N. Las Vegas Mid-air

midwestpa24 said:
I'm not bad mouthing or blaming the controllers. They are doing as they are required to do in this situation, and the Malibu pilot is the one that lined up on the wrong runway for whatever reason.

I just question creating the scenario of two aircraft being turned into each other in close quarters, with restricted visibility in the turn towards each other. This same exact scenario played out at Centennial just over a year ago. I've also read that there were two frequencies in use, one for each runway. Its possible neither aircraft knew the other existed, much less did not have the opportunity to see and avoid by the nature of the maneuvering required.

Otherwise, what is the purpose of having ATC if not to help prevent collisions? Why help setup the swiss cheese to align?
Click to expand...
I would think most do but if it’s busy then expect min spacing and really cool formation landings on parallel runways.

Just how it goes sometimes. What we are talking about is the kind of thing that still makes having two monkeys in the front so much safer than one monkey ops. Another layer of eyes to the quality control.
 
schmookeeg said:
I'd be curious what you would add.
Click to expand...

Runway mixups by pilots on parallel runways are common and known to be common. What would I add? Explicit traffic advisories to each pilot that another aircraft was on final of the parallel runway in their vicinity. If that was not provided I absolutely put blame on the controller for contributing to the accident for giving them instructions that would put them so close to each other without warning because yes, at least one pilot made a mistake but it was the proximity of those two aircraft potentially unbeknownst to each other yet should have been know to the controller that led to that mistake being deadly.
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
l just question creating the scenario of two aircraft being turned into each other in close quarters, with restricted visibility in the turn towards each other.
Click to expand...

Just asking because I don’t know. But what were the circumstances where they were “turned into each other in close quarters “? Like I said in my first post in this thread, controllers have no control over when a pilot turns base. It could be immediate, a few seconds or as I’ve seen, a couple of miles. I don’t know how many times one of my controllers has told a pilot to do something and they delayed, did something else or ignored the controller altogether. When they give me that exasperated look, my standard response is “you can’t fly it for ‘em.”
 
nrm2430 said:
Listened to the LiveATC and the 172 was cleared 30R and the Piper 30L. Tower even confirmed 30L after the initial clearance and the Piper read back 30L both times but appears to have lined up 30R anyway
Click to expand...

did either plane confirm they had the other in sight? or were they asked?
 
Shawn said:
Runway mixups by pilots on parallel runways are common and known to be common. What would I add? Explicit traffic advisories to each pilot that another aircraft was on final of the parallel runway in their vicinity. If that was not provided I absolutely put blame on the controller for contributing to the accident for giving them instructions that would put them so close to each other without warning because yes, at least one pilot made a mistake but it was the proximity of those two aircraft potentially unbeknownst to each other yet should have been know to the controller that led to that mistake being deadly.
Click to expand...

I get those advisories (I don't know if they're required of our controllers or not) -- my home drome (KHWD) is similar to VGT with parallel runways and heavy training volume, including jets, turbine, small trainers, and helicopters. We're hemmed in by airspace on most every side too.

Just realistically, though, I think the tower controller here would have assumed that the PA46 would have flown a standard downwind and added, let's say, 5-10 seconds to their pattern -- which means there would have been no parallel final callout to make -- unless the tower controller was fixated on those two specific planes -- which would have meant zero service to all other aircraft in the area.

I think the PA46 deviated from tower's expectations and tower's mental "map" of the current traffic situation, both in the pattern flown, AND the runway readback/expected. Break either of those links in the chain, and I think we don't have this tragedy.

I suspect the tower control confirming 30L here was because he knew that was a risk. To receive the correct readback reassured him and freed that % of his brain wattage to focus elsewhere.

I really have no idea how tower controllers do it now. I feel for the guy in VGT yesterday.

I do think having two separate freqs robs the pilots of hearing about one another. I'm not sure what the solve is, but I think that freq-saturation bandaid is a poor one.

$0.02, Armchair mode.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Just asking because I don’t know. But what were the circumstances where they were “turned into each other in close quarters “? Like I said in my first post in this thread, controllers have no control over when a pilot turns base. It could be immediate, a few seconds or as I’ve seen, a couple of miles. I don’t know how many times one of my controllers has told a pilot to do something and they delayed, did something else or ignored the controller altogether. When they give me that exasperated look, my standard response is “you can’t fly it for ‘em.”
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, we pilots sometimes screw up no matter the solution. But I just have a hard time seeing two aircraft on opposing bases to close in parallel runways, at the exact same time. I've been told to extend my downwind before due to traffic, or at least call traffic in sight before getting direction to turn final, etc. We don't know all the details yet, but it sounds like both aircraft were in opposing patterns to parallel runways, on different tower frequencies, and may not have even been advised the other existed.

But again, the controller did what the controller's playbook says to do. The Malibu pilot clearly lined up on the wrong runway. I'm not saying the controller was at fault, but maybe a tweak to the controller's playbook could help prevent another one of these types of accidents.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I think we can definitively say the flight paths converged.
Click to expand...

Agree but was it the pilot’s fault or the controller’s fault? Until we can see the video in real time with ATC audio, all we can do is speculate. I would like to know the facts first in order to make things safer. That’s our goal right?
 
schmookeeg said:
I do think having two separate freqs robs the pilots of hearing about one another. I'm not sure what the solve is, but I think that freq-saturation bandaid is a poor one.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Now put yourself in the tower controller’s shoes. Which is safer, having one controller work one runway with another controller working the other OR one controller working both runways where it can get so busy nobody can get a word in edgewise? If the aircraft did not know about each other I’ll agree that is a problem..but my question is: did they? Without audio we may never know.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Agree but was it the pilot’s fault or the controller’s fault? Until we can see the video in real time with ATC audio, all we can do is speculate. I would like to know the facts first in order to make things safer. That’s our goal right?
Click to expand...

I say based on the audio and the ADS-B returns, the pilot of the Malibu was at fault. He was assigned 30L, confirmed 30L, lined up on 30R, whether mistakenly or overshot final we may never know.
 
For all we know the jetprop could've come screaming into the pattern at 150knots like the cirrus that hit the metroliner did, and a sequence the controller thought was fine quickly became two planes in one point in space. Unfortunately 172's are not as robust as metroliners, and jetprops don't have parachutes.
 
eman1200 said:
did either plane confirm they had the other in sight? or were they asked?
Click to expand...
The accident aircraft were not told of each other in the portion I heard. Sounded like there were 2 other planes being handled in the pattern in addition to the 2 accident planes. Tower only told 1 of those other 2 about following the Piper for 30L.
 
Timbeck2 said:
The controller cleared one guy to land on the right and another on the left. Both repeated their runway. One guy screwed up and now the collective minds are thinking up ways for controllers to prevent stupidity.

Unfortunately that’s not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't intend to imply the controller was in any way at fault (and I can understand how this is a personal subject for you) but rather to note there's a fairly common instruction tower controllers frequently use to 'control over when someone actually turns base.'

Based on the available evidence - and there's more than is usually available at this point - I genuinely can't imagine any scenario in which the JetProp pilot isn't ultimately responsible for this.
 
schmookeeg said:
I suspect the tower control confirming 30L here was because he knew that was a risk.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation of course but following your logic if controller knowing of a potential risk and NOT advising pilots of said risk is what would make controller complicit to the outcome IMO if that was in fact the thought process.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Point taken. Now put yourself in the tower controller’s shoes. Which is safer, having one controller work one runway with another controller working the other OR one controller working both runways where it can get so busy nobody can get a word in edgewise? If the aircraft did not know about each other I’ll agree that is a problem..but my question is: did they? Without audio we may never know.
Click to expand...

A real sophie's choice for sure.

I wish there was some ipad-sized visual 2-way comm replacement to limit the amount of chatter on the radio. You flick a button and I get a "FLY DOWNWIND TO 30L" picture, with euro-style idiot-resistant pictures, arrows, and maybe some smiley-faced hoops in the sky to fly through. We're like 80% of the way there already.

Maybe I get a green "OK" button. If I press the red button, I am given vectors to F off out of the class D and try again. :D

==

NorCal approach here did something yesterday I'd never heard before. He was rapidly issuing a traffic alert to someone on freq, and some jackhole keyed up for the second half of the call and tried requesting flight following, complete with full and complete and superfluous details of course. Norcal keyed in response, silence, and then just a long sigggggghhhhhhhhhhhh emitted. The freq stayed silent for a good 5 long seconds, then norcal keyed again and said "YOU DO NOT TALK WHEN I AM TALKING" -- holy hell everyone was on A game after that point.

It's gonna get worse.
 
I don't think ATC needs to change the rules, I think a fast tight circle to land from midfield is a bad move in that and honestly most situations. The Malibu spent most of that approach with his back to the runway he wanted to land on. It would have finally gotten a good view of the runway around the base position. But he was in close all the time and was going fast, most likely pretty nose high trying to slow down. Not the place or situation to be screaming into the pattern, slow it down, widen it out, give yourself a chance.
 
Timbeck2 said:
They must work fast. 973CX is deregistered. The reason I looked is because jet prop was mentioned. Isn’t the Malibu a piston and the mirage is jet?
Click to expand...
According to another forum it had some STC that put a turbine on it. DTX or something like that.
 
A 2003 report, and not sure if it's improved much... Couldn't find anything more current except an FAA safety video at the end of my post here:

A new study by the Federal Aviation Administration says the North Las Vegas Airport ranks among the worst when it comes to close calls on runways. Between 1999 and 2002, the FAA says North Las Vegas (NV) experienced 34 "incursions," or anything on a runway that can create a collision hazard or compromises the ability to avoid a runway collision.

Los Angeles International Airport tied with North Las Vegas for the number of incursions. Las Vegas' McCarran International had 13 incursions during the same period.

North Las Vegas is mainly used for general aviation and pilot training. A spokeswoman for the airport says there have been improvements in lighting and runway layout in recent years, and that safety is improving at North Las Vegas. The airport recorded about 900-thousand landings and takeoffs between 1999 and 2002.

North Las Vegas Airport opened on December 7, 1941 as Sky Haven Airport. The airport remained under a series of private owners until the City of North Las Vegas purchased it in 1966. In 1967, Howard Hughes purchased the facility from the City of North Las Vegas.

The airport remained a Howard Hughes property until Clark County purchased it in 1987 as the general aviation reliever for McCarran International Airport. During the past 13 years, Clark County has spent more than $40 million to improve the airfield.

In 1999, a Memorial Park was dedicated in memory of Gus Sabo, who was the Manager for NLVA when his Long E-Z went into the Gulf of California, off the Baja Peninsula. This park provides a beautiful landscaped area to picnic, in addition to being able to park your vehicle, watch, and listen to tower operations by tuning 88.5 FM.

North Las Vegas is the second busiest airport in Nevada, logging more than 230,000 operations annually. NLVA is now home to a new state-of-the-art FAA Air Traffic Control Tower equipped with the latest technology designed to enhance safety and improve operating efficiency.

Currency FAA Safety video

https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/videos/vgt/
 
Timbeck2 said:
Agree but was it the pilot’s fault or the controller’s fault? Until we can see the video in real time with ATC audio, all we can do is speculate. I would like to know the facts first in order to make things safer. That’s our goal right?
Click to expand...

It was clearly the pilot's fault. We have all the data we need to make that determination. IMO the discussion now should be on how to make traffic procedures more tolerant of pilot error, because pilots are not going to stop making mistakes, and overshooting the runway is a pretty common one.

Maybe it is as simple as when tower clears an aircraft to land on 31L, they add "caution: parallel traffic in right pattern on 31R" to focus the pilot's SA.

I would compare this situation to runway incursions. Those are 100% pilot error too. But pilots kept screwing up, until the FAA decided they had to put some extra effort into preventing them. Now we have admonishments on ATIS and requirements to read back all hold short instructions verbatim.
 
Timbeck2 said:
They must work fast. 973CX is deregistered. The reason I looked is because jet prop was mentioned. Isn’t the Malibu a piston and the mirage is jet?
Click to expand...
I had a typo. It was actually N97CX. & the Mirage is just an upgraded version of a Malibu I think.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I say based on the audio and the ADS-B returns, the pilot of the Malibu was at fault. He was assigned 30L, confirmed 30L, lined up on 30R, whether mistakenly or overshot final we may never know.
Click to expand...
Maybe we will know some stuff in a couple years when the final comes out. There was one recently where recorded data in the planes avionics gave up all kinds of info that sealed the deal of the probable cause. Here's a speculation, and I say speculation with a capital S. WAG. My imagination is running wild. Folk in another forum were talking about how you should always load an Approach even if you are VFR. And if there isn't one to that Runway then load a Visual. Or make the runway next fix and OBS a magenta line straight in to it. So maybe she did something like that. But to the wrong Runway.
 
Timbeck2 said:
They must work fast. 973CX is deregistered. The reason I looked is because jet prop was mentioned. Isn’t the Malibu a piston and the mirage is jet?
Click to expand...

I believe Piper referred to the piston version as the Malibu and Malibu Mirage, the turboprop was the Meridian. The term Jet-Prop was usually used for a Malibu that had an aftermarket conversion to a turboprop.

There was also a Malibu Matrix, which was an unpressurized piston version.
 
luvflyin said:
Maybe we will know some stuff in a couple years when the final comes out. There was one recently where recorded data in the planes avionics gave up all kinds of info that sealed the deal of the probable cause. Here's a speculation, and I say speculation with a capital S. WAG. My imagination is running wild. Folk in another forum were talking about how you should always load an Approach even if you are VFR. And if there isn't one to that Runway then load a Visual. Or make the runway next fix and OBS a magenta line straight in to it. So maybe she did something like that. But to the wrong Runway.
Click to expand...

Another question that I just had. I have heard the husband was the pilot, but the wife was working the radios. Was she a pilot as well? She was the one confirming the runway, but was she flying? Was he as the pilot listening and actually hearing the radio instructions? Did he have expectation bias to use 30R? Just a few more thoughts to consider, although it doesn't change the tragic outcome.
 
Not sure what a controller could have done. Only thing I could see is the Malibu lining up for the wrong runway. "Hey, you're assigned 30L, looks like you're lining up for 30R" and maybe "go around". Still all on pilot IMHO.
 
nrm2430 said:
https://archive.liveatc.net/kvgt/KVGT2-Jul-17-2022-1900Z.mp3

Instructions for both were given in the first 4 mins

N160RA- 172
N973CX-Malibu
Click to expand...

Malibu: N97CX.

I don't like to dwell on these things, but imagine the terror and confusion of the 172 occupants. They did nothing wrong, flying an approach on a nice day, and suddenly their world was upended.

We must all maintain the highest standards of vigilance and precision in our flying.
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
Another question that I just had. I have heard the husband was the pilot, but the wife was working the radios. Was she a pilot as well? She was the one confirming the runway, but was she flying? Was he as the pilot listening and actually hearing the radio instructions? Did he have expectation bias to use 30R? Just a few more thoughts to consider, although it doesn't change the tragic outcome.
Click to expand...
According to comments on Kathryn's Report, she was also a pilot and had an airplane based at the same field.

Re expectation bias, why would a tower clear an airplane over the top, then send them back across the near approach to land on the far runway?
 
midwestpa24 said:
Another question that I just had. I have heard the husband was the pilot, but the wife was working the radios. Was she a pilot as well? She was the one confirming the runway, but was she flying? Was he as the pilot listening and actually hearing the radio instructions? Did he have expectation bias to use 30R? Just a few more thoughts to consider, although it doesn't change the tragic outcome.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
 
3393RP said:
Malibu: N97CX.

I don't like to dwell on these things, but imagine the terror and confusion of the 172 occupants. They did nothing wrong, flying an approach on a nice day, and suddenly their world was upended.

We must all maintain the highest standards of vigilance and precision in our flying.
Click to expand...
Especially when parallels come into play
 
Ed Haywood said:
According to comments on Kathryn's Report, she was also a pilot and had an airplane based at the same field.

Re expectation bias, why would a tower clear an airplane over the top, then send them back across the near approach to land on the far runway?
Click to expand...
Ya got the Kathryn's report link? Does anyone have a link to ATC comms longer that short little bit so far. Like from when first checking in with Tower?
 
Ed Haywood said:
According to comments on Kathryn's Report, she was also a pilot and had an airplane based at the same field.

Re expectation bias, why would a tower clear an airplane over the top, then send them back across the near approach to land on the far runway?
Click to expand...

Ok, so she was also a pilot. My first line of questions was thinking the wife may not have been a pilot but was used to assisting as many non-flying spouses sometimes learn to do, but I was incorrect.

Then the next questions, who was PIC, and who was at the controls, and what seat were they in?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Controller has no liability here. 100% a pilot Fup.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t quite work that way.

While I agree that the pilot is really the one who screwed up, Uncle Sam is the one with deep pockets, so if the lawyers can make a case that the controller could have reasonably stopped it, the govt will likely pay the families.

I expect a case like this would probably settle without a trial.
 
FPK1 said:
A 2003 report, and not sure if it's improved much... Couldn't find anything more current except an FAA safety video at the end of my post here:

A new study by the Federal Aviation Administration says the North Las Vegas Airport ranks among the worst when it comes to close calls on runways. Between 1999 and 2002, the FAA says North Las Vegas (NV) experienced 34 "incursions," or anything on a runway that can create a collision hazard or compromises the ability to avoid a runway collision.

Los Angeles International Airport tied with North Las Vegas for the number of incursions. Las Vegas' McCarran International had 13 incursions during the same period.

North Las Vegas is mainly used for general aviation and pilot training. A spokeswoman for the airport says there have been improvements in lighting and runway layout in recent years, and that safety is improving at North Las Vegas. The airport recorded about 900-thousand landings and takeoffs between 1999 and 2002.

North Las Vegas Airport opened on December 7, 1941 as Sky Haven Airport. The airport remained under a series of private owners until the City of North Las Vegas purchased it in 1966. In 1967, Howard Hughes purchased the facility from the City of North Las Vegas.

The airport remained a Howard Hughes property until Clark County purchased it in 1987 as the general aviation reliever for McCarran International Airport. During the past 13 years, Clark County has spent more than $40 million to improve the airfield.

In 1999, a Memorial Park was dedicated in memory of Gus Sabo, who was the Manager for NLVA when his Long E-Z went into the Gulf of California, off the Baja Peninsula. This park provides a beautiful landscaped area to picnic, in addition to being able to park your vehicle, watch, and listen to tower operations by tuning 88.5 FM.

North Las Vegas is the second busiest airport in Nevada, logging more than 230,000 operations annually. NLVA is now home to a new state-of-the-art FAA Air Traffic Control Tower equipped with the latest technology designed to enhance safety and improve operating efficiency.

Currency FAA Safety video

https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/videos/vgt/
Click to expand...

There's no doubt KVGT is a nice airport. Ive had some long CC flights there for kid's sports and the controllers have always been safety conscious. The incursion statistics have me thinking twice about it now. It is definitely busy and can be tricky with big gust differentials and variable windshear common. You need laser focus to pull off a good landing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Doesn’t quite work that way.

While I agree that the pilot is really the one who screwed up, Uncle Sam is the one with deep pockets, so if the lawyers can make a case that the controller could have reasonably stopped it, the govt will likely pay the families.

I expect a case like this would probably settle without a trial.
Click to expand...
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not commenting on legal liability. So I will not respond to your statement.

I’m speaking from my professional experience. This is 100% a pilot f up. It doesn’t matter who looses in court or has to pay. That’s just bs after the fact for people wanting money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top