Midair at FDK (Frederick, MD)

I interpret that response from the pilot as his first line of defense against a midair is a little black box instead of his eyeballs. That scares me, especially in the pattern.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
The way it is described, it sounds like he's saying his cirrus has an active TCAS. First, is that an option (guessing it is)? If that's the case, that is possibly indicative of either the TCAS not working, or the helo transponder being off or broken.
Click to expand...

Many Cirri have a TAS that actively in interrogates the transponders in the area and advises the pilot of the relative position of other aircraft. It doesnt negotiate with the systems in other aircraft and give resolution advisories like a TCAS-2 on a transport category aircraft would. L3, Avidyne/Ryan, Garmin all make active traffic systems.

In the Rock Springs midair, there was a question whether the L3 Skywatch in the Cirrus alerted as it should have.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
I interpret that response from the pilot as his first line of defense against a midair is a little black box instead of his eyeballs. That scares me, especially in the pattern.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it that way at all. I took it as " she gave me three targets, I SEE two, but I don't SEE the third AND it isn't on my magic box. Which would be consistent with it being lower and in front, you just can't see there.
 
PaulS said:
I interpret that response from the pilot as his first line of defense against a midair is a little black box instead of his eyeballs. That scares me, especially in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Not what I read, and that's not consistent with the way any person I have met has ever treated TIS/ADS-B information. Sounds like he looked for the traffic visual, looked at his display and couldn't find the third until he finally saw it on visual and he yanked up to avoid.

The question that wasn't answered was, "What altitude did it occur at, and why were they at the same altitude?"
 
PaulS said:
I interpret that response from the pilot as his first line of defense against a midair is a little black box instead of his eyeballs. That scares me, especially in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you're interpreting it that way. He had two of them in sight, which means he was looking out with his eyeballs.
 
"When troopers spoke to Porter in the hospital, he told them there were “several heroes on the ground,” according to the report. Porter said the plane was leaking fuel when several bystanders came to his and Graeves' aid."

Tree branches can do that, but the fuel cell system needs some beefing up. #WellKnownFact
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Not sure how you're interpreting it that way. He had two of them in sight, which means he was looking out with his eyeballs.
Click to expand...


Are we sure he had them "in sight" or was he looking at his screen? I'm hoping he had a visual on the first two and was vigorously looking outside for the third, I'd love to hear him confirm that. As to the point about the helicopter being a blind spot from visual, that is probably right. And he may have been looking outside diligently and not seen it. It's just in the past, in other threads, some have indicated that they rely on these devices over visually looking, I hope that see the pilot's comment and look outside.

This was a tragedy, hopefully we learn something from it. Dr. Bruce said over on the AOPA sight that he feels with that much activity in a concentrated patch of pattern, he would have bugged out of there for a little while and come back when things calmed down a little. That wouldn't have been my first thought had it been me....... if I ever get back to flying, that option will be on a very short list of things to do in that type of situation.
 
well....this is very clear.

State police interviewed Scott V. Graeves, the 55-year-old pilot of the Cirrus SR22, at the emergency room at Meritus Medical Center several hours after the Oct. 23 collision. Graeves said his “traffic alert” system never alerted him to the presence of other aircraft in the area, according to a Maryland State Police incident report obtained by The Frederick News-Post through a Maryland Public Information Act request.
Click to expand...

“[Graeves] instructed the tower he could see two [helicopters] (one was at the 12 o'clock position in front of him and the second was at a distance to his 9 o'clock position),” the police report states. “He explained as soon as he informed the tower of that he observed, to his immediate left (9 o'clock position) the third helicopter was very close to his aircraft.”

Graeves told police that he then pulled sharply on the controls to gain altitude and avoid the helicopter, but he felt the collision on the left side of the plane in the wing or wheel area, the report states. Graeves activated the plane's emergency parachute, and the plane landed in a treeline off Monocacy Boulevard.
Click to expand...
 
TangoWhiskey said:
"When troopers spoke to Porter in the hospital, he told them there were “several heroes on the ground,” according to the report. Porter said the plane was leaking fuel when several bystanders came to his and Graeves' aid."

Tree branches can do that, but the fuel cell system needs some beefing up. #WellKnownFact
Click to expand...

That is my only gripe with the Cirrus, it doesn't have a 'fuel cell' it has a 'fuel room'. It's built like a bedroom when it should be built like a prison cell.

It kinda surprises me really because safety and the loss of his brother IIRC is what drives the design ethos of the brand. With everything else that Cirrus has done right in adopting new technology to promote safety, why they didn't use something on the order of a race car fuel cell is beyond me.:dunno:
 
PaulS said:
Are we sure he had them "in sight" or was he looking at his screen? I'm hoping he had a visual on the first two and was vigorously looking outside for the third, I'd love to hear him confirm that. As to the point about the helicopter being a blind spot from visual, that is probably right. And he may have been looking outside diligently and not seen it. It's just in the past, in other threads, some have indicated that they rely on these devices over visually looking, I hope that see the pilot's comment and look outside.

This was a tragedy, hopefully we learn something from it. Dr. Bruce said over on the AOPA sight that he feels with that much activity in a concentrated patch of pattern, he would have bugged out of there for a little while and come back when things calmed down a little. That wouldn't have been my first thought had it been me....... if I ever get back to flying, that option will be on a very short list of things to do in that type of situation.
Click to expand...

When I read what he said, "the traffic system never alerted me" and "I could see the other two", that indicates to me that he uses the TIS in the typical method; it says "Traffic", you glance down to see where to look, and then you look for them out the window.
 
PaulS said:
I interpret that response from the pilot as his first line of defense against a midair is a little black box instead of his eyeballs. That scares me, especially in the pattern.
Click to expand...

The pattern is a perfect place not to see an idiot either below or above you. Very difficult to see through metal. The radio is an excellent addition to looking around as much as possible, using it often, sensibly while entering and in the pattern.
 
I think there's people here that haven't clicked the link to actually read the Cirrus pilot's [Graeves] statement to police, and that's why they keep hypothesizing that he was only looking at the inside screen to find the third helicopter.

“[Graeves] instructed the tower he could see two [helicopters] (one was at the 12 o'clock position in front of him and the second was at a distance to his 9 o'clock position),” the police report states. “He explained as soon as he informed the tower of that he observed, to his immediate left (9 o'clock position) the third helicopter was very close to his aircraft.

Graeves told police that he then pulled sharply on the controls to gain altitude and avoid the helicopter, but he felt the collision on the left side of the plane in the wing or wheel area, the report states. Graeves activated the plane's emergency parachute, and the plane landed in a treeline off Monocacy Boulevard.”
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
I still want to know what altitude it occurred at.
Click to expand...
From the story linked in post #558 Dunno if that is from pilot interview if so of course he is going to say that, if it is from the Cirrus box or radar the helicopter pilots screwed up.
The Cirrus collided with the helicopter, a Robinson R44, about 1,100 to 1,200 feet above ground at about 3:40 p.m., according to the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I think there's people here that haven't clicked the link to actually read the Cirrus pilot's [Graeves] statement to police, and that's why they keep hypothesizing that he was only looking at the inside screen to find the third helicopter.
Click to expand...

Actually Henning's hypothesis could be very close to the truth. I did click the link and read the account.

Regardless of whether he could have been looking outside more or not, this accident reaffirms the adage that it's usually not the traffic you see that causes you a problem.
 
ClimbnSink said:
From the story linked in post #558 Dunno if that is from pilot interview if so of course he is going to say that, if it is from the Cirrus box or radar the helicopter pilots screwed up.
The Cirrus collided with the helicopter, a Robinson R44, about 1,100 to 1,200 feet above ground at about 3:40 p.m., according to the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report.
Click to expand...

Huh, that would put them both off their proper altitude about the same. What I am seeing here is one of the inevitable accidents that you get with a 'see and avoid' program. I don't understand why people expect aviation to be safe, outside of climbing into a rocket ship, flying is probably the most intrinsically unsafe thing that humans do, and that it is as safe as it is is a testament to what people are capable of. The other thing that it demonstrates is that a parachute is a damned nice thing to have.
 
Henning said:
Huh, that would put them both off their proper altitude about the same. What I am seeing here is one of the inevitable accidents that you get with a 'see and avoid' program. I don't understand why people expect aviation to be safe, outside of climbing into a rocket ship, flying is probably the most intrinsically unsafe thing that humans do, and that it is as safe as it is is a testament to what people are capable of. The other thing that it demonstrates is that a parachute is a damned nice thing to have.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
 
I don't see how you are going to represent and provide collision avoidance in a similar situation. If you are sending an airplane over three helicopters expecting +/-500' separation and the helicopters are capable of climbing at 1,000 FPM the plane can descend easy at 500' FPM. No way to give enough warning/plot convergences within the recognize/react time of pilots. Which means spreading out the traffic and making people wait, and we could do that now without the electronics.
Henning said:
Huh, that would put them both off their proper altitude about the same. What I am seeing here is one of the inevitable accidents that you get with a 'see and avoid' program. I don't understand why people expect aviation to be safe, outside of climbing into a rocket ship, flying is probably the most intrinsically unsafe thing that humans do, and that it is as safe as it is is a testament to what people are capable of. The other thing that it demonstrates is that a parachute is a damned nice thing to have.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
From the story linked in post #558 Dunno if that is from pilot interview if so of course he is going to say that, if it is from the Cirrus box or radar the helicopter pilots screwed up.
The Cirrus collided with the helicopter, a Robinson R44, about 1,100 to 1,200 feet above ground at about 3:40 p.m., according to the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report.
Click to expand...

Not sure where the reporter got the 1,100 to 1,200, but I am unable to find anything in the online preliminary reports that gives any clues on the altitude of the collision:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20141023X01333&key=2

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

It is interesting to compare the two reports; I'd expect them to be identical except for the aircraft ID in the header. But there is a slight differences in the body of two paragraphs:
(1) 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.

A flight instructor for the operator in another company helicopter followed the accident helicopter in the traffic pattern for landing abeam runway 30. He said his helicopter had just completed the turn onto the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern, when the accident helicopter came into his view. At the same time, the airplane appeared in his field of view as it "flew through the rotor system" of the helicopter.
​
(2) Witnesses on the ground observed the aircraft converge at the same altitude. One witness who observed both aircraft converge indicated that neither aircraft changed altitude as they approached each other and the two subsequently collided.

A flight instructor for the operator in another company helicopter followed the accident helicopter in the traffic pattern for landing abeam runway 30. He said his helicopter had just completed the turn onto the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern, when the accident helicopter came into his view. At the same time, the airplane appeared in his field of view as it collided with the helicopter rotor system.​
 
Most 2006 SR22s would be equipped with a TAS (traffic advisory system) made by L3 (Skywatch) or Avidyne, and displayed on both the MFD map and a 430. They interrogate the transponders of aircraft within a radius of about 10 miles. It is sort of like TCAS, but isn't.

Targets sometimes vanish on a Skywatch, which is what I've got, so it isn't foolproof for warning of threats.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I don't see how you are going to represent and provide collision avoidance in a similar situation. If you are sending an airplane over three helicopters expecting +/-500' separation and the helicopters are capable of climbing at 1,000 FPM the plane can descend easy at 500' FPM. No way to give enough warning/plot convergences within the recognize/react time of pilots. Which means spreading out the traffic and making people wait, and we could do that now without the electronics.
Click to expand...

Correct, yet we consistently fail at it. This is by not the only accident of its kind by far, and they happened long before cockpit G-Whiz.

What this just reaffirms is that humans are fallible. This is why we cannot have 'piloted' flying cars, we can't handle the traffic density we have right now completely safely, could you imagine 75,000,000 flying cars? No, they will have to be 'Guide by wire' and tell it where to go and what you want it to do and using not only interrogative transponder communications and spherical radar and optical sensors keep you in safe air automatically.

Really we have the tech ability to build that into airplanes and helicopters now if we wanted, but nobody would want to pay for it.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Not sure where the reporter got the 1,100 to 1,200, but I am unable to find anything in the online preliminary reports that gives any clues on the altitude of the collision:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20141023X01333&key=2

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

It is interesting to compare the two reports; I'd expect them to be identical except for the aircraft ID in the header. But there is a slight differences in the body of two paragraphs:
(1) 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.

A flight instructor for the operator in another company helicopter followed the accident helicopter in the traffic pattern for landing abeam runway 30. He said his helicopter had just completed the turn onto the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern, when the accident helicopter came into his view. At the same time, the airplane appeared in his field of view as it "flew through the rotor system" of the helicopter.
​
(2) Witnesses on the ground observed the aircraft converge at the same altitude. One witness who observed both aircraft converge indicated that neither aircraft changed altitude as they approached each other and the two subsequently collided.

A flight instructor for the operator in another company helicopter followed the accident helicopter in the traffic pattern for landing abeam runway 30. He said his helicopter had just completed the turn onto the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern, when the accident helicopter came into his view. At the same time, the airplane appeared in his field of view as it collided with the helicopter rotor system.​
Click to expand...

Most likely 2 inspectors writing them.
 
Henning said:
That is my only gripe with the Cirrus, it doesn't have a 'fuel cell' it has a 'fuel room'. It's built like a bedroom when it should be built like a prison cell.
Click to expand...

The new Cirri rolling out of the factory now have aluminum fuel tanks... FINALLY! This was a fairly recent update, I think within the last year or so.

It kinda surprises me really because safety and the loss of his brother IIRC is what drives the design ethos of the brand.
Click to expand...

No lost brothers, Alan Klapmeier himself was in a mid-air collision in 1985. They lost about 4 feet of one wing and an aileron, barely managed to land safely, and watched the other guy go in.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The new Cirri rolling out of the factory now have aluminum fuel tanks... FINALLY! This was a fairly recent update, I think within the last year or so.
Click to expand...

That's great news! Definitely a weak point in the Cirrus it seems. I would think some sort of plastic/rubber bladder would have been even safer, but I'm no expert.
 
I don't know enough facts to blame it on any particular individual, including the tower controller. However, if the Cirrus pilot never saw the helo even after the tower told him about it, what makes anyone think he would have seen it had there not been a tower at that airport?

The main airport I've been flying in and out of lately has no control tower but has frequent skydiving operations as well as military helicopter ops. We talk to each other a lot, but I confess to being in situations where a military helo and myself are announcing positions in the pattern or near the field and we never see each other. It happens.
 
RBosque said:
I don't know enough facts to blame it on any particular individual, including the tower controller. However, if the Cirrus pilot never saw the helo even after the tower told him about it, what makes anyone think he would have seen it had there not been a tower at that airport?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. Except... without the tower, in a perfect world, all aircraft would be talking and reporting their position with everyone listening. It is likely both accident aircraft would have been talking about their position and intentions long before the collision, possibly avoiding it. Of course, nothing is certain. You can't say for sure what would have happened since it didn't.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
You are absolutely correct. Except... without the tower, in a perfect world, all aircraft would be talking and reporting their position with everyone listening. It is likely both accident aircraft would have been talking about their position and intentions long before the collision, possibly avoiding it. Of course, nothing is certain. You can't say for sure what would have happened since it didn't.
Click to expand...
and in addition to talking....most folks just didn't fly over the helicopters....or the gliders.....or anything else. We each flew separate standard patterns.

For years.....before the tower we talked and kept our distance from one another.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The new Cirri rolling out of the factory now have aluminum fuel tanks... FINALLY! This was a fairly recent update, I think within the last year or so.



No lost brothers, Alan Klapmeier himself was in a mid-air collision in 1985. They lost about 4 feet of one wing and an aileron, barely managed to land safely, and watched the other guy go in.
Click to expand...

FINALLY! Is right, good to hear.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The pattern is a perfect place not to see an idiot either below or above you. Very difficult to see through metal. The radio is an excellent addition to looking around as much as possible, using it often, sensibly while entering and in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Uh yeah, well they were all talking on the radio so..

Just saying, before the tower, we talked to each other.
 
Henning said:
Huh, that would put them both off their proper altitude about the same. .
Click to expand...

How is 11 or 1200 AGL not a proper altitude? He wasn't in the pattern yet and the tower told him to maintain his altitude until base (whatever that might be-she didn't say).
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
and in addition to talking....most folks just didn't fly over the helicopters....or the gliders.....or anything else. We each flew separate standard patterns.

For years.....before the tower we talked and kept our distance from one another.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly! It really did work so much better before the tower.
 
Henning said:
1300 ft is the altitude for the plane and 1000' for the helo IIRC
Click to expand...
Right, so he was maybe 1400 or 1500 reporting 3 miles out, descending to pattern altitude with instructions from the tower to remain at his altitude undtil turning base. What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
1300 ft is the altitude for the plane and 1000' for the helo IIRC
Click to expand...

I thought the 1300 TPA for the plane was MSL. If the crash happened at 1100-1200 AGL he was still above pattern altitude. That would mean that the helo was way above his altitude and the Cirrus pilot was above his altitude, probably trying to locate the helo before he descended.
 
Jim Logajan said:
(1) 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.

A flight instructor for the operator in another company helicopter followed the accident helicopter in the traffic pattern for landing abeam runway 30. He said his helicopter had just completed the turn onto the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern, when the accident helicopter came into his view. At the same time, the airplane appeared in his field of view as it "flew through the rotor system" of the helicopter.
​
(2) Witnesses on the ground observed the aircraft converge at the same altitude. One witness who observed both aircraft converge indicated that neither aircraft changed altitude as they approached each other and the two subsequently collided.

A flight instructor for the operator in another company helicopter followed the accident helicopter in the traffic pattern for landing abeam runway 30. He said his helicopter had just completed the turn onto the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern, when the accident helicopter came into his view. At the same time, the airplane appeared in his field of view as it collided with the helicopter rotor system.
​
Click to expand...

It seems that either version makes it appear the Cirrus pilot is at fault.
 
Wheels said:
I thought the 1300 TPA for the plane was MSL. If the crash happened at 1100-1200 AGL he was still above pattern altitude. That would mean that the helo was way above his altitude and the Cirrus pilot was above his altitude, probably trying to locate the helo before he descended.
Click to expand...

That's the way I interpret it and, if accurate, the heli busted his altitude...heli bad.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It seems that either version makes it appear the Cirrus pilot is at fault.
Click to expand...

The first witness is a civilian on the ground that doesn't know anything about anything, and drew a conclusion from a one second observation. I don't even consider it useful. The second could be a reliable witness, but has a conflict of interest. Even if not intentional.

I'll believe real data when it is released.
 
Cirrus pilot is definitely at fault, you can't run over kids just cause they are in the road. Only question is how much blame does the helicopter pilot share? Looks to be > 0
 
ClimbnSink said:
Cirrus pilot is definitely at fault, you can't run over kids just cause they are in the road. Only question is how much blame does the helicopter pilot share? Looks to be > 0
Click to expand...


Using your analogy a driver would not be at fault if the kids ran into the road. Seems like the helo ran into the road but all the facts are not yet known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top