). 15 were midairs, but nine of those involved formation flight. Of the six remaining, only one involved a NORDO airplane.

ERA11FA468
ERA12LA100 (NORDO Pitts)
ERA14FA459
WPR18LA003
GAA19CA068
CEN20LA419

Not all of these were in the traffic pattern, one was a Lancair blundering through an aerobatic traffic area. Another was at a busy fly-in. Yet another involved an airplane pulling onto the runway in front of landing traffic. "She released the brakes and about 3 to 5 seconds into the takeoff roll, they heard a loud noise, and the
airplane was pushed left. Despite reporting not hearing the other pilots on the CTAF, all the pilots reported that they used the same frequency."

One (CEN20LA419) involved two aircraft that were actively discussing their relative positions over the radio and ran into each other anyway. The problem is, one white Cessna looks like any other white Cessna....

Ron Wanttaja
 
francisco collazos said:
These comments are typical with a lot of conversations. Someone recommends an improvement (i.e have mandatory ads-b and radios) and then the others cherry picking situations where it didn't make a difference. IDK what peoples concerns are with getting radios and ads-b installed in their planes but having both these things are better than not having them
Click to expand...

Peoples concerns are mostly around cost but for planes with no electrical system, ADSB is not an option. A handheld radio piped into a headset is a cheap and quick solution for a radio but since the FAA doesn’t allow portable ADSB units they can’t be installed in some airplanes.
 
francisco collazos said:
These comments are typical with a lot of conversations. Someone recommends an improvement (i.e have mandatory ads-b and radios) and then the others cherry picking situations where it didn't make a difference. IDK what peoples concerns are with getting radios and ads-b installed in their planes but having both these things are better than not having them
Click to expand...
How do you install an ADSB in a Cub?
 
Punkinhead said:
How do you install an ADSB in a Cub?
Click to expand...
IDK, but I think flying airplanes in a congested area with no adsb and nordo is crazy. When I am flying I am looking out the window but I also use the traffic to help me with upcoming deconfliction of traffic.
 
francisco collazos said:
IDK, but I think flying airplanes in a congested area with no adsb and nordo is crazy.
Click to expand...
Neither prevents midairs, as Ron @wanttaja's statistics demonstrate. What comes after they're mandatory and midairs still occur?

"I think flying airplanes in a congested area with no ground radar coverage (and support) is crazy"
"I think flying airplanes in a congested area without A/A radar and non-cooperative target recognition is crazy."
"I think flying airplanes in a congested area is crazy."
"I think flying airplanes is crazy."

I have ADS-B and radios and I appreciate having both, but I'm under no illusion that they *prevent* anything.

Nauga,
and equipment solutions to skills problems
 
Lowflynjack said:
Nice dramatic response! Reminds me of people who called my motorcycle a murdercycle or called me an organ donor.
Click to expand...

Thanks! We should go ride mudercycles together sometime. I ride a Triumph Daytona. What are you on?


Lowflynjack said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's zero, at least for part 91 flying at non-towered airports. NTSB's official findings and reality are not necessarily the same thing. I fully expect the finding for the Wtr Hvn accident to be "Failure of both pilots to see and avoid each other in visual meterological conditions." But if we stop there, nothing changes and the risk remains the same.

How many times have radios helped? Who knows? The NTSB does not investigate crashes that didn't happen.

Radios are not a panacea. There is no magic talisman that will eliminate mid-airs. But brake lights and turn signals have not eliminated car crashes, either, yet we mandate them because they are one more layer in accident avoidance and have undoubtedly prevented many collisions. The failure of too many drivers to use turn signals does not eliminate their overall utility.

There's no way to enforce a requirement to use the radio, but if one is required to be in the plane it will be used more often than if it isn't there at all.

But regardless of regulation, to fly in this particular area, especially in such close proximity to a busy airport, it is extremely poor judgment to choose to fly NORDO.
 
nauga said:
I have ADS-B and radios and I appreciate having both, but I'm under no illusion that they *prevent* anything.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree, hell I mean I flew with a buddy a couple of months ago and I clearly saw a plane coming for us on the display. About that time I had him make a quick turn to the left. That being said, it might have been dicey without the adsb. Now, I don't have the data for how many midairs are prevented by adsb but I imagine there definitely is. I don't think these things are reported but IDK.
 
SkyChaser said:
Does anyone know where the planes were in relation to the sun at the time?
Click to expand...


At 2:00p.m., I believe the sun would have been behind the Warrior and a bit high.

But, the two planes hit nearly head-on. If the sun were in the eyes of one pilot it was behind the other pilot. They couldn't have both been blinded by the sun.
 
Half Fast said:
At 2:00p.m., I believe the sun would have been behind the Warrior and a bit high.

But, the two planes hit nearly head-on. If the sun were in the eyes of one pilot it was behind the other pilot. They couldn't have both been blinded by the sun.
Click to expand...

Thank you! :)
 
Sometimes we LOOK, but we don't SEE. It is really easy to be flying a tight pattern and focus your attention on the runway and miss another plane entering the pattern. Accidents like this are very sad.
 
Half Fast said:
At 2:00p.m., I believe the sun would have been behind the Warrior and a bit high.

But, the two planes hit nearly head-on. If the sun were in the eyes of one pilot it was behind the other pilot. They couldn't have both been blinded by the sun.
Click to expand...

I have a radio, adsb in & out, and a set of very bright wig/wag lights that I use anytime I'm in a busy area.

Still my business is to be looking outside to see what I can see. I do see SkyChaser's point as my little plane pointed into the sun makes it very difficult to see anything straight ahead. Sometimes I use a bit of tacking to get where I'm going so as to see forward more clearly.
 
Daleandee said:
Still my business is to be looking outside to see what I can see.
Click to expand...

Of course. However,...

My corrected distance vision is a bit better than 20/20. Despite that, ADSB-In has demonstrated to me just how difficult other planes are to see, even when I know their bearing from me, their altitude, and their track. And what makes that scarier still is that our eyes are good at picking up motion, but a plane on a collision course will appear motionless, so I'm even less likely to see the ones that are a real threat.
 
Tools said:
At the boat there would be 20 planes holding overhead, we would launch 20, 5 would interact with some overhead, then the overhead birds would leave holding and recover at the rate of one landing every 30 seconds, everyone flying 300-400 kts, not ONE word on the radio. Training…
Click to expand...


Interesting. What would have happened if a random Cub, not part of the activity, came putt-putting directly through that 20-plane overhead?
 
Half Fast said:
Of course. However,...

My corrected distance vision is a bit better than 20/20. Despite that, ADSB-In has demonstrated to me just how difficult other planes are to see, even when I know their bearing from me, their altitude, and their track. And what makes that scarier still is that our eyes are good at picking up motion, but a plane on a collision course will appear motionless, so I'm even less likely to see the ones that are a real threat.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all and that is why I try to use every available means to locate traffic around me and to be seen by other aircraft.

I do glance at my ADSB readout when approaching an airport and before entering a runway to help me confirm that it is safe. But, as you have pointed out, many times either by radio or ADSB I know where a plane should be but cannot spot it.

I heard a radio call the other day at a nearby airport where the pilot was giving his position on the ILS ... but for all that jive he was talking (it sounded so professional) it did absolutely nothing to tell any VFR traffic where he was. I was tempted to point that out but I'm not the radio police and he was not at the airport I was approaching.
 
Just have to repeat my disagreement to making radios compulsory. It only moves the problem. You still have to have:

1. functioning electrical system
2. Functioning radio equipment
3. The correct frequency tuned
4. Correct usage of the equipment

Making radios mandatory will only increase the accidents caused by people assuming all other aircraft around have the above 4 things. Better to have a bit of increased risk and keep that extra caution.

But, I’d rather have mandatory comm radios than mandatory adsb. At least people can look outside and listen (well, most of us can anyway). I swear adsb makes things worse as much as better due to people not looking outside and assuming adsb is the solution.
 
There are probably a half dozen planes at my home airport without radios. Honestly, at first it scared the crap out of me when I saw a big agcat landing opposite runway as me, right at me, but once I realized it could happen at any time, and started paying attention to the possibility, it doesn’t bother me a bit now.
 
Salty said:
Making radios mandatory will only increase the accidents caused by people assuming all other aircraft around have the above 4 things.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think mandatory radios will totally eliminate accidents, but I also don't think it will increase them. At worst it will be a net neutral and at best a net positive.
 
Half Fast said:
Interesting. What would have happened if a random Cub, not part of the activity, came putt-putting directly through that 20-plane overhead?
Click to expand...

As a NORDO aircraft that doesn’t meet friendly ID criteria, it would have been intercepted prior to merging with the carrier pattern.

On a bad day, the cub might end up like a chinese balloon.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
I disagree. I don't think mandatory radios will totally eliminate accidents, but I also don't think it will increase them. At worst it will be a net neutral and at best a net positive.
Click to expand...
If one were to apply the same argument to radios and ADS-B that some apply to antiskid and/or ballistic recovery 'chutes, one might argue that having these 'tools' would encourage people to take more risks or become complacent. But I'm not going to make a case for that...I just don't think they are the panacea that some seem to.

Nauga,
and his inflamed panacea
 
I'm not anti-ADSB, but this accident doesn't seem like a good choice for the "everyone must have ADSB" argument. According to the NTSB the student in the Warrior was doing pattern work and was on short approach. Do we really want student pilots (or anyone, for that matter) with their head down looking at an ADSB display in the pattern?
 
Punkinhead said:
I'm not anti-ADSB, but this accident doesn't seem like a good choice for the "everyone must have ADSB" argument. According to the NTSB the student in the Warrior was doing pattern work and was on short approach. Do we really want student pilots (or anyone, for that matter) with their head down looking at an ADSB display in the pattern?
Click to expand...
No, we don’t.
 
Punkinhead said:
I'm not anti-ADSB, but this accident doesn't seem like a good choice for the "everyone must have ADSB" argument. According to the NTSB the student in the Warrior was doing pattern work and was on short approach. Do we really want student pilots (or anyone, for that matter) with their head down looking at an ADSB display in the pattern?
Click to expand...

I'm not an ADSB fanatic but I see this "head down" term used a lot as a deterrent for ADSB use. I glace at the ADSB much the same way as I do the ASI or LRI. It's just another part of the instrument scan during flight.
 
Here in Florida, mandating radio use could well make comms worse than it is now. With how many Class G fields there are and the amount of traffic, 122.9 and the few available unicom frequencies are already too busy. If there was more than a single multicom frequency available, that would be a great help. Add in the guys who use it like a CB to gab like they’re sitting on the front porch of a 19th century general store, and mandating use will make it, well, unusable.
 
Daleandee said:
I'm not an ADSB fanatic but I see this "head down" term used a lot as a deterrent for ADSB use. I glace at the ADSB much the same way as I do the ASI or LRI. It's just another part of the instrument scan during flight.
Click to expand...
Do you want students scanning it in the pattern?
 
TCABM said:
As a NORDO aircraft that doesn’t meet friendly ID criteria, it would have been intercepted prior to merging with the carrier pattern.

On a bad day, the cub might end up like a chinese balloon.
Click to expand...


The Warrior didn’t have those options.
 
Punkinhead said:
I'm not anti-ADSB, but this accident doesn't seem like a good choice for the "everyone must have ADSB" argument. According to the NTSB the student in the Warrior was doing pattern work and was on short approach. Do we really want student pilots (or anyone, for that matter) with their head down looking at an ADSB display in the pattern?
Click to expand...


Nope. ADSB is useless in the pattern. But a radio might be helpful. And bear in mind that the Cub was not in the pattern; an ADSB traffic alert might have helped him.
 
ateamer said:
Here in Florida, mandating radio use could well make comms worse than it is now. With how many Class G fields there are and the amount of traffic, 122.9 and the few available unicom frequencies are already too busy. If there was more than a single multicom frequency available, that would be a great help. Add in the guys who use it like a CB to gab like they’re sitting on the front porch of a 19th century general store, and mandating use will make it, well, unusable.
Click to expand...


Separate topic, but we do need more frequency allocations.

KGIF shares its CTAF with about 5 other airports, including Apopka. Apopka has automated wx on the same frequency (4 clicks to activate), so CTAF calls are often delayed or stepped on waiting for the wx recording to finish.
 
Daleandee said:
Do they scan the other instruments in the pattern?
Click to expand...
Instruments, plural? Since they were doing pattern work I assume this was a primary student so the ASI and maybe the altimeter in the downwind. I wouldn't want to add another instrument to the workload of a primary student in the pattern. What is a quick, casual cockpit scan for an experienced pilot is a dangerous distraction to a primary student.
 
Punkinhead said:
Instruments, plural? Since they were doing pattern work I assume this was a primary student so the ASI and maybe the altimeter in the downwind. I wouldn't want to add another instrument to the workload of a primary student in the pattern. What is a quick, casual cockpit scan for an experienced pilot is a dangerous distraction to a primary student.
Click to expand...


No, this was a Commercial student in the Warrior.

But a scan of a traffic display would have been no help as the Cub wouldn’t have shown up anyway. Generally, I don’t think a pilot should be looking at a traffic display while turning base. Eyes outside.
 
Half Fast said:
No, this was a Commercial student in the Warrior.

But a scan of a traffic display would have been no help as the Cub wouldn’t have shown up anyway. Generally, I don’t think a pilot should be looking at a traffic display while turning base. Eyes outside.
Click to expand...
My bad. A commercial student would have the bandwidth to scan some instruments but I agree they should be looking outside. There are thousands of planes out there that will never have ADSB, either because they don't have to or because, like in the case of the Cub, they're not allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top