Midair at FDK (Frederick, MD)

Dav8or said:
Because it is small and painted dark green perhaps...
Click to expand...

Could be, I don't know.:dunno: It just caught me as peculiar and a potential link in the chain to look at. What properties in a paint job differentiate between high visibility and stealth? Do these properties change with conditions? Stuff to think about and mull over for when one next paints an airplane.
 
This is awful. Of course, I knew what was going to happen, but in the audio when the controller alerts that 3 helicopters are operating in the area, and the SR22 pilot responds that he has 2 in sight my heart sank into my gut. ugh. I immediately wanted to resolve that unknown risk. Where is #3? I don't think I would've let her off until I knew where #3 was relative to me.
 
Last edited:
WBI Flyer said:
This is awful. Of course, I knew what was going to happen, but in the audio when the controller alerts that 3 helicopters are operating in the area, and the SR22 pilot responds that he has 2 in sight my heart sunk into my gut. ugh. I immediately wanted to resolve that unknown risk. Where is #3? I don't think I would've let her off until I knew where #3 was relative to me.
Click to expand...


I agree, while I am still a student and fly out of an uncontrolled field, when I hear other traffic report, if I don't see them, I start talking to them. However, it happened so fast, I don't think there was time for the question, "where is the other helo"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mikeinbama said:
I agree, while I am still a student and fly out of an uncontrolled field, when I hear other traffic report, if I don't see them, I start talking to them. However, it happened so fast, I don't think there was time for the question, "where is the other helo"?


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

That's one thing about life, no matter how careful you are, sometime you will lose.
 
Henning said:
That's one thing about life, no matter how careful you are, sometime you will lose.
Click to expand...

That's why it's better when everyone tries to stay on their toes.... but sometimes even that is not enough...
 
Jim Logajan said:
Turns out I still have a copy of the full audio (1930Z to 2000Z) on my computer from when I listened to it on LiveATC.
[...]
2ES: The Cirrus that crashed. N122ES
18Q: The helicopter that crashed. N7518Q

  • Twr 4:05 - 4:11: S122ES report 3 miles west for left downwind runway 30.
  • Twr 4:15 - 4:20: 4PH is that you option in the grass at your own risk use caution you were stepped on.
  • 4PH 4:20 - 4:23: Yes sorry about that 4PH option in the grass.
  • 18Q 4:25 - 4:32: [..?] at advance would like to depart to for left closed traffic to the grass and we have the two helicopters in sight.
  • Twr 4:34 - 4:37: 18Q you wanted to depart alpha you said?
  • 18Q 4:33 - 4:39: That's affirmative and we have papa.
  • Twr 4:40 - 4:51: 18Q ah departure from alpha at your own risk, correction, taxiway alpha cleared for takeoff, wind 330 at 13 gust 20 cleared for takeoff report turning left base.
  • 18Q 4:51 - 4:54: Cleared for takeoff report left base 18Q.
  • 144 4:55 - 4:58: [..?] 144 turning final for the grass.
  • Twr 4:59 - 5:01: 144 for option at the grass at your own risk use caution.
  • ??? 5:02 - 5:04: [..?] Option at the grass [..?]
  • Twr 5:06 - 5:06: Roger
  • Twr 5:12 - 5:20: 43T I don't know if I'll be able to complete this approach for you I have three helicopters in left traffic and a fixed wing inbound from the west.
  • Twr 5:44 - 6:28: Citation 612JD your clearance is available. [Clearance instructions to Greensboro.]
  • 2JD 6:31 - 6:48: Citation 612JD is cleared to Greensboro, [Clearance read back.]
  • Twr 6:51 - 6:59: 4PH option at the grass use at your own risk use caution, and at the next go-around stay at a thousand feet I have traffic in the downwind.
  • 4PH 7:00 - 7:03: Cleared for the option the grass stay at a thousand next go-around 4PH.
  • Twr 7:03 - 7:10: 2ES report midfield left downwind for runway 30 have three helicopters below you in the ah traffic pattern.
  • 2ES 7:11 - 7:15: I will report midfield downwind and I have two of them in sight [..?]
  • Twr 7:16 - 7:22: Alright 2ES I have you in sight runway 30 maintain your altitude to until turning base, cleared to land.
  • 7:24: [Open mike sounds of collision aftermath.]
Click to expand...

Over on the purple board, user newlangsyne filled in and corrected some of the parts I didn't get (also here), so here's an updated transcript (updated portions underlined).

2ES: The Cirrus SR22 that crashed; N122ES.
18Q: The Robinson R44 that crashed; N7518Q.

  • Twr 3:53 - 3:54: Cirrus 122ES, Frederick.
  • 4PH 4:01 - 4:02: Tower, 4PH [unintelligible] left downwind for the grass.
  • Twr 4:05 - 4:11: S122ES report 3 miles west for left downwind runway 30.
  • Twr 4:15 - 4:20: 4PH is that you option in the grass at your own risk use caution you were stepped on.
  • 4PH 4:20 - 4:23: Yes sorry about that 4PH option in the grass.
  • 18Q 4:25 - 4:32: Tower, helicopter 7518Q at Advanced would like to depart to for left closed traffic to the grass and we have the two helicopters in sight.
  • Twr 4:34 - 4:37: 18Q you wanted to depart alpha you said?
  • 18Q 4:33 - 4:39: That's affirmative and we have papa.
  • Twr 4:40 - 4:51: 18Q ah departure from alpha at your own risk, correction, taxiway alpha clear for takeoff, wind 330 at 13 gust 20 clear for takeoff report turning left base.
  • 18Q 4:51 - 4:54: Clear for takeoff report left base 18Q.
  • 42U 4:55 - 4:58: Tower, helicopter 42U turning final for the grass.
  • Twr 4:59 - 5:01: 42U option at the grass at your own risk use caution.
  • 42U 5:02 - 5:04: Option in the grass for simulated engine failure 42U.
  • Twr 5:06 - 5:06: Roger.
  • Twr 5:12 - 5:20: 43T I don't know if I'll be able to complete this approach for you I have three helicopters in left traffic and a fixed wing inbound from the west.
  • Twr 5:44 - 6:28: Citation 612JD your clearance is available. [Clearance instructions to Greensboro.]
  • 2JD 6:31 - 6:48: Citation 612JD is cleared to Greensboro, [Clearance read back.]
  • Twr 6:51 - 6:59: 4PH option in the grass use at your own risk use caution, and on the next go-around stay at a thousand feet I have traffic in the downwind.
  • 4PH 7:00 - 7:03: Cleared for the option the grass stay at a thousand next go-around 4PH.
  • Twr 7:03 - 7:10: Cirrus 2ES report midfield left downwind for runway 30 I have three helicopters below you in the ah traffic pattern.
  • 2ES 7:11 - 7:15: I will report midfield downwind and I've got two of them in sight 122ES.
  • Twr 7:16 - 7:22: Alright 2ES I have you in sight runway 30 maintain your altitude to until turning base, cleared to land.
  • --- 7:24 - 7:29: [Open mike sounds of collision aftermath.]
  • 42U 7:31 - 7:33 Frederick Tower, 42U, airplane down and helicopter down.
  • Twr 7:34 - 7:38 Yes, yes, I just saw it, 911's on the way.
 
Reading this transcript, the controller was looking at the cirrus seconds before and during the impact, she said, " yes, I saw it". Just before she told the cirrus to maintain altitude, I have to think she was looking at the helo too and it was below the cirrus. It sure seems like the helo ascended into, or into the path of the cirrus. Very sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Helicopter suddenly jumped in front of the cirrus, sure whatever. Just as likely the cirrus descended into the helicopter from behind. Getting rear ended by TV pilots is the biggest skymenace we have. And with the dang parachutes they live to kill again.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Helicopter suddenly jumped in front of the cirrus, sure whatever. Just as likely the cirrus descended into the helicopter from behind. Getting rear ended by TV pilots is the biggest skymenace we have. And with the dang parachutes they live to kill again.
Click to expand...

:rofl: If the plane had a belly proximity sensing device like even a camera displaying on the TV screen, he may have been able to see the helo to avoid him. Aircraft have huge blind sectors, helicopters not so much, but still from above and behind; and we don't teach or encourage doing clearing maneuvers in the pattern, especially at a towed airport.

The reality is technology could have prevented this. Cockpit to cockpit traffic awareness. This is the goal of the NextGen system, give the pilot all the info he needs on the screen in front of them. This is also necessary to integrate autonomous aircraft/drones into the system.

If you think that having more information in an easy to absorb format makes a person a less capable pilot, you are deluding yourself.
 
Henning said:
:rofl: If the plane had a belly proximity sensing device like even a camera displaying on the TV screen, he may have been able to see the helo to avoid him. Aircraft have huge blind sectors, helicopters not so much, but still from above and behind; and we don't teach or encourage doing clearing maneuvers in the pattern, especially at a towed airport.

The reality is technology could have prevented this. Cockpit to cockpit traffic awareness. This is the goal of the NextGen system, give the pilot all the info he needs on the screen in front of them. This is also necessary to integrate autonomous aircraft/drones into the system.

If you think that having more information in an easy to absorb format makes a person a less capable pilot, you are deluding yourself.
Click to expand...
People are stupid, remember? If an Airbus can't keep Pros from crashing why would I believe more TVs would help hobby pilots in bugsmashers? It is a false assumption that people properly assimilate and react to information.
 
Henning said:
:rofl: If the plane had a belly proximity sensing device like even a camera displaying on the TV screen, he may have been able to see the helo to avoid him. Aircraft have huge blind sectors, helicopters not so much, but still from above and behind; and we don't teach or encourage doing clearing maneuvers in the pattern, especially at a towed airport.

The reality is technology could have prevented this. Cockpit to cockpit traffic awareness. This is the goal of the NextGen system, give the pilot all the info he needs on the screen in front of them. This is also necessary to integrate autonomous aircraft/drones into the system.

If you think that having more information in an easy to absorb format makes a person a less capable pilot, you are deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

I think focusing inside is dangerous. I think quick glances inside are fine. I like technology, I think used properly it makes it safer, but it scares the crap out of me that some think any of it is a substitute for looking outside.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Helicopter suddenly jumped in front of the cirrus, sure whatever. Just as likely the cirrus descended into the helicopter from behind. Getting rear ended by TV pilots is the biggest skymenace we have. And with the dang parachutes they live to kill again.
Click to expand...

Let me guess ... Cirrus pilots must be gay, too. :rolleyes2:
 
PaulS said:
I think focusing inside is dangerous. I think quick glances inside are fine. I like technology, I think used properly it makes it safer, but it scares the crap out of me that some think any of it is a substitute for looking outside.
Click to expand...

You are very correct, this is the advantage to going full glass and having SVT. It only takes a glance to get a whole hell of a lot of information so you can take your eyes outside and verify it. If you don't have the info to alert you something is underneath you in your blind sector, are you able to act on what you don't know?:dunno:

Excess information is not the cause of this, a lack of information was the cause of this. This is the exemplar of why ADS-B is being required, this is an exemplar of why NextGen is going to happen. The good thing is that the Exp Non Commercial will be the bone thrown to GA to allow them to put advanced avionics in from the Experimental market. At those prices no one can whine.
 
The preliminary NTSB report was posted some time between last evening and this morning. The most notable item not previously reported is that the damage to the aircraft (after the collision but before the impact with ground/tree) was on the trailing edge (flaps, aileron) of the right wing and right gear.

The NTSB had not yet interviewed the pilot, perhaps he is consulting with an attorney first before speaking with the government.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20141023X01333&key=1
 
Well this is interesting...

"Witnesses on the ground observed the aircraft converge at the same altitude. One witness said the helicopter appeared to be in a stationary hover as the airplane approached it and the two subsequently collided. She said neither aircraft changed altitude as they approached each other."
 
They say they have radar. Cirrus pilot descended into the poor bastards.
 
ClimbnSink said:
They say they have radar. Cirrus pilot descended into the poor bastards.
Click to expand...
No. That is not what they said. Nothing at all indicates that. Nobody said that. Nobody implied that. Nobody insinuated that. Well, nobody except you.

Please stop posting lies that contradict evidence in order to support your brain dead personal problems.


<< Sent from my mobile device at 0agl >>
 
That is what is known. If the helicopter was moving as slow as one witness reports the cirrus pilot just ran them down. If you fly into a hovering/slower moving helicopter at the same altitude it is your fault.
 
ClimbnSink said:
That is what is known. If the helicopter was moving as slow as one witness reports the cirrus pilot just ran them down. If you fly into a hovering/slower moving helicopter at the same altitude it is your fault.
Click to expand...
You don't know anything. You are changing the wording of a ground witness in a moving vehicle to mean whatever you want it to mean. You are and have been making things up since day one. You are nuts.


<< Sent from my mobile device at 0agl >>
 
You can't just go around flying into things at the same altitude that are not moving. Next time the Cirrus pilot can try with a mountain and see if his parachute can save him.
 
TheTraveler said:
Well this is interesting...

"Witnesses on the ground observed the aircraft converge at the same altitude. One witness said the helicopter appeared to be in a stationary hover as the airplane approached it and the two subsequently collided. She said neither aircraft changed altitude as they approached each other."
Click to expand...

It's hard to judge mild vertical change in motion from that angle, and if helicopter 2 was following him in the pattern as he reported, then I the accident helicopter actually being at a hover doesn't make a lot of sense. It's probably a perceptual illusion brought about from the 'time dilation' effect in response to intense situations that some people experience. Your mind is processing information so fast that it's like taking a movie with a high speed camera and then looking back at it in normal speed.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You can't just go around flying into things at the same altitude that are not moving. Next time the Cirrus pilot can try with a mountain and see if his parachute can save him.
Click to expand...
Just like you can't go around making up bull**** to fit the scenario that you want it to fit. You know nothing. And you don't care to know anything. Because all three of your braincells made up their mind a long time ago.


<< Sent from my mobile device at 0agl >>
 
Throwing insults will get you banned. Which isn't nearly as bad as running down a helicopter, fly safe.
 
Henning said:
It's hard to judge mild vertical change in motion from that angle, and if helicopter 2 was following him in the pattern as he reported, then I the accident helicopter actually being at a hover doesn't make a lot of sense. It's probably a perceptual illusion brought about from the 'time dilation' effect in response to intense situations that some people experience. Your mind is processing information so fast that it's like taking a movie with a high speed camera and then looking back at it in normal speed.
Click to expand...

I agree that witness statement I quoted is open to different interpretations and needs other things taken into consideration. But I still think it's an interesting statement of their observation.

Interesting, not all deciding or all encompassing. I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions from it, but that's just me.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You can't just go around flying into things at the same altitude that are not moving. Next time the Cirrus pilot can try with a mountain and see if his parachute can save him.
Click to expand...

This is not an incident unique to Cirrus Pilots. This is inherent to any aircraft, they have huge blind areas. This is just one of a long string of accidents that have involved nearly every aircraft type there is. These accidents of "landing on top of each other" are not exactly rarified anywhere along the course of aviation. Your vehemence towards technology is misplaced in this accident, this accident once again points out the limitations of 'see and avoid' with only eyes to rely on. Having technology to help provide the pilot proximity information to any other traffic not only at a glance, but to give an alert as well, can only help.
 
I've heard some people have such a weak constitution they can't handle opposing views on the internet. Is that true? If true, should these people be allowed to fly?
 
ClimbnSink said:
That is what is known. If the helicopter was moving as slow as one witness reports the cirrus pilot just ran them down. If you fly into a hovering/slower moving helicopter at the same altitude it is your fault.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the helicopter was hovering slowly or stationary in the downwind near pattern altitude while its pilot presumably listened to the tower direct an airplane toward his position and made no attempt to move forward or downward or give a radio alert of his blocking the path of the airplane.

But assuming for the moment that the airplane pilot is at fault, that issue of fault per se is of no value in mitigating future such accidents. Unless you think the airplane pilot deliberately collided with the helicopter, or his ego or thinking so skewed that he expected the helicopter to give way, the only issue left is to determine why the airplane pilot or his passenger was not able to see the helicopter.

One possibility is that over flat terrain, a helicopter just needs to below the head of the airplane pilot for it to appear among the ground clutter. One visual cue I can think of that would make it stand out is that it will grow more quickly in size than the more distant ground objects. Otherwise it would likely be difficult to see.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I've heard some people have such a weak constitution they can't handle opposing views on the internet. Is that true? If true, should these people be allowed to fly?
Click to expand...

Good question. I would think it would be relative to the opposing viewpoint, they aren't all created equal.
 
So it is OK to crash when it might be hard to do otherwise? If you give the pilot a pass on this, you have to give all the other crashed because doing the right thing is hard pilots a pass on crashing as well. It is hard to waste time stopping for fuel when you just might make it...
Jim Logajan said:
It sounds like the helicopter was hovering slowly or stationary in the downwind near pattern altitude while its pilot presumably listened to the tower direct an airplane toward his position and made no attempt to move forward or downward or give a radio alert of his blocking the path of the airplane.

But assuming for the moment that the airplane pilot is at fault, that issue of fault per se is of no value in mitigating future such accidents. Unless you think the airplane pilot deliberately collided with the helicopter, or his ego or thinking so skewed that he expected the helicopter to give way, the only issue left is to determine why the airplane pilot or his passenger was not able to see the helicopter.

One possibility is that over flat terrain, a helicopter just needs to below the head of the airplane pilot for it to appear among the ground clutter. One visual cue I can think of that would make it stand out is that it will grow more quickly in size than the more distant ground objects. Otherwise it would likely be difficult to see.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
I've heard some people have such a weak constitution they can't handle opposing views on the internet. Is that true? If true, should these people be allowed to fly?
Click to expand...
In you're case, it is being generally annoyed with intentionality false statements and lies.


<< Sent from my mobile device at 0agl >>
 
Jim Logajan said:
It sounds like the helicopter was hovering slowly or stationary in the downwind near pattern altitude while its pilot presumably listened to the tower direct an airplane toward his position and made no attempt to move forward or downward or give a radio alert of his blocking the path of the airplane.

But assuming for the moment that the airplane pilot is at fault, that issue of fault per se is of no value in mitigating future such accidents. Unless you think the airplane pilot deliberately collided with the helicopter, or his ego or thinking so skewed that he expected the helicopter to give way, the only issue left is to determine why the airplane pilot or his passenger was not able to see the helicopter.

One possibility is that over flat terrain, a helicopter just needs to below the head of the airplane pilot for it to appear among the ground clutter. One visual cue I can think of that would make it stand out is that it will grow more quickly in size than the more distant ground objects. Otherwise it would likely be difficult to see.
Click to expand...

If the helicopter is painted green as I heard suggested, it would disappear in the ground clutter readily. You can easily not see someone just under your nose.
 
ClimbnSink said:
So it is OK to crash when it might be hard to do otherwise? If you give the pilot a pass on this, you have to give all the other crashed because doing the right thing is hard pilots a pass on crashing as well. It is hard to waste time stopping for fuel when you just might make it...
Click to expand...

What do you believe the Cirrus pilot failed to do? Specifically, what actions should he have undertaken to avoid this accident? Please don't come back with 'he should have been looking out the window instead at the TV'. We can show through historic research that bears little relevance to these types of accidents.

What would you have done differently?
 
Guys, take the personal insults and crap somewhere else. It's tragic enough that folks died in this accident, we don't need our members sniping at each other. Discuss the topic, not each other.
 
Henning said:
What do you believe the Cirrus pilot failed to do? Specifically, what actions should he have undertaken to avoid this accident? Please don't come back with 'he should have been looking out the window instead at the TV'. We can show through historic research that bears little relevance to these types of accidents.

What would you have done differently?
Click to expand...
Look we all know pilots don't look outside for beans. Pilots need to be better at it, especially in the traffic pattern and certainly at a class d(o nothing) airport. Or we need to take your plan one step further, ADS-B and autopilots that can't be overriden above 200'. Program where you want to go, takeoff fly to 200' and let the computer sort traffic and details. You get the plane back at 200' on final. And of course kill all aviation that can't comply with that. Or keep on doing what we are doing and accept the occasional carnage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top