Runway Incursion at HDN

WTF does "on the deck" mean?
I'm not perfect, but I try to make my position reports clear and standard. Done some dumb stuff in my day, but I'm very careful about stuff like that; VFR ops can easily invite sloppiness and disaster.
 
Sounds like a lot of people were engaging in some non-standard radio procedures.

On the other hand, the article is so sensationalized I almost puked.

~ Christopher
 
I had no clue this practice took place; arriving and departing with a controller without even radar coverage calling the shots? You have two crewmen on the CRJ at the very least. Is there any reason why these and all other aircraft under IFR could not be monitoring both TRACON and CTAF? That one act could have allowed the observing fire crew to notify the aircraft.
 
It took me a little while to understand what was going on in this story.

All this is pure speculation on my part, but it sounds like, since this place is uncontrolled, the RJ canceled IFR or was cleared for the approach, NOT cleared to land. The KA was given his IFR release, NOT cleared for takeoff. They both should have been on the CTAF, not the UNICOM (probably the same freq, but still not the same).

If it was uncontrolled and the RJ canceled IFR, it still seems like the blame is on the KA...he wasn't cleared for takeoff, just released, so he still needed to check final before pulling out. Should the RJ been on the CTAF? Ya, hard to understand why he wouldn't have been, but if this place is uncontrolled the fault belongs to the KA. A release is not a guarantee that the airspace or runway are clear, especially if the last guy called and canceled.

And this still wasn't a "near-miss," damnit.
 
Agree that this WASN'T a near miss.

Still, I hate the damn jet guys who do long straight ins to non-towered fields. Also, I'd like to hear the logs. If the center said something like: KA cleared Off time Void Time and inbound traffic has landed no factor, it doesn't absolve the KA pilot from checking, but it might partially explain why he did what he did.

Still, not to be on CTAF??? What's to say there wasn't some Citabria or Cub in the pattern, on a low, slow final?

~ Christopher
 
jwriteclub said:
Agree that this WASN'T a near miss.

Still, I hate the damn jet guys who do long straight ins to non-towered fields. Also, I'd like to hear the logs. If the center said something like: KA cleared Off time Void Time and inbound traffic has landed no factor, it doesn't absolve the KA pilot from checking, but it might partially explain why he did what he did.

Still, not to be on CTAF??? What's to say there wasn't some Citabria or Cub in the pattern, on a low, slow final?

~ Christopher
Click to expand...

I reread the story...the article says that they weren't on the CTAF, but then later says simply that they two planes weren't talking to each other. I think it's possible that the RJ was on the CTAF, but the KA wasn't. Or that neither of them were. Or they they both were, but the RJ hadn't made a position report in a while. It's just that they hadn't been talking to each other.

And for the record, I'm one of those damn jet(prop) guys that does a long straight in to an uncontrolled airport. Trust me, that's a lot easier than us trying to get in the pattern behind a low and slow Citabria, Cub, or even Skyhawk. An RJ flying downwind behind a piston single doesn't work out too well. It's not because we're trying to be cool or save gas (it's no our gas), it's because 130kts on downwind isn't compatible with 75kts on downwind. As long as everyone is talking, there's no reason why a straight in is any worse an option than flying the pattern.
 
I like how the airport manager demands that everyone start using the UNICOM. Whenever I use the UNICOM, the only guy I can raise is the fuel truck...
 
KennyFlys said:
I had no clue this practice took place; arriving and departing with a controller without even radar coverage calling the shots?
Click to expand...
I don't quite remember how low radar coverage goes in Hayden but just like many places in the mountains it's not very low due to the terrain. Hayden is also an uncontrolled airport. The "controller" they are talking about is Denver Center. If both airplanes were operating under IFR, the King Air shouldn't have been released until the CRJ canceled IFR. The CRJ could have canceled IFR while still airborne if their ops specs permit it. The story is so poorly written that it is hard to tell.

You have two crewmen on the CRJ at the very least. Is there any reason why these and all other aircraft under IFR could not be monitoring both TRACON and CTAF? That one act could have allowed the observing fire crew to notify the aircraft.
Click to expand...
This is theoretically what is supposed to be going on but who knows what happened. Normally when approaching an uncontrolled field IFR, center will tell you to, "Switch to advisory frequency, report your down time on this frequency (or some other one)."

Teller1900 said:
And for the record, I'm one of those damn jet(prop) guys that does a long straight in to an uncontrolled airport. Trust me, that's a lot easier than us trying to get in the pattern behind a low and slow Citabria, Cub, or even Skyhawk. An RJ flying downwind behind a piston single doesn't work out too well. It's not because we're trying to be cool or save gas (it's no our gas), it's because 130kts on downwind isn't compatible with 75kts on downwind. As long as everyone is talking, there's no reason why a straight in is any worse an option than flying the pattern.
Click to expand...
I agree with Matt.
 
Teller1900 said:
And for the record, I'm one of those damn jet(prop) guys that does a long straight in to an uncontrolled airport. Trust me, that's a lot easier than us trying to get in the pattern behind a low and slow Citabria, Cub, or even Skyhawk. An RJ flying downwind behind a piston single doesn't work out too well. It's not because we're trying to be cool or save gas (it's no our gas), it's because 130kts on downwind isn't compatible with 75kts on downwind. As long as everyone is talking, there's no reason why a straight in is any worse an option than flying the pattern.
Click to expand...

I agree I don't have a problem with the Jets landing straight in and I fly out of an uncontrolled airport.

Problems I have seen though include. Speaking IFR in a VFR environment. What does at the FAF mean to 30 hr student practicing landing solo? Last month Aviation Safety had an article on this very subject.

We also have a lot of Canadian traffic since it's easier to clear customs at our terminal right on the border. They always seem lost.

My worst experience was a guy who called five mile final as I turned Base and then crossed over my nose. Never have figured out where he thought he was?

The radio calls in the story are inaccurate but I would suspect the reporter.
 
As long as everyone is talking, there's no reason why a straight in is any worse an option than flying the pattern.
Click to expand...

I highlighted the relevant part, because, see, when I'm putting along at 75 and turn my final and then a jet(prop) suddenly appears on the frequency and calls a 3 mile final and busts out of the clouds, trust me, it's not enough time. In addition, despite the fact that they'll run you over, once I'm established on final, I'm pretty sure I have the right of way. Finally, I must second the comment that calling FAF inbound is not useful -- I know what it means, but a lot of people don't.

Just my .02,

~ Christopher
 
RMCN172RG said:
I agree I don't have a problem with the Jets landing straight in and I fly out of an uncontrolled airport.

Problems I have seen though include. Speaking IFR in a VFR environment. What does at the FAF mean to 30 hr student practicing landing solo? Last month Aviation Safety had an article on this very subject.

We also have a lot of Canadian traffic since it's easier to clear customs at our terminal right on the border. They always seem lost.
Click to expand...

I think they seem lost because they have a pattern entry scheme that works very well and is consistent and we...well, we just don't.
 
jwriteclub said:
I highlighted the relevant part, because, see, when I'm putting along at 75 and turn my final and then a jet(prop) suddenly appears on the frequency and calls a 3 mile final and busts out of the clouds, trust me, it's not enough time. In addition, despite the fact that they'll run you over, once I'm established on final, I'm pretty sure I have the right of way. Finally, I must second the comment that calling FAF inbound is not useful -- I know what it means, but a lot of people don't.
Click to expand...

When I've had approach vector me to the ILS they have been pretty good at letting me know wether or not there is other traffic in the pattern. I guess that would depend to some extent on the radar coverage at the uncontrolled airport for ATC.
 
Whether they were on visual or instrument approach, there should have been several calls on CTAF. If Center didn't release them, ask to switch or at least have the PNF and PF use separate transceivers to be talking on both.

I like Matt's idea of a long approach if used for the sake of safety rather than laziness or being cheap on fuel. I've heard some get upset here at GVL at the chicken company jets making long approaches, LOC or the BC just for assistance to line up on the centerline. That entire time, only about five minutes, they could announce their position on CTAF and make their presence known.

I suppose they would rather the jet call final at two miles on the LOC and come on down. The safety game includes "see and be seen" and "make your intentions known." You can't do the latter if you aren't talking.
 
I interpreted this as: Den Cen thnks "on the deck" means the Airliner is Down. So he releases the King Air. Since one is still tuned to Den Cen, we have a problem.
 
The KA certainly should have been doing a better job of looking. There could easily have been a NORDO plane (beyond someone who hadn't changed freqs).
 
I agree, although it can be hard to spot a plane on a long final.

This should be a lesson though, just because you get your release, don't assume that someone isn't still inbound.

~ Christopher
 
RMCN172RG said:
Problems I have seen though include. Speaking IFR in a VFR environment.
Click to expand...

This is a big safety issue in my opinion. I fly a lot of XC and, if radio traffic allows, I try to challenge every position report I hear that's given in IFR terminology. Just last week...

Nxxxxx "Procedure turn inbound at BACKY, 3000"

Notice there's not even an airport reference given.

I always respond (again, if CTAF radio traffic allows) "Nxxxxx, and just what does BACKY tell the average VFR pilot about where you are?"

We all need to remember that transient traffic definitely doesn't know where all the small airport intersections are when passing over in route on a XC.
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
I had no clue this practice took place; arriving and departing with a controller without even radar coverage calling the shots? You have two crewmen on the CRJ at the very least. Is there any reason why these and all other aircraft under IFR could not be monitoring both TRACON and CTAF? That one act could have allowed the observing fire crew to notify the aircraft.
Click to expand...

First, they weren't both IFR. The inbound United flight had canceled IFR, ATC then released the departing King Air.

Second, the article says neither aircraft was on CTAF, both were on the ATC frequency. If that's the case the departure should have known there was an inbound flight that had just canceled IFR and the arrival should have heard ATC release the departure.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Problems I have seen though include. Speaking IFR in a VFR environment. What does at the FAF mean to 30 hr student practicing landing solo?
Click to expand...

It should mean a point on or near the extended final about five miles from the field.
 
roncachamp said:
First, they weren't both IFR. The inbound United flight had canceled IFR, ATC then released the departing King Air.
Click to expand...
That's only because the inbound aircraft did cancel IFR while still airborne. Worse, they led center to believe they were on the ground.

Second, the article says neither aircraft was on CTAF, both were on the ATC frequency. If that's the case the departure should have known there was an inbound flight that had just canceled IFR and the arrival should have heard ATC release the departure.
Click to expand...
This was the point I made. Both aircraft should have been monitoring CTAF as well as center's frequency.

If we can do so in our dinky Skyhawk trainers, so can larger aircraft such as King Airs and CRJ's. We constantly monitor the school's unicom so we may be reached by the school or one of our other aircraft.

The fault rest entirely upon the CRJ crew member that prematurely canceled their IFR clearance let alone lying about their position with regard to being on the ground. That was just plain stupid.
 
jwriteclub said:
I highlighted the relevant part, because, see, when I'm putting along at 75 and turn my final and then a jet(prop) suddenly appears on the frequency and calls a 3 mile final and busts out of the clouds, trust me, it's not enough time. In addition, despite the fact that they'll run you over, once I'm established on final, I'm pretty sure I have the right of way. Finally, I must second the comment that calling FAF inbound is not useful -- I know what it means, but a lot of people don't.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the time I was leading a formation flight of eight L-16's and an L-2 on our way home from the Geneseo Airshow in New York. We were northeast of the Jamestown airport, three miles out, straight in for the runway when a JetStream 31 commuter calls five miles final on CATF. He was still in the clouds, we were 500 beneath bases.

Recognizing what a bad situation this could be, I called my flight to turn north and advised the JetStream of our position and intentions. Looking back over my shoulder, I watched him pass behind us. I then turned my flight back to the runway. We did an overhead approach, break to a land in trail, and taxied to the ramp.
 
roncachamp said:
I said it should mean a point on or near the extended final about five miles from the field.
Click to expand...

I know what and about where it should be. But a 30 hour student willl be in the pattern and have no idea what what "At the FAF inbound on the ILS Runway 4 means". Which is probably the first CTAF call after closing the IFR flight plan.

Now Five miles straight in RWY 4 is clear to even non pilots.
 
KennyFlys said:
That's only because the inbound aircraft did cancel IFR while still airborne. Worse, they led center to believe they were on the ground.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to ATC if the aircraft was airborne or on the ground when it canceled IFR.
 
roncachamp said:
It doesn't matter to ATC if the aircraft was airborne or on the ground when it canceled IFR.
Click to expand...
I get the impression you think I'm blaming ATC. If not, I'm confused by your response.

No, ATC would not care. They did what had to given the information provided them. As I said, it was entirely the fault of the CRJ crew. That's the bottom line.
 
roncachamp said:
Your response to my previous message suggested you think it matters to ATC where the inbound was when it canceled IFR.
Click to expand...
Not at all. My primary point in the post (which was earlier this year) you responded to was both should have been monitoring CTAF. There was no reason not to.
 
roncachamp said:
"That's only because the inbound aircraft did cancel IFR while still airborne."
Click to expand...
You sound as though you're arguing for his right to be stupid as PIC in an airliner carrying trusting passengers.

What point are you even trying to make? I'm about to give up on responding to your posts between this thread and another.
 
There is nothing wrong with canceling IFR before landing, but he has an obligation to monitor the CTAF, no matter whether he cancels IFR or not! Done properly, there is nothing at all wrong with canceling IFR before landing, and very much that is right about it.

---
In the second article, did anyone catch the bit about the fire chief saying that he heard the aircraft of Center frequency, but did not warn them ...

FireChiefDude said:
Although Rickman could hear what was said between the planes and Denver, he could not break in because only aircraft are allowed to communicate on that frequency.
Click to expand...

In the circumstyances, I seriously doubt anyone would try to call him to task for keying up and issuing a warning of some sort on the local ZDV frequency.
 
KennyFlys said:
I get the impression you think I'm blaming ATC. If not, I'm confused by your response.

No, ATC would not care. They did what had to given the information provided them. As I said, it was entirely the fault of the CRJ crew. That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming ATC but it does matter when you close IFR.

Once you cancel IFR you open up the airspace for other IFR traffic. If he had not closed until he was actually on the ground ATC would not have released the other plane until then. This guy is to blame also.

Once he went VFR he was see and avoid.

On the other pilots side just because ATC released him he still has to depart VFR until he is in controlled airspace. Looking at the chart that means he is see and avoid until 700 feet AGL.

The only entity not at fault is ATC his responsibility does not change whether the first plane cancels in the air, 10 minutes after landing or when he is "on the deck". The airspace is open for other IFR traffic once he cancels.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top