Saw A Near Collision Today

[Stingray Don]

Okay, so I went flying this morning just to do some pattern work. I am sharing the pattern with a Skycatcher which is one of the rental planes. I'm taxiing back out to the runway and a helicopter is on a right base and the Skycatcher is on a left base for the same runway. They both turn final with the helicopter just ahead of the Skycatcher and I have a perfect view of both in my windscreen. Skycatcher radios that he has the helicopter in sight. They looked too close for landing, and I thought about jumping on the radio but then I think the Skycatcher has him in sight so what good would that do? Helicopter is now taxiing down the runway and the Skycatcher calls short final right before the threshold encouraging the helo to expedite. Both are now over the runway and the Skycatcher is gaining fast on the helo. Skycatcher panics and pushes the nose down which leads to PIO. After a few oscillations he comes down hard on the nose - honestly I don't know how it didn't collapse. Skycatcher finally gets it down on the runway and is hard on the brakes. He catches up to the helo just as the helo is turning off the runway. They came within a few feet of colliding.

It actually rattled me enough that I turned back and taxied to the ramp instead of taking off again. Maybe it is none of my business but if we are going to share the same traffic pattern, I thought someone at the FBO should know about the incident. I did talk to one of the flight instructors as well as the helo pilot. Honestly, that was the scariest thing I have seen as a pilot.

Don't get me wrong. I have made my fair share of mistakes and I'm sure I will make more. However, I don't understand the decision to attempt the landing when another aircraft is still on the runway. Just go around, it is not that big a deal!

 

[Archammer]

Pride and routine are a difficult thing for some people to overcome. This situation sounds an awful lot like someone's entitlement issue. Meaning the Skycatcher pilot is coming across as forgetting that the helicopter has the runway not him, but he didn't like it that way and just bulldogged his way in anyway.

I think some pilots forget that even though you're on the ground or close to the ground doesn't mean you won't become a skid mark if you screw up. We're still doing 80-100 mph which is faster than highway speeds in vehicles with less than half the safety zones of a car.

 

[MAKG1]

You bet someone should know. The aircraft needs an inspection, from your description, and there is a rental pilot with severe mission myopia. Someday, that will cause bent metal, if it hasn't already.

Hitting the nose gear hard can bend the firewall or strike the prop on the runway, even if the gear itself remains in one piece.

Did you check 121.5? The FBO might find out whether you tell them or not.

 

[Stingray Don]

You bet someone should know. The aircraft needs an inspection, from your description, and there is a rental pilot with severe mission myopia. Someday, that will cause bent metal, if it hasn't already.

Hitting the nose gear hard can bend the firewall or strike the prop on the runway, even if the gear itself remains in one piece.

Did you check 121.5? The FBO might find out whether you tell them or not.

I didn't think to check for an ELT. It would not surprise me if it sustained some damage. He came down hard on that nose wheel!

 

[Stingray Don]

I just checked the online rental schedule. It does not list the name of the renter. However, no CFI was assigned to the flight and there was a passenger, so this was not a student pilot. The schedule indicates that the CFI I spoke with was next on the schedule for a training flight. So at least the right person was made aware that there may be a problem with the aircraft.

One thing is for sure. At the very least that plane will need new seat covers!

 

[overdrive148]

One thing is for sure. At the very least that plane will need new seat covers!

After they surgically remove them from the pilot and passenger's puckered posterior!

 

[James331]

Isn't the nose wheel in the 162 even more fragile than other cessna trikes?

I've flown straight ins with a 208 with weekend warriors infront of me before, taking their dear sweet time, even called out "wheel down 20 seconds....wheels down 15 seconds" but always gone around if they couldn't get their butts off the runway before I touched down.

Landing with another aircraft on the runway, not worth it, ever

PIO eh! Probably good for the FBO to require some more dual before renting again, sounds like the guys stick and rudder skills need as much work as his ADM

 

[LoneAspen]

I'm not familiar with helicopters, so excuse the ignorance, but...

Do they fly a pattern, land, and taxi like a plane does? I imagined helicopters would just take off and land vertically, with no real pattern or taxiing.

 

[overdrive148]

I'm not familiar with helicopters, so excuse the ignorance, but...

Do they fly a pattern, land, and taxi like a plane does? I imagined helicopters would just take off and land vertically, with no real pattern or taxiing.

The Border Patrol does a lot of touch and go's/stop and go's/hover practice here. They do run the pattern and call crosswind/downwind/base/final/etc.

Some helos touch down and use the taxiway up to the ramp, most follow the taxiway and land at the ramp, and a few just ignore all that and go straight for the ramp. Most seem to take the courtesy of following the pattern though.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I'm not familiar with helicopters, so excuse the ignorance, but...

Do they fly a pattern, land, and taxi like a plane does? I imagined helicopters would just take off and land vertically, with no real pattern or taxiing.

Sometimes they do.

Sometimes they will fly an airplane style pattern using the runway to build up flying speed if heavily loaded. Some helos (H-1s for example) don't do well with vertical takeoffs when fully loaded.

 

[LoxaBagels]

The rule is anyone on the runway has the runway. If you land on a runway someone else is already on it's called an incursion.

Even if ATC tells clears you to land on a runway someone else is already on you should refuse the instruction and request a go around.

From the story, it appears the Skycatcher was wrong. The FAA would probably agree.

 

[James331]

Shy of LAHSO or OSH.

 

[Zeldman]

The rule is anyone on the runway has the runway. If you land on a runway someone else is already on it's called an incursion.

Even if ATC tells clears you to land on a runway someone else is already on you should refuse the instruction and request a go around.

From the story, it appears the Skycatcher was wrong. The FAA would probably agree.

Really? Can you make reference to the rule?

ATC can certainly have two aircraft on the runway as long as there is certain amount of separation.

 

[ejensen]

We have two helicopter schools on field. They never use the runway. Taxiways, runup areas, far corners of the ramp for sure. My only grip is the very long winded position reports they give each other. Can be four or five in the air at once. The occasional military or other large ships do use the runway.

 

[LoxaBagels]

Really? Can you make reference to the rule?

ATC can certainly have two aircraft on the runway as long as there is certain amount of separation.

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....

 

[KA550]

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....

Did not answer the question. What is the regulation that prohibits your incorrect opinion?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

If the Skycatcher pilot had been required to get a medical, this wouldn't have happened.

 

[vintage cessna]

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....

Does your common sense ever conflict with what you were told in training? If a small aircraft is touching down on a runway at 40 kits 4000 feet behind another aircraft that is moving in the same direction, is that dangerous?

 

[OkieAviator]

If the Skycatcher pilot had been required to get a medical, this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Henning]

Really? Can you make reference to the rule?

ATC can certainly have two aircraft on the runway as long as there is certain amount of separation.

It is up to the PIC of the plane on final to assure that separation though. Even when cleared to land by the tower, it's still the PIC's call to go around if he can't maintain separation.

 

[Henning]

Does your common sense ever conflict with what you were told in training? If a small aircraft is touching down on a runway at 40 kits 4000 feet behind another aircraft that is moving in the same direction, is that dangerous?

That is up to the PIC to decide.

 

[vintage cessna]

That is up to the PIC to decide.

Exactly, except he was told NEVER to land on a runway with another aircraft still on the runway. And if he sees someone else doing it, he probably considers it to be reckless behavior.

 

[Henning]

Exactly, except he was told NEVER to land on a runway with another aircraft still on the runway. And if he sees someone else doing it, he probably considers it to be reckless behavior.

That's fine. If he doesn't want to share a runway, he can go around, a completely viable point of view and option. Whether legally mandated is irrelevant.

 

[vintage cessna]

That's fine. If he doesn't want to share a runway, he can go around, a completely viable point of view and option. Whether legally mandated is irrelevant.

I could care less what he does as PIC. But he seems to think that if two aircraft are on the runway at the same time a runway incursion has occurred.

I've encountered people with this misconception before, and it is very annoying when they start complaining to people that the pilot was reckless.

 

[Tflhndn]

If the sky catcher had to stand on the brakes to avoid running into the back of the help then this was hardly a case of two aircraft on a runways with plenty of separation.

 

[Henning]

I could care less what he does as PIC. But he seems to think that if two aircraft are on the runway at the same time a runway incursion has occurred.

I've encountered people with this misconception before, and it is very annoying when they start complaining to people that the pilot was reckless.

Not as long as IIRC for our sized planes, 3000' separation is maintained (OSH has waivers for that even). He can complain to whomever.

The example given in the OP I would consider reckless considering his near loss of control incident trying to get it down and stopped. He should have pushed forward on the throttle, not the stick/yoke, and gone around. The helicopter pilot was a bit of a dickweed for going first then not immediately clearing the runway, he should have known that the natural safe profile would put him behind the FW plane on final.

What we have here is 5 links of an accident chain where the helo owns two of them, and the FW PIC holds 3. Both showed poor judgement.

 

[Skip Miller]

Even if ATC tells clears you to land on a runway someone else is already on you should refuse the instruction and request a go around.

Do not take the time to request anything. Go around. Announce that to the tower when you can.

-Skip

 

[vintage cessna]

If the sky catcher had to stand on the brakes to avoid running into the back of the help then this was hardly a case of two aircraft on a runways with plenty of separation.

I was not referring to the Skycatcher incident, but the statements in post 11 i.e. the"rule" .

 

[vintage cessna]

Not as long as IIRC for our sized planes, 3000' separation is maintained (OSH has waivers for that even). He can complain to whomever.

The example given in the OP I would consider reckless considering his near loss of control incident trying to get it down and stopped. He should have pushed forward on the throttle, not the stick/yoke, and gone around. The helicopter pilot was a bit of a dickweed for going first then not immediately clearing the runway, he should have known that the natural safe profile would put him behind the FW plane on final.

What we have here is 5 links of an accident chain where the helo owns two of them, and the FW PIC holds 3. Both showed poor judgement.

Fairly obvious the Skycatcher pilot was wrong since he nearly wrecked the airplane.

 

[PaulMillner]

Landing with another aircraft on the runway, not worth it, ever

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

 

[kkoran]

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....

It does not say "Any unsafe presence of another aircraft, person or other object on the runway"; it says "Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft." [Italics mine]

 

[Omalley1537]

If the Skycatcher pilot had been required to get a medical, this wouldn't have happened.

Don't forget to check for intergranular corrosion too...maybe while eating coleslaw...

 

[Velocity173]

The rule is anyone on the runway has the runway. If you land on a runway someone else is already on it's called an incursion.

Even if ATC tells clears you to land on a runway someone else is already on you should refuse the instruction and request a go around.

From the story, it appears the Skycatcher was wrong. The FAA would probably agree.

Negative. An incursion is an "incorrect presence" of an aircraft on the protected surface of the runway. ATC has their own separation standards for same runway. That wouldn't fall under the incursion definition. Based on class aircraft during sunrise to sunset, separation could be 3,000, 4,500, or 6,000 ft. No requirement for clear deck in those instances. Could even use visual for a succeeding helicopter.

You can go around at an towered controlled field if you want. You're PIC and you feel it's some sort of collision hazard be my guest. Just realize there are rules in place to allow more than one aircraft on the runway at once. Pilots shouldn't overreact if they experience this.

 

[creweite]

So who was flying the incorrect base leg, the helicopter or the Skycatcher? That seems to be the crux of the problem. I assume this is a non-towered field.

 

[Henning]

So who was flying the incorrect base leg, the helicopter or the Skycatcher? That seems to be the crux of the problem. I assume this is a non-towered field.

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.

 

[kkoran]

So who was flying the incorrect base leg, the helicopter or the Skycatcher? That seems to be the crux of the problem. I assume this is a non-towered field.

As Henning said, not necessarily. Helicopters are required to avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft (see 14 CFR §91.126 & §91.127). If they are landing on the runway, they have to join the flow somewhere.

While the helicopter may have been inconsiderate (maybe there was a legitimate reason he took so long to exit the runway), the blame for the near collision lies squarely with the pilot of the Skycatcher.

 

[Henning]

As Henning said, not necessarily. Helicopters are required to avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft (see 14 CFR §91.126 & §91.127). If they are landing on the runway, they have to join the flow somewhere.

While the helicopter may have been inconsiderate (maybe there was a legitimate reason he took so long to exit the runway), the blame for the near collision lies squarely with the pilot of the Skycatcher.

Correct, the helo did nothing technically wrong, but if it was that close, he should have slowed down his base and let the 162 go first since his final is faster and shallower than the helo, and the helo stops upon landing where the 162 rolls out. It's just inconsiderate (which could have killed him had the 162 hit him), not illegal.

 

[Stingray Don]

So who was flying the incorrect base leg, the helicopter or the Skycatcher? That seems to be the crux of the problem. I assume this is a non-towered field.

This is a non-towered field with a 3848' runway. Helicopters typically use right traffic and of course fixed wing use left traffic. The helo called right base just before the Skycatcher called left base and the Skycatcher stated he had the helo in sight. Helo taxied down the runway at a normal speed and exited on the taxiway which is about 2/3 down the runway. The Skycatcher should have extended downwind or just gone around.

 

[Henning]

This is a non-towered field with a 3848' runway. Helicopters typically use right traffic and of course fixed wing use left traffic. The helo called right base just before the Skycatcher called left base and the Skycatcher stated he had the helo in sight. Helo taxied down the runway at a normal speed and exited on the taxiway which is about 2/3 down the runway. The Skycatcher should have extended downwind or just gone around.

Thing is, a helicopter doesn't need a runway or taxiway since they are in hover.

 

[Velocity173]

Thing is, a helicopter doesn't need a runway or taxiway since they are in hover.

For the majority of the stuff helos do yes. There are times when doing EPs where you need the runway or taxiway.

Generally when doing autos, especially touchdown autos you want a clear runway in front of you in case something goes wrong.

Dual engine aircraft simulating single engine failure may require the use of the runway for a roll on or for us skids guys, a run on landing.

Hydraulic failures may require a run on as well. For instance, in the 407 we have to do a run on above ETL (15 kts) in the event of a hyd fail. You don't want to be doing that to the sod to the side of the runway.

In the event in question, during normal ops, I would offset to the side or parallel. Probably turn a super tight base as well so I'm not dragging my wake on final for the FW to fly through.