Midair at FDK (Frederick, MD)

Henning said:
If they had 2ES in sight, why didn't they see the helicopter too?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Ever not see everything, everywhere, everytime? She was looking away to begin with with that IFR clearance. She was looking specifically for the Cirrus in the 10 seconds or so before the crash. She had literally just made visual contact with cirrus only a second or two before the accident. It's not like she was staring the Cirrus and ignoring other traffic the whole time. There was no time to do that.

I don't think with a single controller in the cab, it is reasonable to expect her to make and keep eye contact with 4 aircraft, separate them, keep them separated, and give IFR clearances on ground. You only have two eyes in your head and they can only look one direction at once.
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
I think the bolded statement above was a key factor in the collision. By telling 2ES the three helicopters were below him, his eyeballs are looking down, not laterally. Since we now know the two aircraft were at the same altitude, his eyes would likely be drawn away from looking for an aircraft at his altitude. Since the the controller had no altitude information on either if the aircraft, stating that the traffic for all three helicopters were below the Cirrus was an assumption in this case.
Click to expand...
Only if you believe Class D towers give you positive separation.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Ever not see everything, everywhere, everytime? She was looking away to begin with with that IFR clearance. She was looking specifically for the Cirrus in the 10 seconds or so before the crash. She had literally just made visual contact with cirrus only a second or two before the accident. It's not like she was staring the Cirrus and ignoring other traffic the whole time. There was no time to do that.

I don't think with a single controller in the cab, it is reasonable to expect her to make and keep eye contact with 4 aircraft, separate them, keep them separated, and give IFR clearances on ground. You only have two eyes in your head and they can only look one direction at once.
Click to expand...

I find FDK having an understaffed, under equipped, tower interesting. However I would expect her to have seen the helo due to motion within a close field of view, our eyes and brain are attuned to it.
 
I have a cirrus related question. After the collision with the helicopter, does the plane detect an emergency and automatically deploy the chute or does the pilot have to?
 
There is no automatic deployment.

Certain kinds of impact could possibly activate it unintentionally, but probably only if the fuselage was compromised.
 
tfitch03 said:
Thanks
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

It's not a silly question.

Until recently, a Cirrus CAPS was fired by a heavily spring loaded firing pin hitting what was, in effect, a shotgun primer. Totally mechanical.

A short while back they went to an electronic firing method. Eventually the entire fleet will be converted, since the old system is no longer produced. Anyway, this caused some concern about its reliability relative to the prior system. One can assume it was tested to at least an equal reliability level, but the data to date is too small to judge.

In any case, now that it's electronic, that does open the door to automatic deployment, much like airbags in a car. But the very idea makes a lot of pilots nervous - it would have to be programmed very, very precisely to fire when needed, yet never when not.

Good luck with that!
 
FastEddieB said:
You're welcome.

It's not a silly question.

Until recently, a Cirrus CAPS was fired by a heavily spring loaded firing pin hitting what was, in effect, a shotgun primer. Totally mechanical.

A short while back they went to an electronic firing method. Eventually the entire fleet will be converted, since the old system is no longer produced. Anyway, this caused some concern about its reliability relative to the prior system. One can assume it was tested to at least an equal reliability level, but the data to date is too small to judge.

In any case, now that it's electronic, that does open the door to automatic deployment, much like airbags in a car. But the very idea makes a lot of pilots nervous - it would have to be programmed very, very precisely to fire when needed, yet never when not.

Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

There's a thread about a Cirrus pilot who tried to pull and it didn't fire so he continued flying the airplane (kudos to him). Once he got on the ground the chute fired :mad:.
 
Jaybird180 said:
There's a thread about a Cirrus pilot who tried to pull and it didn't fire so he continued flying the airplane (kudos to him). Once he got on the ground the chute fired :mad:.
Click to expand...


Now that would be a sight to see!
 
Jaybird180 said:
There's a thread about a Cirrus pilot who tried to pull and it didn't fire so he continued flying the airplane (kudos to him). Once he got on the ground the chute fired :mad:.
Click to expand...
no....it fired in the air....and did not deploy.

He landed.....dragging the tampon with him.:yikes:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=da260970-3974-400f-95b1-c095ab971053

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • tampon.jpg
    tampon.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 949
Last edited:
Pedals2Paddles said:
Exactly. They've been very accommodating to help people get in and out quickly. In hindsight, that's probably not a good idea. That said, is it common for a tower anywhere to make an aircraft fly over/around the field and loop back into the opposite traffic pattern?
Click to expand...

That's my point. She just brought him in on the most expeditious route as do most towers.
 
Lindberg said:
then the fact that the plane didn't see the helicopter does not seem to excuse the failure to honor the helicopter's ROW. See § 91.113(b). .
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm so confused. He was supposed to give ROW to something he didn't see? How?
 
Dav8or said:
200' of separation IMO is ridiculous. Particularly where there are students involved. It should be more like 500' at least. Personally, I think "stacking" traffic is kind of dumb. I am certain there will be new pattern rules soon.
Click to expand...

I hope Advanced Helicopters survives as a business or it won't matter. They are the best group of people I've ever dealt with at Frederick and they have a thriving business.
 
avi8tor4fn said:
Huh? I'm so confused. He was supposed to give ROW to something he didn't see? How?
Click to expand...

Here's how I gave ROW to another aircraft I didn't see

Jaybird180 said:
As I taxi to the favored runway 18 (slight downhill and slight breeze out of the south) a Saratoga calls up asking for a runway advisory. I advise him that I'll be using 18 and he replies 36.:confused:

I ask if he's planning an instrument approach, to which I'd yield. No response. Saratoga, state intentions. No reply. I proceed to the runup area and he calls distance (unintelligible). I'm now done with runup and hear him declare 8 miles airport in sight. I call out to traffic departing 18, closed pattern. He asks preferred and I state 18 and push the power up, thinking....he's 8 miles out with plenty time to plan his arrival:nono:

I haven't done a no flap takeoff in awhile so I decide this is the opportunity. At 300AGL I see him to my left in the distance. 500, I turn cross, call on the radio and lose sight of him. He states he has visual and is turning base for 18. I'm now 100 below pattern altitude and tuning downwind and call again, no visual. I check my lights....

I hear him call 5 miles, but my brain doesn't process his location...I'm not happy with not seeing this guy. I'm abeam, call my downwind decent and ask him to remain clear. He states 3 mile final. Still no visual on him.

I depart the pattern. An SFRA no-no.:nono: As PIC, I determined that it was safer to disengage, get some separation and then rejoin. I call ATC, while making my 225* turn and tell then I departed the pattern due to traffic conflict. Request to return to advisory freq. Granted.

I rejoin on the 45 and on downwind, I call my position and see the airplane on the ground, looks like he was on the taxiway but he replies that he'll be out of the way by the time I arrive (I'm sure you will). I call my downwind decent again and he states clear of the active......

File ASRS about this Saratoga's airline pattern and losing visual:idea:, causing me to deviate from SRFA procedure .....
Click to expand...
 
It's generally negligent to fail to see that which is there an can be seen.

I know this leaves an argument that the other pilot could not be seen. But a plaintiff's lawyer will be able to argue that the traffic with the right of way was observable, and therefore the other pilot should have seen and avoided.
 
All of this is arguing with the wind until altitudes are known, if they ever are. If the Cirrus was at 1300, the helo rose into him, if the cirrus was at 1000 and so was the helo, he should have seen it. But no one knows so this is all wild speculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
You're welcome.



It's not a silly question.



Until recently, a Cirrus CAPS was fired by a heavily spring loaded firing pin hitting what was, in effect, a shotgun primer. Totally mechanical.



A short while back they went to an electronic firing method. Eventually the entire fleet will be converted, since the old system is no longer produced. Anyway, this caused some concern about its reliability relative to the prior system. One can assume it was tested to at least an equal reliability level, but the data to date is too small to judge.



In any case, now that it's electronic, that does open the door to automatic deployment, much like airbags in a car. But the very idea makes a lot of pilots nervous - it would have to be programmed very, very precisely to fire when needed, yet never when not.



Good luck with that!
Click to expand...


So going forward, will it be a button on the dash, instead of a handle on the ceiling?

(Will the G1000 ask you "are you sure?" ;)
 
dans2992 said:
So going forward, will it be a button on the dash, instead of a handle on the ceiling?

(Will the G1000 ask you "are you sure?" ;)
Click to expand...

Thinking about it, how about...

"AUTOMATIC CAPS DISPLAY IN 3...2...1..." with a way to override it if the pilot determined it was in error or was not appropriated to the situation?
 
FastEddieB said:
Thinking about it, how about...

"AUTOMATIC CAPS DEPLOY IN 3...2...1..." with a way to override it if the pilot determined it was in error or was not appropriated to the situation?
Click to expand...

This is your last chance to push the cancellation button....

 
mikeinbama said:
All of this is arguing with the wind until altitudes are known, if they ever are. If the Cirrus was at 1300, the helo rose into him, if the cirrus was at 1000 and so was the helo, he should have seen it. But no one knows so this is all wild speculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Assuming the NTSB doesn't close the investigation with the usual mid-air collision cause: "The inadequate visual lookout by the pilots of both aircraft, which resulted in a mid-air collision." Blame everyone and move on.
 
silver-eagle said:
If you want to avoid hearing this, depart like a fixed wing. This is a minor inconvenience to departing from the ramp.
Click to expand...

Hmmm..
I am a fixed wing and have several times asked to depart from the ramp... Denied every time.....:confused:.........:mad:
 
Lindberg said:
You're supposed to see them, and failing in that responsibility does not excuse you from your other responsibilities.
Click to expand...
OK, so should he have deviated, left, right, up, or down to give ROW to something he doesn't see?
 
FastEddieB said:
Thinking about it, how about...

"AUTOMATIC CAPS DISPLAY IN 3...2...1..." with a way to override it if the pilot determined it was in error or was not appropriated to the situation?
Click to expand...

Bad idea. When you decide to pull the shoot, you want it out now, not three seconds later.
 
avi8tor4fn said:
OK, so should he have deviated, left, right, up, or down to give ROW to something he doesn't see?
Click to expand...
I couldn't see the lady I ran over earlier today, not my fault I can't see pedestrians through my phone. Hey they should invent a transponder for pedestrians so pedestrians show up as traffic on your phone while you drive and text. Make it illegal to go for a walk without it.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I couldn't see the lady I ran over earlier today, not my fault I can't see pedestrians through my phone. Hey they should invent a transponder for pedestrians so pedestrians show up as traffic on your phone while you drive and text. Make it illegal to go for a walk without it.
Click to expand...

Greg, are you OK? Do you need anyone to send help? Did you mean to post this in the texting while driving thead?
 
FastEddieB said:
Thinking about it, how about...

"AUTOMATIC CAPS DISPLAY IN 3...2...1..." with a way to override it if the pilot determined it was in error or was not appropriated to the situation?
Click to expand...

This has me thinking about the Road Runner episode when Wile E Coyote's parachute deployed after he smacked the ground.

He couldn't catch a break for nothing.
 
Lindberg said:
Based on your description of the incident, I can only come up with two possibilities:

a) The helicopter was overtaking the plane from below and flew into it.
b) The plane was overtaking the helicopter from above and either descended into it or was hit from below.

b) seems to be more likely based on the known facts, assuming the helicopter pilot would see a plane above and ahead of him.
Click to expand...

I would say that it'd have been nearly impossible for the helicopter to be overtaking the plane just based on their performance.

However, it's easy to see how the helicopter could have been ascending to TPA, and the Cirrus flying level on downwind - You can't see up and back in the R44, and unless Cirrus has started installing transparent engines and cowls the chopper would have been invisible to them as well. Not a whole lot that could have prevented this in terms of pilot actions, IMO. Some tech (ATC radar, TAS, etc) could have done it, but that's irrelevant now.
 
n20junkie said:
It obviously was a solid decision to toss the chute.
Click to expand...

Most certainly. Mid-airs are the entire reason the Cirrus has a chute, as I posted earlier, and any mid-air, control failure, etc should be immediately followed by a chute pull, no questions asked.

Hey, I love chutes. My race car has two, and I toss them the second the car starts trying to swap ends. But I don't think that they are the end all solution. In this case people still died. The chute didn't help that.
Click to expand...

Sure they did. Nobody died on the aircraft with the chute. If both aircraft had chutes, we'd be reading about this in BRS press releases instead of NTSB reports.

Maybe we need a way so planes don't run into each other.

Maybe a TCAS that doesn't cost $90,000 and can be easily be put into an small airplane without an inch thick of paperwork from the FAA.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
n20junkie said:
Its like stating how good the airbags in a car worked, as a motorcycle rider lays there dead...
Click to expand...

So are you saying that we shouldn't have airbags in cars because a car with an airbag can still kill a motorcyclist?

I think we should have more airplanes with chutes, and less pilots who use them as an excuse to make poor "go" decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top