Midair at FDK (Frederick, MD)

Checkout_my_Six said:
just passed your ride? :hairraise:
Click to expand...
Almost there! Restarted training after having to stop for time/$ reasons about 7 years ago. I had nothing but the written and checkride left back then. Very depressing! So just getting un-rusty now. Also with two friends that are in the same situation, with the plane we purchased, based at FDK. Our CFI works privately with us, not through FFC.

I hope yesterday's incident is an eye opening for some people who typically blast over, under, around, and through the pattern like nothing bad could ever happen. I see it an it is disturbing.
 
Gerhardt said:
Of course I'd continue as directed and would continue to look for the other traffic. I think it would be more dangerous to make any sudden turns that others aren't expecting me to do.
Click to expand...


Yep...
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Almost there! Restarted training after having to stop for time/$ reasons about 7 years ago. I had nothing but the written and checkride left back then. Very depressing! So just getting un-rusty now. Also with two friends that are in the same situation, with the plane we purchased, based at FDK. Our CFI works privately with us, not through FFC.

I hope yesterday's incident is an eye opening for some people who typically blast over, under, around, and through the pattern like nothing bad could ever happen. I see it an it is disturbing.
Click to expand...

:yes:
 
denverpilot said:
Yep. Definitely better to spend billions on that, than simply staffing both chairs in the tower, like the system was designed to have.

One controller talking to the IFR on the ground safely getting a clearance, the other looking outside full-time probably would have averted this one.

We're all way too used to controllers doing more jobs simultaneously than the system was designed to have them do.

The commentary that adding a tower has made things less safe, bears that out. We've allowed the system to be slowly dismantled from within over many decades by statistics and managers who get away with it most of the time, and have the blame fully settled on the pilots long before the accidents occur.

Lone controllers in tower cabs, R-sides with no D-sides assisting for decades, plus condensing multiple sectors into a single R-side running three, four, ten, whatever frequencies simultaneously...

The system wasn't designed that way. And no. Safety is truly not the priority, budget is. Politics second. Safety is maybe a distant third.

The current "ooh, shiny!" at FAA is ADS-B. You won't hear anyone calling for cutting that budget to staff all the chairs.

Anyway... Awful stuff no matter how it happened. RIP.
Click to expand...

That pretty nicely sums it up, Nate. Hope you don't mind, I plagiarized it, added to it, changed the terminology into "layman's" terms, and fired it off to my US Senators and Rep.

Not that it'll do any good since I didn't donate over $20k to any of their campaigns.
 
I think we can all agree a chute has it's time and place, just like everything else. It isn't the end all be all, it isn't the solution to every problem, and it shouldn't be the only thing the pilot knows how to do in an emergency. It just has it's place, just like making a controlled forced landing has it's place.

I have a feeling yesterday's midair will be one of those times and places where the chute was the best course of action, and probably had a major impact on survivability. If the collision damaged control surfaces, wings, etc beyond reasonable control of the aircraft, there is no time like the present to pop the chute.
 
Good deal....I wish you well.

Hang in there. We'll learn from this....and we'll all be better because of it.
Pedals2Paddles said:
Almost there! Restarted training after having to stop for time/$ reasons about 7 years ago. I had nothing but the written and checkride left back then. Very depressing! So just getting un-rusty now. Also with two friends that are in the same situation, with the plane we purchased, based at FDK. Our CFI works privately with us, not through FFC.

I hope yesterday's incident is an eye opening for some people who typically blast over, under, around, and through the pattern like nothing bad could ever happen. I see it an it is disturbing.
Click to expand...
 
Proper Boy said:
Helicopters with students are dangerous!!!!
Click to expand...

What my mom said after Bob Collins. "How can they let students fly?"

--Mom, where do you think airline pilots come from?

(Nevermind that it wasn't the student's fault. Widow lawsuit notwithstanding.)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The irony is a helicopter should have a chute more than a fixed wing, but there are issues...
Click to expand...

Explosive bolts on the rotor blade attachments, with a 1 second delay on the chute firing.

Oh wait. Putting explosive bolts on the wings sounds like a bad idea.
 
Gerhardt said:
Of course I'd continue as directed and would continue to look for the other traffic. I think it would be more dangerous to make any sudden turns that others aren't expecting me to do.
Click to expand...
+1.

I've said this for over two decades: Non-radar, Class D airspace is the most dangerous airspace in the system.

You've got a guy or gal in a tower with binoculars trying to direct traffic that they perhaps can't see, relying on pilots reporting their position accurately, and pilots relaxing their "see & avoid" scan because they THINK they are in "controlled" airspace. It's just a bad set up.

The closest I've ever come to a midair was in Class D (Janesville, WI). I would rather have an uncontrolled field, with everyone on pins and needles looking for traffic, than one where all parties are pretending to be controlled. YMMV.
 
Jay Honeck said:
+1.

I've said this for over two decades: Non-radar, Class D airspace is the most dangerous airspace in the system.

You've got a guy or gal in a tower with binoculars trying to direct traffic that they perhaps can't see, relying on pilots reporting their position accurately, and pilots relaxing their "see & avoid" scan because they THINK they are in "controlled" airspace. It's just a bad set up.

The closest I've ever come to a midair was in Class D (Janesville, WI). I would rather have an uncontrolled field, with everyone on pins and needles looking for traffic, than one where all parties are pretending to be controlled. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I can't agree more with that Jay....:yes:
 
Jay Honeck said:
+1.

I've said this for over two decades: Non-radar, Class D airspace is the most dangerous airspace in the system.

You've got a guy or gal in a tower with binoculars trying to direct traffic that they perhaps can't see, relying on pilots reporting their position accurately, and pilots relaxing their "see & avoid" scan because they THINK they are in "controlled" airspace. It's just a bad set up.

The closest I've ever come to a midair was in Class D (Janesville, WI). I would rather have an uncontrolled field, with everyone on pins and needles looking for traffic, than one where all parties are pretending to be controlled. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I stopped flying into FDK when they opened the tower for exactly that reason.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Tower tells Cirrus about three helicopters, Cirrus reports two in sight.

ASK YOURSELF: would you continue, as the Cirrus did, not having the third one in sight, and "hope things work out", or would you exit the pattern until you could locate all traffic visually?

I'll say it again: A Class D airspace TOWER is NOT RESPONSIBLE for separation of traffic in the air -- on the RUNWAY ONLY.
Click to expand...

If the pattern is designed to mix faster FW with slower RW by using different pattern altitudes and distances, than yes, keep coming. The tower gave call for traffic below, not a call to follow a helo.

At military fields they mix 350 + kt fighters with helos all the time. It's called having different patterns developed for faster aircraft such as the overhead. Just like the SR22 no way a fighter is going to see all the traffic that is below them during the break either. They come in and trust the helos and turbo props are adhering to their altitudes.

My concern for FDK is that it doesn't sound like they have much of a standardized pattern for the helos like I saw in the military. We either had a low close in pattern or opposite direction pattern. I don't think running faster FW only 200 ft above slower RW is the best pattern choice. If the RW need FW pattern altitudes for maneuvers such as autos, then either use opposite direction traffic or sequence the RW (R44) behind the FW (SR22).
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
If the pattern is designed to mix faster FW with slower RW by using different pattern altitudes and distances, than yes, keep coming. The tower gave call for traffic below, not a call to follow a helo.

At military fields they mix 350 + kt fighters with helos all the time. It's called having different patterns developed for faster aircraft such as the overhead. No way a fighter is going to see all the traffic that is below them for break either. They come in and trust the helos and turbo props are adhering to their altitudes.

My concern for FDK is that it doesn't sound like they have much of a standardized pattern for the helos like I saw in the military. We either had a low close in pattern or opposite direction pattern. I don't think running faster FW only 200 ft above slower RW is the best pattern choice. If the RW need FW pattern altitudes for maneuvers such as autos, then either use opposite direction traffic or sequence the RW (R44) behind the FW (SR22).
Click to expand...
Oh well....it usually works out. :mad2:

and there is a somewhat a standard for the helos. The helos fly inside the runways....and fixed wing outside. Cept this time someone was at the wrong altitude.....vs bringing the SR22 on the outside (long way around) 30 for a "right" pattern.....
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
+1.

I've said this for over two decades: Non-radar, Class D airspace is the most dangerous airspace in the system.

You've got a guy or gal in a tower with binoculars trying to direct traffic that they perhaps can't see, relying on pilots reporting their position accurately, and pilots relaxing their "see & avoid" scan because they THINK they are in "controlled" airspace. It's just a bad set up.

The closest I've ever come to a midair was in Class D (Janesville, WI). I would rather have an uncontrolled field, with everyone on pins and needles looking for traffic, than one where all parties are pretending to be controlled. YMMV.
Click to expand...

So true. The tower has only made things scarier for those of us based at FDK. I can't tell you how often the controller says, I don't have you in sight while I have EVERYONE in the pattern as my traffic in sight, or even spotted from the ground.

I won't single out which controllers are more likely to say this, but you can guess. We have all told so many stories of incidents with our least favorite controller(s) since the tower opened.

I know it's an asset for the jet traffic and IFR traffic. For us mini-motor VFR guys, there is no advantage at all to the tower. On busy weekends where everyone used to a good job of self reporting, now the radio chatter is greatly increased with the tower trying to talk to each and every aircraft.

I feel like there is less diligence now on the part of a lot of pilots at FDK. It's still the same see & avoid as before, only now with the false sense of security-for some people-of having a tower. I still treat it as an uncontrolled field with the distraction of talking to a tower.
 
I have not been flying at FDK long enough to know the controllers by... shall we say... skill set. So far I have not encountered any incidents personally. I have elsewhere, so I'm sure I will in due time.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Oh well....it usually works out. :mad2:

and there is a somewhat a standard for the helos. The helos fly inside the runways....and fixed wing outside. Cept this time someone was at the wrong altitude.....vs bringing the SR22 on the outside (long way around) 30 for a "right" pattern.....
Click to expand...

It comes back to this. With three helos in the grass south of the runway, and the R44 probably practicing auto-rotations, common sense says you put the FW on right downwind north of the runway. There was no good reason to bring him in above the helicopter traffic. The helicopters always flew opposite patterns before the tower. Noise abatement be damned. All of my issues over the years have been with FW aircraft. Never had any issues with a chopper.
 
Last edited:
Im based at FDK and have a very different take than you. I find it less scary since the tower opened. Maybe I am odd, but I dont depend on them seeing me or anything else.

My view is that they are responsible for deciding who lands in what order. Once I am relieved of that decision process I have more time to look for traffic and find the other's out there. I dont feel like my need for vigilance is any less for see and avoid, rather I have more brain cells to do i because I dont have to worry about the sequencing.

The scariest times I have flown there were before the tower. Ive had way more close calls before than after. Most of those were people entering the pattern any which way and a large number of them not talking (not required back then).


avi8tor4fn said:
I feel like there is less diligence now on the part of a lot of pilots at FDK. It's still the same see & avoid as before, only now with the false sense of security-for some people-of having a tower. I still treat it as an uncontrolled field with the distraction of talking to a tower.
Click to expand...

As you should. I am not sure I would blame the tower or their personnel regarding pilots who get lazy.

JMTC

Spike
 
Velocity173 said:
My concern for FDK is that it doesn't sound like they have much of a standardized pattern for the helos like I saw in the military. We either had a low close in pattern or opposite direction pattern. I don't think running faster FW only 200 ft above slower RW is the best pattern choice. If the RW need FW pattern altitudes for maneuvers such as autos, then either use opposite direction traffic or sequence the RW (R44) behind the FW (SR22).
Click to expand...

FDK actually does have a standard for helos. To start, FW traffic is about +300' compared to RW. The larger issue is the noise abatement restrictions that surround the field and that cause the patterns to mix. 5-23 has the better of the two set ups. Helos fly right traffic for 23 and FW flies left. Helos also either land in the midfield grass or along the taxiway. 30, the active during the time of the accident, is a different story. FW and RW both fly left traffic with FW instructed to a larger pattern. There is a golf course to the north of 30 that constantly complains about the noise, as well as some new residential areas, so there are noise restrictions all along the north side of the field.

Granted, it's been a while since I flew out of FDK but I did get my helo PPL there and I flew using the same FBO that's involved in this crash. I highly doubt any of those restrictions have been lifted based on how much pull that area had with the local government when I was there and how much that area has grown since. Having quiet concentration for your 3m putt is more important than aircraft separation, apparently. :mad2:
 
Anyone know if TCAS or TIS would be standard or optional equipment in a 2006 SR22 like that which was involved in the midair?
 
Advanced Helicopters held a press conference, available at the Frederick News Post website.

Rental checkout, both pilot and CFI experienced RW pilots. Third seat was a ride along.
Heartbreaking to watch the spokesman, looked to be at the edge of tears, but, wouldn't we all?
 
I've never been an ATC controller, but I was once a Supervisor of Flying at an Air Force Base.

The 'SOF' sits in the tower cab along with the controllers. His primary function is to be tossed out the window should anything go wrong, as a sacrifice to the Gods. But he or she is supposed to back up the controllers and kind of keep a big picture as to the overall daily operation.

Our tower had a BRITE radar. It was really handy for seeing who was approaching or departing the airport. It was a handy way to know if someone was stumbling into the class D by mistake.

But once airplanes got into the actual traffic pattern it was no help at all. Airplanes, even 'bug smashers', are moving around too quickly in three dimensions for the tower controller to look at the radar to sort out VMC pattern issues.

A radar in the tower would not have helped in this tragedy.
 
Yeah, radar seems to be a red hearing. The controller knew where everyone was. Radar wouldn't have really told her anything she didn't already know.

Here, the controller told the helo to maintain 1000, and the airplane to report midfield left downwind and to maintain its "current altitude". Seems like those instructions were too vague with four aircraft in close proximity with her plan to have the helos below the airplane. This is not to say that the helos and the airplane did not have a duty to look out for each other. But right now we don't have any evidence one way or the other whether they could have seen each other.
 
The radio audio was about all I want to hear at this point so I don't even want to watch the press conference. I wish I could unhear the radio.
 
well....one thing we know, someone was not where they were suppose to be.....
 
The "maintain 1000ft" instruction was for a different helicopter that was just taking off from the grass. The "maintain 1000ft" instruction was not for the accident helicopter.

The Cirrus was instructed to report a midfield left downwind for 30 with three helicopters operating below him. Absent any other altitude instructions, this would constitute 1,300ft since that that is the TPA. Cirrus acknowledged this instruction.

Tower then immediately reported him in sight and instructed him to maintain his current altitude until base. This altitude should have been at least 1,300ft. The collision occurred immediately.

I'm having a hard time picturing the Cirrus being 300 below TPA that far out. Especially since he was at 1600 just prior. And I'm having a hard time picturing the controller not saying something about it if he was. Of course I'm guessing, but it is my best guess based on available facts.

What seems more likely, unfortunately, is the helicopter climbing too high. We now know it was a pilot on a check out flight, not an experienced local pilot or CFI. Which makes climbing too high in an unfamiliar traffic pattern a little more likely. Again, totally guessing.
 
Jay Honeck said:
+1.

I've said this for over two decades: Non-radar, Class D airspace is the most dangerous airspace in the system.

You've got a guy or gal in a tower with binoculars trying to direct traffic that they perhaps can't see, relying on pilots reporting their position accurately, and pilots relaxing their "see & avoid" scan because they THINK they are in "controlled" airspace. It's just a bad set up.

The closest I've ever come to a midair was in Class D (Janesville, WI). I would rather have an uncontrolled field, with everyone on pins and needles looking for traffic, than one where all parties are pretending to be controlled. YMMV.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind, I would like to use this as the stock answer when people ask how this event happened.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Anyone know if TCAS or TIS would be standard or optional equipment in a 2006 SR22 like that which was involved in the midair?
Click to expand...

It would likely have TIS, but TIS would be useless in this case. That system only regurgitates Radar information from ATC. It is a line of sight technology and only sees what ATC sees. This never shows (at least in my experience) any traffic in a traffic pattern. Even if it did, the resolution isn't that good to be able to show things on the scale of just hundreds of feet. A TAS, or TCAS system might has helped, but I'm not sure of the resolution there. A passive PTAS might have helped to, like a Monroy ADT 300, or a Zaon XRX unit, but again the resolution and display restrictions I don't know.

The best we can do now is the combo of ADS-B and TAS and second best is ADS-B and the PTAS. I can envision in the future a TAS system that gets GPS info from your GPS and automatically switches from the typical 2-5 mile alert area to much finer resolution of say 1000-500 ft radius when you get to the area of the traffic pattern. Hopefully, the FAA can see fit to fast track this kind of tech so we can get it much cheaper than today.
 
JimNtexas said:
...A radar in the tower would not have helped in this tragedy.
Click to expand...

La, la, la! The congressman cannot hear you. They WILL get a BRITE radar.

You know, like how making the airport security contractors that did their jobs on 9/11 into federal employees was a must.
 
I don't know about traffic with ADSB but TIS through garmin cuts out about 700' over the runway with the Betty telling me "traffic not available".
And isn't it about time we cut the PC nonsense and get rid of noise abatements. You're dumb enough to build or buy next to [business de jur] then kiss my butt. I WAS here first and I AM conducting a legal business.
 
I have no problem with reasonable noise abatement as long as it doesn't interfere with safety. For example, if flying right traffic keeps the pattern over the woods instead of a neighborhood, that is great. But if it means compromising safety, too bad. Nobody made you buy the house next to an airport. I shouldn't have to compromise my personal safety because you are too stupid look around before buying a house.
 
Probably a silly question, but is there an easy way - preferably by using a sectional chart - to determine if an airport is "non radar".

I assume this in the AFD, but it would be nice if you could determine this from a chart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top