Midair at FDK (Frederick, MD)

ClimbnSink said:
As I and FormerRWpilot explained you just don't keep climbing in a helicopter. The Cirrus was too low.
Click to expand...

More lies based on personal dislikes, not based on a single fact in evidence.

Henning said:
So do we have an answer as to what the accident altitude was yet?
Click to expand...
Nope. And we probably won't for a while. It will probably bear a year or two before a factual report is issued.
 
Presented with a crowded closed traffic pattern with not all in sight, would it make sense to plan a wider than usual downwind entry until visual can be established?
 
Lindberg said:
I have less experience than most at towered fields, and very little at busy towered fields. But I don't understand how one controller could be expected to handle this traffic on the ground and in the air. And I wonder how much having the tower lulls pilots into a false sense of security.
Click to expand...
FDK routinely has a lot more traffic than that on weekends. I believe the tower does make some people feel a false sense of security. Also, where as before the tower, pilots were talking to each other a lot more, giving and verifying position reports, now it is all cycled through the controllers, effectively doubling the chatter while not improving communications.
 
Just a note about the Cirrus pilot having two helos in sight. The controller had no way of knowing which 2. I could imagine a scenario where a controller would see the FW and RW in proximity, but assume that the FW sees the RWs in closest proximity - and doesn't alert the FW pilot of the location of the closest RW.

I am an advocate that if there are 3 in the pattern, and I only see 2. I want to know where the 3rd one is. now.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
More lies based on personal dislikes, not based on a single fact in evidence.
Click to expand...
Refusing to learn from more experienced pilots is bad ADM. Shame I would hope a student pilot would have a more open mind.
 
I don't know the numbers for the R-44 and no doubt they are better then the R-22. Engine failure in a R-22 while having a high pitch on the blades(climbing) is .9 seconds to blade stall. Collective must be lowered in what is real close to the limits of human recognition-reaction time. You don't trim a helicopter for climb and go fiddling with stuff. And you don't climb any higher then necessary. It just isn't done. Airplane pilots descending early, yeah that happens...
 
Since everyone seems obsessed with placing blame so that they can label one pilot or another an idiot and then continue on with their own personal delusion that flying is very, very safe because they are not an idiot, I'll make this proposal-

At this point we can say that the Cirrus pilot was an idiot and descended 150' too low. We can say the Robie pilot was an idiot and ascended 150' too high. The tower controller was an idiot for not being able to juggle a bunch of aircraft moving close to one another and give clearance instructions at the same time. The FAA are idiots for opening a tower and then handing it off to a contractor. The contractor is an idiot for only staffing one person in the tower to do all the chores. The neighbors of the airport are idiots for buying a house next to an airport, complaining about noise and forcing aircraft traffic into an idiot stacked pattern.

There are a lot of idiots at KFDK. If one wants to be safe flying, just avoid flying at KFDK.

Everybody feel better now? :rolleyes:
 
The reality people should take away is that being fully ADS-B equipped is likely a good idea.
 
Dav8or said:
Since everyone seems obsessed with placing blame so that they can label one pilot or another an idiot and then continue on with their own personal delusion that flying is very, very safe because they are not an idiot, I'll make this proposal-

At this point we can say that the Cirrus pilot was an idiot and descended 150' too low. We can say the Robie pilot was an idiot and ascended 150' too high. The tower controller was an idiot for not being able to juggle a bunch of aircraft moving close to one another and give clearance instructions at the same time. The FAA are idiots for opening a tower and then handing it off to a contractor. The contractor is an idiot for only staffing one person in the tower to do all the chores. The neighbors of the airport are idiots for buying a house next to an airport, complaining about noise and forcing aircraft traffic into an idiot stacked pattern.

There are a lot of idiots at KFDK. If one wants to be safe flying, just avoid flying at KFDK.

Everybody feel better now? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Better yet, let's just avoid flying! I think you've summarized quite well why people are so quick to jump on these post-accident threads. Everyone wants to convince themselves that it couldn't possibly happen to them. Oh no, they are too well-trained, they look outside the cockpit more than inside, they are highly skilled, blah, blah, blah. But of course it could happen to any one of us. No one sets out on a flight thinking, yeah, I'm going to die today!
 
Henning said:
The reality people should take away is that being fully ADS-B equipped is likely a good idea.
Click to expand...
Will looking at a screen trying to resolve three helicopter targets below you really help? While looking outside, configuring for landing, and flying the plane. The sailplane guys have their own system, FLARM, and while they like it they do report target saturation. I believe there is a thermalling algorithm to quiet it down when going round and round with your friends in close proximity. Does ADS-B have conflict resolution? Are hobby pilots switched on enough to follow it in the traffic pattern?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Will looking at a screen trying to resolve three helicopter targets below you really help? While looking outside, configuring for landing, and flying the plane. The sailplane guys have their own system, FLARM, and while they like it they do report target saturation. I believe there is a thermalling algorithm to quiet it down when going round and round with your friends in close proximity. Does ADS-B have conflict resolution? Are hobby pilots switched on enough to follow it in the traffic pattern?
Click to expand...

I think one reason the FAA was requiring high position resolution was because it was needed for accurate relative position in close-quarters of a traffic pattern; something they concluded after testing with off-the-shelf non-WAAS GPS units. The other thing that ADS-B In units were expected or desired to do was to do some basic threat analysis and provide aural alerts on high-priority threats to lower the demands on the pilot, who was still expected to keep his or her eyes outside. The moving-maps on tablets with ADS-B In displays that do no threat analysis and no aural alerts are better than nothing, but are less than optimal or intended.

With regard to FLARM - I believe most, if not all, European glider contests now require contestant glider to be equipped with FLARM. Allegedly they went from having mid-air collisions on an almost yearly basis to now almost none: http://www.flarm.com/news/presscoverage/SSA_MainArticle_201405.pdf
 
ClimbnSink said:
I don't know the numbers for the R-44 and no doubt they are better then the R-22. Engine failure in a R-22 while having a high pitch on the blades(climbing) is .9 seconds to blade stall. Collective must be lowered in what is real close to the limits of human recognition-reaction time. You don't trim a helicopter for climb and go fiddling with stuff. And you don't climb any higher then necessary. It just isn't done. Airplane pilots descending early, yeah that happens...
Click to expand...

The R44 can do 1000 fpm with two normal sized males near sea level DA. That's a 20 second distraction to get the hypothetical 300 ft deviation. While I agree that with two experienced pilots on board such an altitude bust is unlikely, it's not impossible. Of course, this is not to say they were even 1 foot high -- we have yet to find that out from the Cirrus side.
 
Henning said:
The reality people should take away is that being fully ADS-B equipped is likely a good idea.
Click to expand...

I was watching an old program lastnight about the testing phases of ADS-B. I began to think that it was a $9 solution to a $2 problem. They said that "see and avoid" is a sham and always has been. I agree.

The FAAs intent of ADS-B is not to save us in 4 seater airplanes, it's to avoid the public outcry that could come someday from an airliner mid-air as passenger jets carry more and more people. The public would then say, 'why didn't you forsee this and do some techno-whiz-bang gadgetry to prevent it?' 'Why are you still using 1940's radar and human voice technology to solve traffic resolution problems?'

Problem is that ADS-B is GPS reliant, and we've had several discussions on here about how reliable GPS is and how the troglodytes feel about neophytes depending upon GPS. Now, from a federal level, GPS is going to be our solution! TADAAA.....there you have it, a GPS-dependent solution and we're spending millions of dollars of taxpayers, airlines and hobbyists to do it.

*Disclaimer: Forget all of this rant, if ADS-B isn't so dependent upon GPS as represented here, and that in fact, it gets it's location information from some other (redundant) means.
 
Hmmm being able to climb at 1,000 fpm kinda kills the possibility of electronic traffic avoidance. If you have three targets under you capable of being in your way in < 20 seconds how do offer resolution solutions to the pilot?
RotorDude said:
The R44 can do 1000 fpm with two normal sized males near sea level DA. That's a 20 second distraction to get the hypothetical 300 ft deviation. While I agree that with two experienced pilots on board such an altitude bust is unlikely, it's not impossible. Of course, this is not to say they were even 1 foot high -- we have yet to find that out from the Cirrus side.
Click to expand...
 
Jaybird180 said:
*Disclaimer: Forget all of this rant, if ADS-B isn't so dependent upon GPS as represented here, and that in fact, it gets it's location information from some other (redundant) means.
Click to expand...

The ADS-B specification does not require use of GPS, but the allowed position error and reliability of the position source pretty much rule out most current technologies other than WAAS GPS. Pragmatically speaking it is dependent on GPS and WAAS.
 
I have been reading all the posts and there are a lot of views driven by passion. I am not going to comment on any of them and will only present my takeaway from this tragic accident.

When approaching a non-towered airport I have always been quick to bug out of the area anytime I was not confident that I knew where everyone was and would head for clear sky and try again when I had a better picture of the traffic.

Before this accident I am not sure I would be quick to do so at a towered field. Sadly I have always felt the tower controller's interaction was providing me with a safety net of sorts and that even though I did not have someone in sight the controller was watching out for me based on information they had. Perhaps that was naivety on my part but it was the perception I had. I now understand that they do not have all the information needed to provide that safety I am seeking.

I do believe ADS-B will help but it is only a tool, to be used along with see and avoid.

I think I will be a bit quicker to ask questions and not enter a pattern without having a firm picture of what is in front of me. Even with that things can still happen and we all know that is a part of flying.

Condolences to anyone that knew any of those injured or killed, and lets all try a little harder to be safe out there.
 
tmyers said:
When approaching a non-towered airport I have always been quick to bug out of the area anytime I was not confident that I knew where everyone was and would head for clear sky and try again when I had a better picture of the traffic.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

tmyers said:
Before this accident I am not sure I would be quick to do so at a towered field. Sadly I have always felt the tower controller's interaction was providing me with a safety net of sorts and that even though I did not have someone in sight the controller was watching out for me based on information they had. Perhaps that was naivety on my part but it was the perception I had. I now understand that they do not have all the information needed to provide that safety I am seeking.
Click to expand...

Question for the group: Does 91.3 grant authority to the pilot to "bug out" at B,C,D airports like the above poster does at pilot-controlled airports simply because he has 'little hairs standing on the back of his neck' or other inarticulable concerns about the safe outcome of the flight? How about just not trusting the controller? Waiting for traffic to lessen....? etc.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Agreed.



Question for the group: Does 91.3 grant authority to the pilot to "bug out" at B,C,D airports like the above poster does at pilot-controlled airports simply because he has 'little hairs standing on the back of his neck' or other inarticulable concerns about the safe outcome of the flight? How about just not trusting the controller? Waiting for traffic to lessen....? etc.
Click to expand...

I listen to ATC from 15 to 20 miles out and if the controller sounds out of control I divert before I even talk to them.
If I was flying in to FDK for the first time part of my flight planning would be to see the number of helicopters that are based there.
Three helicopters in the pattern would be enough to cause me to divert particularly if I could not find them all.
I would have asked ATC how they would like me to leave the area.
I have never had my request refused. Some towers are more helpful and specific than others.
I realize that both aircraft in this mishap had local pilots.
There is a lot of helicopter training at one of the airports I frequent and a lot of helicopter traffic at my home airport.
I have a low fear threshold and despite being a rotorcraft pilot I have trouble finding rotorcraft in the pattern.
I find wings much easier to see than rotor blades.
I feel the same about jumpers.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
Will looking at a screen trying to resolve three helicopter targets below you really help? While looking outside, configuring for landing, and flying the plane. The sailplane guys have their own system, FLARM, and while they like it they do report target saturation. I believe there is a thermalling algorithm to quiet it down when going round and round with your friends in close proximity. Does ADS-B have conflict resolution? Are hobby pilots switched on enough to follow it in the traffic pattern?
Click to expand...

Will looking at a screen to find the third of three helicopters you have been advised of when you only see two for two seconds and have an accurate idea of where to look, like your blind spot under your nose, help avoid accidents like this? Your damned straight it will. You are never at a disadvantage by having more and accurate information available.

I have been using fully electronic bridges for a long time now, it is not either the window or the monitors, it is everything you watch, and the more intuitively the bridge delivers the data, the more time you can spend looking out the windows.
 
Single category vanilla GA pilots learning from each other, sad. It is worse then an inbred pilot mill round here.
 
Gosh, I had a post in this thread that seems to have disappeared. I wonder how that happened?

:)
 
ClimbnSink said:
Single category vanilla GA pilots learning from each other, sad. It is worse then an inbred pilot mill round here.
Click to expand...

Does this guy win the Ron White award on PoA every month or is it just me???

Im new on this board....so my experience is limited.
 
News here (WBOC) just reported that the Cirrus pilot told MSP that his traffic alert system didn't work as it should have. Wonder did the helo have transponder on? Wouldn't the traffic system need that?
 
Flymeariver said:
News here (WBOC) just reported that the Cirrus pilot told MSP that his traffic alert system didn't work as it should have. Wonder did the helo have transponder on? Wouldn't the traffic system need that?
Click to expand...



Yup.....:yes:
 
Mode C is required at this airport. There should have been a functioning mode C transponder in all aircraft involved.
 
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.
 
In a Cirrus it'd be either TIS-B or ADS-B IN, depending on age of avionics package. No TCAS in a Cirrus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top