Saw A Near Collision Today

Henning said:
Thing is, a helicopter doesn't need a runway or taxiway since they are in hover.
Click to expand...

May not 'need' a runway, but like I said earlier, some helicopters need a deck run to fly out when heavy and a runway provides that space.

Plus, like Mcfly said, they may need the runway for certain practice maneuvers.
 
Fearless Tower said:
May not 'need' a runway, but like I said earlier, some helicopters need a deck run to fly out when heavy and a runway provides that space.

Plus, like Mcfly said, they may need the runway for certain practice maneuvers.
Click to expand...

That's fine. It's all just a matter of being considerate is all. If I would have needed the runway, I would have slowed down my base to let the FW lead, because everything works out better if he goes first due to the geometry of the approach angles. Not only will the distance between us open rather than close, I won't subject him to my rotor wash right in his round out and flare. Remember the accident a little while back where the plane was thrown in helicopter's wake?
 
PaulMillner said:
Haven't been to OSH yet, eh? There were three of us, unknown to each other, landing simultaneously on one runway...

Doesn't the AIM have a trailing distance for uncontrolled airports? 3,000 feet comes to mind...

Paul
Click to expand...


Nope, and from the bent metal that happens every year, when I do go I'll be keeping my wheels off the grass and landing at the seaplane harbor.
 
Come to think of it, the op stated that the Skycatcher seemed hurried to get on the ground. Might not that have been rotor wash instead?
 
Getdownitis: An extremely dangerous mental pressure to get an aircraft back to the FBO when running late. I have experienced this condition one time when running late and trying to get back home because I knew the "drill sergeant" behind the front desk was going to chew me out for being 15 minutes late (which he certainly did). It was a crappy landing, which honestly should have been a go-around.

It scared me so much that I vowed to never ever to let this happen again. I "fired" that rental school, and I am a safer pilot for it.
 
nimdabew said:
Yes they are. One of my students sent me this video of a co-worker on a solo cross country.



C162, propose, nose gear collapse, prop through wing.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2vyUaNlCYg
Click to expand...

Wow. That didn't take much at all.

Seemed like we was slow enough (sounds like the stall warning chirping as he touches down). Did he just let the nose fall too quick?

I've seen tons of student video landings in 172s far worse than that.

What a POS plane.
 
nimdabew said:
Yes they are. One of my students sent me this video of a co-worker on a solo cross country.

C162, propose, nose gear collapse, prop through wing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2vyUaNlCYg
Click to expand...

What I witnessed was far worse than what is shown in the video, and somehow did not collapse. Also, I trained in the 162, and I put that poor plane through worse landings than what is shown in the video. I suspect that plane already had a structural issue and the bounced landing was all it took to finish the job. If that landing was all it took to collapse a 162 nose gear, there is no way any of those planes would survive their first year as a trainer!
 
Sky Catchers are squirrelly in the best of times. I wouldn't dream of landing a 162 close to a rotorcraft.
 
Henning said:
I would bet that took prior damage. That should not have broke the gear.
Click to expand...

That is my guess also, I've seen Skycatcher gear withstand hellacious punishment.

The gentleman in the video is too fast and didn't bother to use full flaps.
 
Henning said:
I would bet that took prior damage. That should not have broke the gear.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. You can clearly see that he pushed the yoke forward during the bounce. That made it a lot worse.

Every bounce I've recovered from has included pulling BACK (slightly) on the yoke at the top and adding power, specifically to avoid pushing the nose gear into the pavement.
 
vintage cessna said:
That is my guess also, I've seen Skycatcher gear withstand hellacious punishment.

The gentleman in the video is too fast and didn't bother to use full flaps.
Click to expand...

Landing speed or lack of flaps, although present in this case is not causative of the collapse.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Landing speed or lack of flaps, although present in this case is not causative of the collapse.
Click to expand...


I know that. That is why I double spaced the sentences, so as not to seem connected to one another.
 
Henning said:
Not necessarily either as that could be the technique used to separate the rotor and fixed patterns.
Click to expand...

If that is the case it sounds incredibly stupid and an accident waiting to happen.
 
creweite said:
If that is the case it sounds incredibly stupid and an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

This is not uncommon. You don't really want rotor wing and fixed wing in the same pattern due to speed and altitude differences. Finished up my primary PPL training at an airport (JWN) with a lot of fixed- and rotor-wing students in the pattern. No major issues there. However, the rotor wing traffic pretty much stayed on the taxiways there.
 
MAKG1 said:
Hard to say. You can clearly see that he pushed the yoke forward during the bounce. That made it a lot worse.

Every bounce I've recovered from has included pulling BACK (slightly) on the yoke at the top and adding power, specifically to avoid pushing the nose gear into the pavement.
Click to expand...

He definitely didn't handle it well.

That nose gear had to have been compromised somehow before that landing. It is made of steel, and if you examine how it is constructed it is not going to collapse from that kind of a bounce. It may shear off from a severe side load, but I didn't see that in the video.
 
Ever flown into Airventure?




UOTE=LoxaBagels;1850016]Here is what the FAA says is an incursion: http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/

Any unsafe presence of another aircraft, person or other object on the runway.

Since the PIC is responsible by regulation to judge safety (as is the case with 'line up and wait' and 'taxi into position and hold') the presence of another aircraft on the runway is a judgement call in both towered and non-toward airports.

I was trained never to land on a runway where another aircraft was present, and never to assume another aircraft will 'do the right thing' and get out of the way.

I have in the past refused a line up and wait ATC clearance, and have refused a takeoff clearance based on my judgement wake turbulence to be an issue. ATC seemed to be okay with that....[/QUOTE]
 
Seems like every year there is an accident at AirVenture....
 
Henning said:
Not necessarily either as that could be the technique used to separate the rotor and fixed patterns. What went wrong is the helicopter went in front of the Sky Catcher then didn't clear the runway post haste. He was inconsiderate, and the other inexperienced.
Click to expand...
---
§91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
---

Looks like it's incumbent on the helos to not interfere with airplanes in the pattern.
 
LoxaBagels said:
Seems like every year there is an accident at AirVenture....
Click to expand...

I've never heard of a collision on the runway at Airventure in normal landing ops, I think two Mustangs collided once there involving a formation landing.
 
Henning said:
I would bet that took prior damage. That should not have broke the gear.
Click to expand...

Would it be possible that the nose tire shredded on impact, thus letting the nose gear strike the pavement and shearing off rather than collapsing?
 
vintage cessna said:
Would it be possible that the nose tire shredded on impact, thus letting the nose gear strike the pavement and shearing off rather than collapsing?
Click to expand...

:dunno: Could be nearly anything. I am not all that impressed by a 162, when I looked one over the difference in 'fit & finish' compared to a 152 struck me as very amateur. Reminded me of a Geo with a Chevy nameplate.
 
bullwinkle said:
---
§91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
---

Looks like it's incumbent on the helos to not interfere with airplanes in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Exactly, most airports have a published helicopter procedure, so without seeing that, I don't know if the helo was in the wrong pattern.
 
Henning said:
Exactly, most airports have a published helicopter procedure, so without seeing that, I don't know if the helo was in the wrong pattern.
Click to expand...

The airport in question is KUMP and it is left traffic. I don't see anything published specifically for helo traffic but there is a fair amount of helo traffic at this airport and they do typically use a right pattern. In fact I don't recall ever seeing one use left traffic.
 
vintage cessna said:
Why have you refused a "line up and wait " ?
Click to expand...

Because there was a big C130 that just took off and I chose not to deal with wake turbulence taxing into position. I knew I would be waiting long enough for that to dissipate before landing traffic would become an issue.
 
LoxaBagels said:
Because there was a big C130 that just took off and I chose not to deal with wake turbulence taxing into position. I knew I would be waiting long enough for that to dissipate before landing traffic would become an issue.
Click to expand...

The controller told you to "line up and wait " , not takeoff, so what is the safety issue? You weren't at an intersection departure that was beyond the point of the C130 breaking ground , were you?
 
vintage cessna said:
The controller told you to "line up and wait " , not takeoff, so what is the safety issue? You weren't at an intersection departure that was beyond the point of the C130 breaking ground , were you?
Click to expand...

I refused to get on the runway due to wake turbulence (sitting on the runway waiting for wake turbulence to dissipate before taking off). I chose to hold short instead. The controller was fine with the decision...
 
LoxaBagels said:
Because there was a big C130 that just took off and I chose not to deal with wake turbulence taxing into position. I knew I would be waiting long enough for that to dissipate before landing traffic would become an issue.
Click to expand...

You realize that the wake turbulence ends when the plane gets into ground effect right? The wing tip vortices are the cause, and they don't form in ground effect which is what gives you the reduction in drag that defines ground effect.
 
Henning said:
You realize that the wake turbulence ends when the plane gets into ground effect right? The wing tip vortices are the cause, and they don't form in ground effect which is what gives you the reduction in drag that defines ground effect.
Click to expand...

The C130 was taking off, not landing.
 
Henning said:
You realize that the wake turbulence ends when the plane gets into ground effect right? The wing tip vortices are the cause, and they don't form in ground effect which is what gives you the reduction in drag that defines ground effect.
Click to expand...

Vortices form while IGE. They're just not as strong as OGE. They can form quite early on take off and be quite hazardous based on type aircraft as well.
 

Attachments

  • trim.D97E44E6-D61F-4072-8D9F-9DBE35592938.MOV
    4.1 MB · Views: 65
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top