Midair at FDK (Frederick, MD)

try one with a power off landing....abeam the numbers.....then report back how far you get before you need power. :)
 
Well that's a factor of how tight you fly the pattern. Gene hammers into me that I should be able to make the runway if the engine dies anywhere in the pattern. And I know one of my flaws is sometimes flying a little wider than I should.

If 30 is active today, I'll make a point of flying the pattern with the downwind at 1 mile. I just plotted it out on a map, and that puts the path of flight on downwind directly over the crash site. Base will be just on the other side of the river. We'll see if this feels normal, tight, or wide. For me, I think it might feel a little bit tight, but that's not a bad thing.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
And I know one of my flaws is sometimes flying a little wider than I should.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it, it's normal for students and low time folks. I used to fly big patterns too a little bit. Big patterns buy you time. Time to sort things out and slow the approach down in your head. Students like this. In time, when the pattern and landing become more and more routine, you can tighten the pattern up and not have your head explode.:D
 
Big patterns come from a fear of putting the wing down in a pattern turn.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Well that's a factor of how tight you fly the pattern. Gene hammers into me that I should be able to make the runway if the engine dies anywhere in the pattern. And I know one of my flaws is sometimes flying a little wider than I should.

If 30 is active today, I'll make a point of flying the pattern with the downwind at 1 mile. I just plotted it out on a map, and that puts the path of flight on downwind directly over the crash site. Base will be just on the other side of the river. We'll see if this feels normal, tight, or wide. For me, I think it might feel a little bit tight, but that's not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
get use to flying a high and tight pattern....with minimal to no power....and it just might save your life one day. ;)
 
Maybe soon we'll have a google glasses solution with 'enhanced vision' that will mitigate this type of thing.

I see great promise with a pair of glasses or a HUD on one eye maybe that depicts everything.

Imagine looking down at the floorboard and virtually 'seeing' through it. And all the targets and airspaces painted wherever you look.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
get use to flying a high and tight pattern....with minimal to no power....and it just might save your life one day. ;)
Click to expand...
That's what I would like to be really good at and consistent with.

Here's a video from a loop around the pattern for 30 at FDK. The quality sucks. It's a my old beat up gen 1 GoPro, and it sucks with low light conditions. At about 3:30, the site of the collision is down and to my left. So I was flying a little wider than the accident aircraft, but still inside the highway.

 
Last edited:
Oh and then there was that... Blew his tire (again!!). We were coming back in the 172 from Lancaster. Naturally, the winds at FDK were 310 at 18G22. Had to use 23. That was.... interesting. I happily let Gene make that landing!
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Well that's a factor of how tight you fly the pattern. Gene hammers into me that I should be able to make the runway if the engine dies anywhere in the pattern. And I know one of my flaws is sometimes flying a little wider than I should.

If 30 is active today, I'll make a point of flying the pattern with the downwind at 1 mile. I just plotted it out on a map, and that puts the path of flight on downwind directly over the crash site. Base will be just on the other side of the river. We'll see if this feels normal, tight, or wide. For me, I think it might feel a little bit tight, but that's not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

A mile out at pattern altitude with a good wind favoring 30 and no way to you make it, power off abeam the numbers.
 
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...

Irrelevant.

Well, TCAS wouldn't be, but I've never seen nor heard of a small aircraft with TCAS. TAS, I've flown *one* small airplane that had it - It can see other airplanes without the help of ATC radar, but doesn't give resolution advisories - You still have to see the traffic pop up on the screen.

TIS - Worthless in this case. It works only with ASR-9 TRACON radar, and it sounds like Potomac's radar doesn't make it down to pattern altitude, even if they do have an ASR-9 (I would be really surprised if they still have an ASR-9, I'd bet they have an ASR-11 which doesn't do TIS).
 
Dav8or said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen traffic in the pattern and even on the ground, but that's at a facility with ASR-9 radar on the field.
 
Tom-Flying said:
What's wrong with descending on down wind? That's how any instructors I had taught it.
Click to expand...

I think there's a misunderstanding. Yes, it's OK to descend on downwind, and that's normal procedure when you reach the spot abeam the numbers.

What's NOT OK is to descend into the downwind leg - IE, start above pattern altitude and descend to pattern altitude from directly above the downwind leg. That's asking for a mid-air.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
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.
Click to expand...

In this case, the chute was used exactly as intended. It was Alan Klapmeier's mid-air collision that is the reason every Cirrus has a chute:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001214X36116&key=1

(Alan was the hooded pilot on this flight.)
 
Some things I've been hearing from people I've been talking to at the field. I'm not stating facts, I'm stating what a few others with direct knowledge have told me. So please don't look too far into this.

The cirrus was level on downwind at pattern altitude. He "felt a drop", like a trap door opened under the plane. Then immediately felt the hit from below and it was all over. He yanked the chute immediately. This suggests the helicopter came up directly below the cirrus right into it's belly.

Numerous people who are familiar with the Cirrus pilot have told me he is an experienced great pilot, very meticulous, and very on the ball. Dropping through TPA early on downwind is just not something he would do. I don't know him, so this just what others that do have said.

The CFI in the helo is a regular at the field, not someone new. I'm not sure if the other was a licensed pilot on a checkout or a student on a training flight. I've heard both, but none the less would probably have been the one manipulating the controls. The third on board the helo was an acquaintance of one of the two that tagged along for the ride for fun.


avi8tor4fn said:
A mile out at pattern altitude with a good wind favoring 30 and no way to you make it, power off abeam the numbers.
Click to expand...
I noticed it certainly looked a lot further away when I thought about it as "what happens if a piston comes through the cowling right now." I would probably make like a brick and put it on 5. But that won't help at a field with one runway. I'm definitely going to work on keeping it high and tight.

I'm sure the other traffic would appreciate my patterns being a little shorter. Just this weekend, I think I made 3 or 4 other aircraft have to go around or modify their base because they were on my 6 and closing to fast for me to land and make a turn off. I try to keep the speed up rolling out, but I can only roll out so fast before it starts getting loose.
 
Last edited:
So the cirrus ran over the helicopter?
Pedals2Paddles said:
Some things I've been hearing from people I've been talking to at the field. I'm not stating facts, I'm stating what a few others with direct knowledge have told me. So please don't look too far into this.

The cirrus was level on downwind at pattern altitude. He "felt a drop", like a trap door opened under the plane. Then immediately felt the hit from below and it was all over. He yanked the chute immediately. This suggests the helicopter came up directly below the cirrus right into it's belly.

Numerous people who are familiar with the Cirrus pilot have told me he is an experienced great pilot, very meticulous, and very on the ball. Dropping through TPA early on downwind is just not something he would do. I don't know him, so this just what others that do have said.

The CFI in the helo is a regular at the field, not someone new. I'm not sure if the other was a licensed pilot on a checkout or a student on a training flight. I've heard both, but none the less would probably have been the one manipulating the controls. The third on board the helo was an acquaintance of one of the two that tagged along for the ride for fun.



I noticed it certainly looked a lot further away when I thought about it as "what happens if a piston comes through the cowling right now." I would probably make like a brick and put it on 5. But that won't help at a field with one runway. I'm definitely going to work on keeping it high and tight.

I'm sure the other traffic would appreciate my patterns being a little shorter. Just this weekend, I think I made 3 or 4 other aircraft have to go around or modify their base because they were on my 6 and closing to fast for me to land and make a turn off. I try to keep the speed up rolling out, but I can only roll out so fast before it starts getting loose.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
So the cirrus ran over the helicopter?
Click to expand...
Please read what I said again, this time without whatever preconceived conclusion you went in with. Nowhere, ever, did I say anything even remotely resembling that. In fact, I specifically stated the exact opposite of that.
 
Yeah I know you blame the helicopter in every post. I on the other hand know that damn TV pilot in the cirrus ran the helicopter down.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Yeah I know you blame the helicopter in every post. I on the other hand know that damn TV pilot in the cirrus ran the helicopter down.
Click to expand...

1) No I don't.
2) No you don't.
3) Now we all know to ignore you're "opinions". Thanks.
 
Dav8or said:
This is news to me too. Do people wait until the base turn to descend?
Click to expand...

I never have, unless getting dragged wide by traffic to follow.

I was not taught that way, nor have I taught it that way.

As an example, how Cirrus wants the pattern taught as a standardized procedure:

15641562495_048a0b10aa.jpg
 
ClimbnSink said:
So the cirrus ran over the helicopter?
Click to expand...

It sounds like this may be a harsh way of restated what P2P stated in his description. If the Heli was in a hover and ascending, the Cirrus entered the position directly above the main rotor of the helo. We know what happened next.
 
You didn't that time. Dirty dog cirrus pilots not looking where they are going cause they gots a chute.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You didn't that time. Dirty dog cirrus pilots not looking where they are going cause they gots a chute.
Click to expand...
Thank you again, for confirming that you have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion other than insults based on personal dislikes unrelated to the incident. Now I see how your post count got so high.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Thank you again, for confirming that you have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion other than insults based on personal dislikes unrelated to the incident.
Click to expand...

He never had. I just wish people stopped quoting him.
 
Dav8or said:
It's early enough, so what do trolls eat for breakfast?
Click to expand...

Without naming names...

...whenever I see inane, ignorant, judgmental and/or inflammatory comments, I often glance to the left and see the same names again and again.

It's then that judicious use of the "Ignore" function starts to seem more and more appealing. Separates the wheat from the chaff and makes the site a lot more user-friendly.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think there's a misunderstanding. Yes, it's OK to descend on downwind, and that's normal procedure when you reach the spot abeam the numbers.

What's NOT OK is to descend into the downwind leg - IE, start above pattern altitude and descend to pattern altitude from directly above the downwind leg. That's asking for a mid-air.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. I didn't read the post that way but definitely agree.
 
I find it interesting that 91.113 does not address the rules for airplane vs Helicopter
91.113 said:
§91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories—
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
bullwinkle said:
So which is which? A Cirrus is faster, but the helicopter can stop and hover, and go straight up and straight down...who is considered "less maneuverable"? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I would say the Cirrus gets the right a way...IMHO
 
bullwinkle said:
So which is which? A Cirrus is faster, but the helicopter can stop and hover, and go straight up and straight down...who is considered "less maneuverable"? :dunno:
Click to expand...

According to the PPL test prep book from ASA, the rotorcraft must give way to the airplane. This is not literally what 91.113(d) states, though.
 
N801BH said:
I would say the Cirrus gets the right a way...IMHO
Click to expand...

I don't think either has legal RoW. Both are engine driven and have the same general operating parameters, it's just that the helo swings its wings. That's why typically helos and fixed wing don't share pattern space.
 
Henning said:
I don't think either has legal RoW. Both are engine driven and have the same general operating parameters, it's just that the helo swings its wings. That's why typically helos and fixed wing don't share pattern space.
Click to expand...

The key word is maneuverability.....:rolleyes:

The heli wins that contest hands down...
 
The CFR escapes me, helicopters are supposed to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic. Not sure what that means as far as granting ROW or what it means when you have an operating tower.
 
N801BH said:
The key word is maneuverability.....:rolleyes:

The heli wins that contest hands down...
Click to expand...

It would be an argument in court in general, but irrelevant here. If there is no distinction directed in law, then it becomes a matter for the courts to decide, and I do not know any decisions on the matter to have an opinion as to how they would find. I can see it go both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top