Mid-Air at Winter Haven

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...
Well how do you know that in this case, if the cub had a adsb out, the warrior wouldn't have seen him and made corrective action? How many of these happen on a daily basis and are not reported, I mean why would anyone report this. Come to think of it, it might be good idea to file NASA reports on possible mid air collisions caught early then maybe the FAA would have some data.
 
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 feel you are reaching here...
 
Punkinhead said:
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.
Click to expand...
Make winterhaven a class D and you've effectively make radios mandatory there where necessary, without penalizing all the pilots at small airports in rural areas where they're not necessary.
 
It seems to me that the root cause was two traffic patterns operating in close proximity with the lack of radio communication being a significant contributing factor.

I can't believe we can't come up with some kind of a simple battery operated ads-b out gadget for these situations though. Of course we should be looking out the window but come on- how many times have you know exactly where to look for nearby traffic due to a radio call/ads-b/ATC callout and STILL not be able to see it for a long while? I get not wanting to be reliant on ads-b traffic but I have to think anyone who says it isn't a huge help must not have used it before.
 
Dana said:
Make winterhaven a class D and you've effectively make radios mandatory there where necessary, without penalizing all the pilots at small airports in rural areas where they're not necessary.
Click to expand...


That's coming. They told us end of this year, but personally I think it will be late 2024 or early 2025. It's overdue. Possibly this accident will accelerate things a little.
 
cowman said:
It seems to me that the root cause was two traffic patterns operating in close proximity...
Click to expand...

Sorta.

While that's true and a definite problem, the Cub wasn't in the seabase pattern. Take a look at post #11. The seaplane base is on the opposite side of KGIF from the crash. It's believed that the Cub was en route to the base at Lake Jessie, but why he decided to get there the way he did is unknown.

Personal opinion, and worth what you paid for it: the Cub pilots believed that KGIF runway 05 was in use, not 29. I have nothing to back that up. It's pure speculation, but I look at it this way. When I was at the airport a couple of hours earlier, some planes were using 05 and some 29. 05 is the mild wind runway and the Cub might have seen it in use when they departed from Jack Brown's. The pattern for 05 is on the other side of the airport and would have been well out of the Cub's flight path.
 
cowman said:
It seems to me that the root cause was two traffic patterns operating in close proximity with the lack of radio communication being a significant contributing factor.

I can't believe we can't come up with some kind of a simple battery operated ads-b out gadget for these situations though. Of course we should be looking out the window but come on- how many times have you know exactly where to look for nearby traffic due to a radio call/ads-b/ATC callout and STILL not be able to see it for a long while? I get not wanting to be reliant on ads-b traffic but I have to think anyone who says it isn't a huge help must not have used it before.
Click to expand...
Trig makes the tt22...
 
Half Fast said:
Generally, I don’t think a pilot should be looking at a traffic display while turning base. Eyes outside.
Click to expand...

I agree but it seems that a glance at an ADSB display as one is approaching the field would be prudent to locate the aircraft that are not seen with the eyes.

It takes 1/2 a second to verify that no one is directly in front of you when looking at an ADSB display. But once in the pattern and turning base a pilot should be already aware of any traffic noted on the the ADSB display and have their eyes outside looking for the NORDO and non-ADSB equipped planes.
 
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...

We're just not gonna agree on this and I'm OK with that. A primary student needs to be taught how to scan the panel as that is how they will learn. Scanning the engine instruments i.e. oil temp & pressure, CHT, EGT (the engine works very hard doing pattern work) needs to be learned as well as flight instruments, ASI LRI, & ALT.

Many of the students doing IFR approaches are "head down" so they have someone watching for them. So ... when a student is learning the instructor is keeping an eye out for the student until they have learned how to do a proper scan themselves, both inside and outside of the airplane.

BTW ... if they are doing pattern work they should have already identified the traffic in the pattern. My scan of the ADSB traffic is usually before I enter the pattern ...
 
cowman said:
It seems to me that the root cause was two traffic patterns operating in close proximity with the lack of radio communication being a significant contributing factor.
Click to expand...
If it's as many are speculating, the root cause would be the failure of both pilots to see and avoid. Traffic patterns, radio use, etc, are contributions, not causal.

Nauga,
who knows it's not "hear and avoid"
 
Salty said:
This is why I'm not a fan of adsb. People greatly over estimate it's capabilities. Can't tell you how often I've had a plane in sight that was nowhere near where adsb plotted it.
Click to expand...

I've noted them on my ADSB display while I talked to several pilots waiting for them to land. I could see their position and altitude on my display as well as out the window.

Do some research and see that ADSB is real time from plane to plane. No it is not the total answer and no, I don't believe it relieves a pilot from their responsibility to be eyes outside.

But to say that it has no place in the safety of aircraft in airport environments is simply naïve ...
 
nauga said:
If it's as many are speculating, the root cause would be the failure of both pilots to see and avoid. Traffic patterns, radio use, etc, are contributions, not causal.

Nauga,
who knows it's not "hear and avoid"
Click to expand...


Yes, and I said as much in post #130. But there’s not much that can be done in that regard. What do we do, equip pilots with better eyes? Admonish pilots to look more carefully?

When one factor can’t bear much significant improvement, we must work to improve the ones that can if we want to be safer.
 
Daleandee said:
I've noted them on my ADSB display while I talked to several pilots waiting for them to land. I could see their position and altitude on my display as well as out the window.

Do some research and see that ADSB is real time from plane to plane. No it is not the total answer and no, I don't believe it relieves a pilot from their responsibility to be eyes outside.

But to say that it has no place in the safety of aircraft in airport environments is simply naïve ...
Click to expand...
Good thing I didn’t say that then.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, and I said as much in post #130. But there’s not much that can be done in that regard. What do we do, equip pilots with better eyes? Admonish pilots to look more carefully?

When one factor can’t bear much significant improvement, we must work to improve the ones that can if we want to be safer.
Click to expand...
And when two more airplanes with ADS-B and radios smack into each other the root cause will still be the failure of both pilots to see and avoid. I have both systems, and I still work on getting 'better eyes' and 'look(ing) more carefully' by maintaining and improving (or at least trying to improve) my scan. For the time being we can all fly day VFR without ADS-B and radios, but none of us can fly day VFR without scanning for traffic. I'm not ready to give up on improving mine.

Nauga,
beagle-eyed
 
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...

shoot it down…

Actually this happened with regularity, only it was a nicely camouflaged jet at 300 kts… KNEW to keep a VERY good look out doctrine and don’t let them hit you. Go chew their ass out, then have lunch…
 
Kenny Phillips said:
One doesn't need radar to "see" ADS-B; that's sort of the point.
Click to expand...

nor are they allowed to use ANYTHING but those binoculars… no kidding! No flight aware, no computer screen… they even have to write down clearances by hand over a land line!
 
Tools said:
shoot it down…

Actually this happened with regularity, only it was a nicely camouflaged jet at 300 kts… KNEW to keep a VERY good look out doctrine and don’t let them hit you. Go chew their *** out, then have lunch…
Click to expand...


Yeah, too bad that Warrior didn’t have guns....
 
nauga said:
If it's as many are speculating, the root cause would be the failure of both pilots to see and avoid. Traffic patterns, radio use, etc, are contributions, not causal.

Nauga,
who knows it's not "hear and avoid"
Click to expand...
We know "see and avoid" doesn't work when you don't see them. The cub apparently saw, but it was too late. We're speculating that the warrior wasn't scanning because they were in the pattern. With 2 sets of eyes and in condensed airspace we don't know they weren't being diligent in there scan and missed them anyway. We've all had atc tell us where traffic is and not find it, and that's knowing where to look.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Local tower doesn't have radar but uses internet to monitor ADSB.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A few months ago I was flying with 1200 squawk code about 2 miles or so outside of KARR , D class airport ( they do have radar feed from nearby O’Hare B class ) and they called me with their generic “ Nxxxxx say your intentions “ so I assume they got my tail number out of some kind of ADSB feed….
 
cowman said:
I can't believe we can't come up with some kind of a simple battery operated ads-b out gadget for these situations though.
Click to expand...
If ADSB was only about safety, they would allow us to have portable units you could move from plane to plane. There is no safety reason for you to see my N-number when flying, only where I am and which direction I'm traveling in. The N-number is so they can track you down. I know of two cases personally where the pilot got in trouble based on NTSB data. Someone reported my friend flying low over a house he was thinking of buying. They didn't have the N-number, but the FAA got it from ADSB data. Another was a guy who may have flying illegal substances. His ADSB would only come on when going into controlled airspace, then go off for the rest of the flight. They used this violation to catch him.

I like ADSB, but it's not just for our safety and I hope nobody thinks it is.
 
I promised myself I wasn't going to add anymore to this. But I'm seeing an argument about technology in the air, more or less. About an accident that appears to me to be a mid-air between a slow single engine airplane in a traffic pattern, and a slow single engine airplane that was transiting through the area.

With no disrespect at all toward Brown's, it seems to me that this isn't a technology problem. That even with if you had an AWACS overhead talking you through the process, flying THROUGH a traffic pattern, or flying a pattern too wide or high, are both kind of bad ideas.

I say this in part because I don't think every accident demands an exhaustive search to try to find a technological or even procedural solution for a problem. Sometimes people do things that are higher risk than they should be, and then bad things happen. Normalization of risk if you will.

One other thing that jumps out that I haven't seen mentioned. When I've been on flights with an instructor, at least one of us has eyes outside almost all the time. Most of the time, unless it's instrument practice, both of us do. Two sets of eyes looking for traffic almost all the time. Flying a normal pattern in a Cherokee, or flying at anytime in a cub, sounds like VFR flight or practice to me. So 4 sets of eyes that are supposed to be outside most of the time. I don't know exactly what that means, but I think it might be one reason why this particular accident didn't happen earlier.
 
Lowflynjack said:
If ADSB was only about safety, they would allow us to have portable units you could move from plane to plane. There is no safety reason for you to see my N-number when flying, only where I am and which direction I'm traveling in. The N-number is so they can track you down. I know of two cases personally where the pilot got in trouble based on NTSB data. Someone reported my friend flying low over a house he was thinking of buying. They didn't have the N-number, but the FAA got it from ADSB data. Another was a guy who may have flying illegal substances. His ADSB would only come on when going into controlled airspace, then go off for the rest of the flight. They used this violation to catch him.

I like ADSB, but it's not just for our safety and I hope nobody thinks it is.
Click to expand...
150% on this.

I WANT a portable squawking 1200 VFR option for the Luscombe.

Also, it was noted above that there might be reason to believe that the Warrior might have been "in the sun" for the Cub... which actually makes sense as the NTSB seemed to indicate that the Cub made a late evasive action. A yellow Cub with white floats that's well lit up should have been a relatively easy spot, so it makes me a little annoyed at how many people in this thread are more upset at the Cub. I think the blame is equal, but it is always harder to spot things into the sun.
 
Adsb is awesome, but it's not perfect. Coming from THA Tuesday, I was given a traffic call from ATC (I was IFR in VMC) about a medevac PC-12 going the opposite direction 1000 feet below me. That plane did not appear on my ADSB display. Neither the tablet nor the GTN 750. Disturbingly, I never saw them either. I flipped on my landing light and they reported me in sight. Why didn't that plane show up on my display? I guarantee they had adsb out, and even if it wasn't working, I was in contact with a ground station and should've gotten the primary return from the atc side.
 
texasclouds said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a specious argument. Airplanes with radios can communicate with other aircraft, and absent a misunderstanding between pilots, that communication safely provides pattern separation at non-towered airports thousands of times a day.

A pilot in a NORDO aircraft is incapable of doing so. I believe that's a degradation of safety in the pattern. I'm sure others will argue I'm wrong. But I'm looking for you when I join a traffic pattern. Is everyone else?

Blindly supporting the "right" of NORDO operations ignores the reality that traffic density around certain airports, like the two that are the subject of this thread, has increased to the point where radio communication is essential to maximize safety.

Another supporting argument is that there's no doubt many pilots simply don't consider a NORDO aircraft might be in the traffic pattern. The reality is they don't look for planes that aren't heard on the radio.
 
Lowflynjack said:
If ADSB was only about safety, they would allow us to have portable units you could move from plane to plane. There is no safety reason for you to see my N-number when flying, only where I am and which direction I'm traveling in. The N-number is so they can track you down. I know of two cases personally where the pilot got in trouble based on NTSB data. Someone reported my friend flying low over a house he was thinking of buying. They didn't have the N-number, but the FAA got it from ADSB data. Another was a guy who may have flying illegal substances. His ADSB would only come on when going into controlled airspace, then go off for the rest of the flight. They used this violation to catch him.

I like ADSB, but it's not just for our safety and I hope nobody thinks it is.
Click to expand...

Use the anonymous mode - I often see planes without any N number on my ADSB display and as long as you are squawking 1200 nobody will know who you are , including FAA.
 
Warmi said:
Use the anonymous mode - I often see planes without any N number on my ADSB display and as long as you are squawking 1200 nobody will know who you are , including FAA.
Click to expand...
I believe not all ADSB-out devices support anonymous mode.
 
3393RP said:
A pilot in a NORDO aircraft is incapable of doing so. I believe that's a degradation of safety in the pattern. I'm sure others will argue I'm wrong. But I'm looking for you when I join a traffic pattern. Is everyone else?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of us that occasionally fly NORDO presume that you don't see us, and fly defensively as a result. Of course, flying an ADS-B out-equipped Cardinal over 500 hours a year, I also have come to assume that people with ADS-B and radios are also not using them effectively, and that it's folly to lose the visual lookout for birds, for instance.
Blindly supporting the "right" of NORDO operations ignores the reality that traffic density around certain airports, like the two that are the subject of this thread, has increased to the point where radio communication is essential to maximize safety.
Click to expand...
I think that most of us that fly NORDO aren't "blindly" supporting anything, other than accepting the reality that the radio is a good tool, but with real limitations. Radios fail, electrical systems fail, people fail, sometimes TRACON keeps you on a busy frequency too long, sometimes there are literally too many people talking. Nothing is 100%.
Another supporting argument is that there's no doubt many pilots simply don't consider a NORDO aircraft might be in the traffic pattern. The reality is they don't look for planes that aren't heard on the radio.
Click to expand...
This is a root problem. Why should I be forced to change and jump through hoops when I AM working as hard as I can within the rules, and someone else is really not trying hard? As stated before, I'd be happy to add a battery-powered box to transmit out if it was legal, but when the pilots you mention aren't already using their eyes, why should I expect them to use other tools effectively?
 
Bell206 said:
Only UAT systems have anonymous mode but it is also limited in scope.
Click to expand...
On my Garmin GDL 82 , if enabled , it wont transmit my tail number as long as I am squawking 1200 - makes sense and good enough for me and frankly covers most of these “ I don’t want to be seen” scenarios people keep bringing up.
 
@3393RP My example was simply in argument to the thought that mandating radios in all airspace will not create an accident free utopia. Every week there is an incident involving fully equipped aircraft, and sometimes in direct radar contact with ATC.
 
I wish I had a dollar for every time that ATC called out traffic, we had them on ADS-B but still never saw them — with 2 of us looking. I like having ADS-B but it’s not a panacea IMO. If it could issue an RA like TCAS, maybe it would be more useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top