MidAir at Centennial Airport Cirrus and Metroliner

PaulS said:
I use this system often where I am. I can see traffic on the "fish finder" long before I can see it visually. And it helps greatly finding traffic that ATC has called out if I can't find it visually at first. It works well, it's useful to see what's going on in a pattern, especially before you get there.
Click to expand...
You are swimming upstream here

Cirrus = bad (Bonanza good!)
Chute = bad (Mooney roll cages and that magical perfect flat field that appears right when you need it, good!)
TKS = bad (boots that barely work, good!)
basically anything invented for aviation post mid 1970s = bad

I wonder if when I turn 6,000 years old I'll have such disdain for contemporary aviation tech..

Anyway.. I gave up on the Cirrus stuff on this site. But it's good for an occasional laugh fueled by a tired trope.. I'm still high fiving (btw)
 
Tantalum said:
You are swimming upstream here

Cirrus = bad (Bonanza good!)
Chute = bad (Mooney roll cages and that magical perfect flat field that appears right when you need it, good!)
TKS = bad (boots that barely work, good!)
basically anything invented for aviation post mid 1970s = bad

I wonder if when I turn 6,000 years old I'll have such disdain for contemporary aviation tech..

Anyway.. I gave up on the Cirrus stuff on this site. But it's good for an occasional laugh fueled by a tired trope.. I'm still high fiving (btw)
Click to expand...

I haven’t seen anyone in this thread say any of those things.

You guys make up stuff in your heads to play victim on the whole Cirrus thing most of the time.

It’s truly become cultural.

I see concerns about close parallels, split tower frequencies, and a discussion that in dense traffic areas ALL collision avoidance software can become a distraction.

Who said any of that other silliness above?

OF COURSE any collusion avoidance system is GREAT when you have more than two literal seconds to process it AND act on it.

And OF COURSE it can’t EVER save your ass if you turned into traffic with 700’ to spare and doing 170. That’s just math.

And OF COURSE we should look at human factors like a continuous alert going off becoming ignored, because they all do.

That’s why many learn to ignore stall and gear horns too... if you spend three hours in the practice area listening to the things going off, and don’t mandate a “must acknowledge” standard — guess what you’ll tune out when you’re tired and heading back to the airport?

Do you want to hear where the other airplanes are in the pattern by what the controller and them are saying, or do you want a computer jabbering “Traffic Traffic!” over the top of them in your headset?

Those truly are valid human factors concerns at a place as dense with traffic as APA.

You seem frustrated unnecessarily. Quite a lot of us like all the tech. Doesn’t mean we feel it necessary at all times nor can we afford all of it. But it’s truly rare anybody says anything more than “I don’t feel like I need it” here.

I love Eyesight in my Subaru and let it drive quite often. But I can drive the car just fine without it.

It’s not something I get butt hurt over if someone says they don’t need it in their car. That seems to be the weird over reaction that any minor (even valid) criticism receives.

I also have learned a few scenarios where Eyesight does truly unsafe things.

There’s no perfect car and there’s no perfect aircraft. No big deal.

I’m sure I can set up a scenario where my Garmin would kill me. Tech is tech. It’ll always have that problem.
 
Ha. Nice. See. Tech sucks. Yay autocorrect. Haha.

My favorite “safety tech can kill a whole bunch of people” accident report has always been Eastern 401.

Three lightbulbs on three separate safety systems, two malfunctioning, one either malfunctioning or nobody knee where the switch/breaker for it was...

Caused enough sense of safety along with ambiguity, to kill 101 people.

One was even the backup safety system to the primary.

Three friggin lightbulbs. Not even complex safety systems. Close a contact and send current through a $0.19 lightbulb. All three of em.
 
denverpilot said:
Ha. Nice. See. Tech sucks. Yay autocorrect. Haha.

My favorite “safety tech can kill a whole bunch of people” accident report has always been Eastern 401.

Three lightbulbs on three separate safety systems, two malfunctioning, one either malfunctioning or nobody knee where the switch/breaker for it was...

Caused enough sense of safety along with ambiguity, to kill 101 people.

One was even the backup safety system to the primary.

Three friggin lightbulbs. Not even complex safety systems. Close a contact and send current through a $0.19 lightbulb. All three of em.
Click to expand...
Aviation light bulbs. They were $19 apiece.
 
FastEddieB said:
Nope.

To the best of my recollection there was one precipitated by a loose fuel cap. Seriously.
Click to expand...
Did they have to pull the chute because all the fuel siphoned out?
 
denverpilot said:
I haven’t seen anyone in this thread say any of those things.

You guys make up stuff in your heads to play victim on the whole Cirrus thing most of the time.

It’s truly become cultural.

I see concerns about close parallels, split tower frequencies, and a discussion that in dense traffic areas ALL collision avoidance software can become a distraction.

Who said any of that other silliness above?

OF COURSE any collusion avoidance system is GREAT when you have more than two literal seconds to process it AND act on it.

And OF COURSE it can’t EVER save your ass if you turned into traffic with 700’ to spare and doing 170. That’s just math.

And OF COURSE we should look at human factors like a continuous alert going off becoming ignored, because they all do.

That’s why many learn to ignore stall and gear horns too... if you spend three hours in the practice area listening to the things going off, and don’t mandate a “must acknowledge” standard — guess what you’ll tune out when you’re tired and heading back to the airport?

Do you want to hear where the other airplanes are in the pattern by what the controller and them are saying, or do you want a computer jabbering “Traffic Traffic!” over the top of them in your headset?

Those truly are valid human factors concerns at a place as dense with traffic as APA.

You seem frustrated unnecessarily. Quite a lot of us like all the tech. Doesn’t mean we feel it necessary at all times nor can we afford all of it. But it’s truly rare anybody says anything more than “I don’t feel like I need it” here.

I love Eyesight in my Subaru and let it drive quite often. But I can drive the car just fine without it.

It’s not something I get butt hurt over if someone says they don’t need it in their car. That seems to be the weird over reaction that any minor (even valid) criticism receives.

I also have learned a few scenarios where Eyesight does truly unsafe things.

There’s no perfect car and there’s no perfect aircraft. No big deal.

I’m sure I can set up a scenario where my Garmin would kill me. Tech is tech. It’ll always have that problem.
Click to expand...


You're fine, I sensed the CFI in you coming out with the TCAS thing. But some seem to have an issue with the tech. I love the tech. The aural warnings do not cancel out the radios, I never miss a call due to a callout. Yes, sometimes it can be aggravating but certainly not dangerous. I think Garmin has done a good job with it, and I think it's important to get some training on using it.

As far as the people who think Cirrus pilots are stupid thing, that's real, it cracks me up and I think it cracks tantalum up too.
 
Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.

 
PaulS said:
Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.
Click to expand...

100% the fault of ATC? Pretty easy to argue with that...

but maybe I didn't hear him correctly.
 
well then I guess the controllers at RDU are at fault 100% of the time, as they have plenty of side-by-side approaches on parallel runways. but wait, something's weird, they don't have mid-airs. so they aren't even good at being wrong. strange. I guess the SFO controllers are always at fault as well, and probably at every other parallel runway location. but again, they all suck at being at fault since all these other locations never have mid-airs. but I do agree with one thing, CLEARLY atc was 100% at fault for having the cirrus fly base at what, mach 7.0 or whatever. yup, def ATCs fault. they should have told the cirrus pilot that it may be a bad idea to blow through final on a parallel runway after being given a traffic advisory. GO DAN!
 
I don't know, I understand your point, but this wasn't two straight ins like you are painting.

Cirrus, you're also clear, just don't smack into the big airplane.

Both airplanes were cleared for converging directions. Yes, Cirrus blew through his mark, but they shouldn't have been cleared for converging directions.
 
Bob Noel said:
100% the fault of ATC? Pretty easy to argue with that...

but maybe I didn't hear him correctly.
Click to expand...

I think the Cirrus screwed up flying so fast and crossing the centerline. But I think Gryder is correct about pointing one airplane at another, I don't see the reason, had the controller waited 5 seconds to issue that clearance, the metroliner would have passed by the time the Cirrus was on base.
 
PaulS said:
Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.

Click to expand...

Blaming ATC. Guess we know which pilots pay him the most for instruction? Maybe.

1. He’s acting like ATC was vectoring them for the same runway and left off the responsibility of the pilot to line up for the correct one.

2. Also ignored that the pilot DID call traffic in sight and read back the correct runway.

He doesn’t even know the gender of the controller he is vilifying — tends to indicate he hasn’t even listened to the source material himself.

“The Cirrus pilot did what he was supposed to do.” Absolutely false.
 
eman1200 said:
well then I guess the controllers at RDU are at fault 100% of the time, as they have plenty of side-by-side approaches on parallel runways. but wait, something's weird, they don't have mid-airs. so they aren't even good at being wrong. strange. I guess the SFO controllers are always at fault as well, and probably at every other parallel runway location. but again, they all suck at being at fault since all these other locations never have mid-airs. but I do agree with one thing, CLEARLY atc was 100% at fault for having the cirrus fly base at what, mach 7.0 or whatever. yup, def ATCs fault. they should have told the cirrus pilot that it may be a bad idea to blow through final on a parallel runway after being given a traffic advisory. GO DAN!
Click to expand...

Yes, the 100% is a little much, I don't agree with that, but are those airports you listed turning one aircraft to arrive to his turn to final next to the other aircraft 700 feet away? I doubt it.
 
Cloudhound said:
I don't know, I understand your point, but look at the other side.

Cirrus, you're also clear, just don't smack into the big airplane.

Both airplanes were cleared for converging directions. Yes, Cirrus blew through his mark, but they shouldn't have been cleared for converging directions.
Click to expand...
I disagree the Cirrus pilot showed poor airmanship that almost killed him, his passengers and the crew of the Metro
 
AKBill said:
I disagree the Cirrus pilot showed poor airmanship that almost killed him, his passengers and the crew of the Metro
Click to expand...

All day long.

Doesn't change the idea that had he not been cleared, there would have been less chance of a midair.
 
PaulS said:
Yes, the 100% is a little much, I don't agree with that, but are those airports you listed turning one aircraft to arrive to his turn to final next to the other aircraft 700 feet away? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

good point, I don't know how many feet apart they are. but I certainly know if they were turning me and said traffic on final on the other runway, I'd be looking out for that traffic and made damn sure I had them in site. also wouldn't be flying insane speeds. also wouldn't have blown thru final. lot of things I'd do differently but knowing it can all be blamed on ATC, fk it.
 
PaulS said:
Yes, the 100% is a little much, I don't agree with that, but are those airports you listed turning one aircraft to arrive to his turn to final next to the other aircraft 700 feet away? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
At the dual-runway airports I have flown at, Tower calls out the traffic and relies on the pilots to separate themselves once they say "traffic in sight."
 
Cloudhound said:
Was the controller well aware of the Cirrus speed, and still turned him in?
Click to expand...
PaulS said:
I don't think it matters, the problem I see is turning one airplane into arrive that close to another, why do that?
Click to expand...
Did the controller turn the Cirrus at all? I heard "west shore" and "follow the Cessna", nothing about when to turn.
 
asicer said:
Did the controller turn the Cirrus at all? I heard "west shore" and "follow the Cessna", nothing about when to turn.
Click to expand...
And where I fly, "I'll call your base" is the exception, not the rule. In 30 years of flying, I've never heard it when the relevant traffic was cleared to a different runway than I was.
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
good point, I don't know how many feet apart they are. but I certainly know if they were turning me and said traffic on final on the other runway, I'd be looking out for that traffic and made damn sure I had them in site. also wouldn't be flying insane speeds. also wouldn't have blown thru final. lot of things I'd do differently but knowing it can all be blamed on ATC, fk it.
Click to expand...

I think there is blame to go around here, but at the end of the day, had the Cirrus been at 90 to 100 knots indicated, where he should have been at that point rather than 130 to 140 indicated, this probably wouldn't have happened as the Cirrus would have been less likely to overshoot.
 
asicer said:
Did the controller turn the Cirrus at all? I heard "west shore" and "follow the Cessna", nothing about when to turn.
Click to expand...

That's a good point and an argument that maybe the Cirrus didn't have the Metroliner in sight. I hope the Cirrus pilot is honest in what went on with this approach when he is interviewed, but with his liability exposure he might just clam up.
 
PaulS said:
Love him or hate him, it's tough to argue with Gryder's analysis on this accident.

Click to expand...

Pretty easy to argue really. Because he’s wrong.

First, tower didn’t turn the aircraft into the Metroliner. The Cirrus pilot did that on their own. The Cirrus pilot also stated “traffic in sight” for the second (Metroliner) traffic call. The east controller did their job, the west controller failed to issue traffic...if indeed that audio is complete.

Second, the Cirrus wasn’t doing a visual approach. They were VFR. Huge difference.

Finally, the tower IS authorized (VFR) simultaneous same direction ops in this situation. The min is 300 ft between center lines and I’m showing around 700 ft. Now, KAPA might be changing their local policies in handling parallel ops, but nothing non standard or against policy occurred at the time of the accident.


55DC6785-AE8E-472C-B2E3-CF3C0D3D6AE2.jpeg
 
eman1200 said:
well then I guess the controllers at RDU are at fault 100% of the time, as they have plenty of side-by-side approaches on parallel runways.
Click to expand...
But only simultaneous instrument approaches when the aircrews have special training and HUD or autoland. And there's more five times the distance between the runways at RDU than at APA.
 
flyingron said:
But only simultaneous instrument approaches when the aircrews have special training and HUD or autoland. And there's more than twice the distance between the runways at RDU than at APA. In fact, APA's spacing is right at the minimum limit for VFR ops.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I’ve been vectored VFR to final side by side to a heavy at RDU.
 
Dan Gryder kept repeating that the Cirrus could not see the metroliner because it was below him. So why did the Cirrus report the traffic as "in sight"? Is it up to ATC to second guess when a pilot reports a traffic in sight?
 
eman1200 said:
I dunno, I’ve been vectored VFR to final side by side to a heavy at RDU.
Click to expand...
I was referring to simultaneous INSTRUMENT approaches. And again, there's 3500 feet between RDU's parallels, unlike the barely 700 at APA.

Hell, I've flown next to the Concorde and 747's at IAD, but they've got 6000 feet separation.
 
two things:

1) if the GPS in your car tells you to make a right at the next exit and you sideswipe a car doing it, is it the GPS's fault?

2), more importantly, I thought traffic separation is the pilot's responsibility at Deltas and Charlies?
 
flyingron said:
I was referring to simultaneous INSTRUMENT approaches. And again, there's 3500 feet between RDU's parallels, unlike the barely 700 at APA.
Click to expand...

but these weren't instrument approaches so what does that have to do with anything? also, did they just narrow the distance between runways or has it always been 700'? so really not sure what your points are.
 
Dan's wrong about one point:

Playing with the ADSB tracks, at one half mile separation, the Metroliner is at the 10:00 position in the windshield and 150 feet above the Cirrus. Should be relatively easy to see if your eyes out scanning outside the cockpit. Especially with the Metorliner above the horizon. So I really wonder about the analysis of the YouTube that the Metroliner was below the Cirrus. You can run the sliders and see the relative position of the planes and their reported altitude. In other words, can you spot a plane moving across your field of vision from one end of a 2500' runway if they are 150 above your position.

Until the actual point of contact, the Metroliner was ABOVE the Cirrus, not below. They collide at 6225 feet, where both ADSBs concur. You can run the planes yourself: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?ica...7&lon=-104.919&zoom=12.3&showTrace=2021-05-12

Obviously, the Cirrus ends up on top, but that wasn't until the final seconds when the Metroliner descended on glideslope below the nose. By then, it was too late anyway since they were VFR.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top