Three killed in Idaho 172 - 172 crash

bbchien said:
http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=8266081

Wow. Looking at the wreckage.......keep your head on a swivel. Never take a position to depart and hold.....
Click to expand...

And never continue on final with another aircraft holding... :dunno:

How could they have not seen it? Even if they were landing into the sun... I just don't get it. And what about the CTAF?

A powerful, simple lesson in this one... too bad a couple of little kids had to pay for it. :(
 
rottydaddy said:
And never continue on final with another aircraft holding... :dunno:

How could they have not seen it? Even if they were landing into the sun... I just don't get it. And what about the CTAF?

A powerful, simple lesson in this one... too bad a couple of little kids had to pay for it. :(
Click to expand...
That's what I was wondering. I can not see why they continued with the landing if they had another aircraft holding on the RWY. May God bless the victims and the families.... :(
 
It's a sad loss for these young boys more than anything. Innocent victims in all due to poor decision making.

I agree with Bruce; never position and hold and certainly not at a non-towered airport. The only reason for it would be practicing shortfield takeoff and departure. I cannot think of another.
 
Too many loose assumptions - I don't see anything in the news that indicates what the other plane was doing on the runway...holding on the runway, taxiing into position just as the other aircraft was crossing the threshold, taking off in the opposite direction, both landed almost simultaneously one on top of the other...who knows? The FAA preliminary incident report will be out tomorrow morning no doubt.

Though landing aircraft have the right of way, certainly this is another example of making sure to anticipate everyone else's move and to watch yourself :(
 
Ya got to communicate no matter where you are landing!! Or taking off!!
 
I don't know this and it is just speculation. I understand that Mr. Keating had flown to Caldwell, ID. ( EUL) to pick up his grandkids. Caldwell CTAF is 122.7. Then he flew back to McCall CTAF122.8. If he forgot to change his radio back to the McCall CTAF that could have caused the lack of communication. As I say this is pure speculation only.
I doubt that sun in their eyes could be a factor as the runways at McCall are 16-34. Bob
 
gprellwitz said:
Good idea, yes! Required? Nope!:no: Don't be counting on anyone else to be, either! Eyes on a swivel!:yes:
Click to expand...

True, true... the CTAF is just another useful tool, if the others have a radio and are using it correctly. But even then it is not the most useful tool.

I used to put a lot of stock in calling for "anyone base or final?" before taking the active, as well as trusting traffic on a CTAF or Tower to inform me accurately... but not anymore.

There's no substitute for looking.

"Final leg clear; runway clear" is part of my pre-takeoff checklist and my base-to-final checklist. So far that's worked out pretty well for me, since i adopted it in earnest.
So many collisions between aircraft occur on or near controlled and uncontrolled airports on CAVU days... the logical conclusion is that somebody was not looking around as they should. Ain't gonna be me if I can help it.

Being based for a while at an airport with a lot of NORDOs, banner towers, RC planes, and people who liked to drive ground vehicles across the runway to hangars on the other side without apparent care, as well as being bounced on base once, having someone land on the other end of the runway (from the other direction) once, and getting bum calls from towers more than once cured me of trusting my assumptions or the radio.

And if you're ever on final at a towered field in a 172 and Tower knows a King Air has made more progress towards the runway than they'd expected but they can't tell you where it is and the King Air can't see you, it's probably visible down in the bottom corner of that side window where you almost never look in flight...:rolleyes:
 
rottydaddy said:
"Final leg clear; runway clear" is part of my pre-takeoff checklist and my base-to-final checklist.
Click to expand...

Good point... For me that also includes looking at the other end of the runway, including its runup area and approaching taxiways, for opposite-direction departures.
 
Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose.

-Anon
 
Steve said:
Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose.

-Anon
Click to expand...

In my risk management seminar, I'm going to pick this assumption apart a little bit. Too many accidents are caused because the pilot didn't detect a problem, didn't make a judgment, and found himself later in a situation where all his options were bad. When you consider the accident chain, it's rarely one "bet your life" judgment that's the problem. It's more often a series of decision points, with each point having little to no immediate consequences except limiting future choices. Eventually they add up and the remaining limited choices are poor.

So, perhaps one problem is that if we detect a change from our expected circumstances we don't spend enough time really working through the potential results of that change. It's one thing to "knowingly bet your life" on a choice. It's another thing altogether to unknowingly bet your life.

The things you think you "know" that aren't so will kill you.

Everybody be careful out there.
 
Perception of reality and reality are rarely the same. You can play the semantics game if you like, but the outcome is not going to change.

TMetzinger said:
In my risk management seminar, I'm going to pick this assumption apart a little bit. Too many accidents are caused because the pilot didn't detect a problem, didn't make a judgment, and found himself later in a situation where all his options were bad. When you consider the accident chain, it's rarely one "bet your life" judgment that's the problem. It's more often a series of decision points, with each point having little to no immediate consequences except limiting future choices. Eventually they add up and the remaining limited choices are poor.

So, perhaps one problem is that if we detect a change from our expected circumstances we don't spend enough time really working through the potential results of that change. It's one thing to "knowingly bet your life" on a choice. It's another thing altogether to unknowingly bet your life.

The things you think you "know" that aren't so will kill you.

Everybody be careful out there.
Click to expand...
 
And a demonstration of the fact that I detected that there might be a disconnect between reality and perception, and took steps to correct it.
 
alaskaflyer said:
By the way the latest news appears to say that they were landing simultaneously, one under the other.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense- (I was amazed that a pilot on final failed to see another plane in position for takeoff-!) although usually that is the sort of thing that happens with a low-wing above a high-wing.

But.

I'm not damning anyone involved, but it's just a classic case of lack of vigilance, perhaps the one and only time either pilot was lacking.
It only takes one time, sadly...
 
rottydaddy said:
That makes more sense- (I was amazed that a pilot on final failed to see another plane in position for takeoff-!) although usually that is the sort of thing that happens with a low-wing above a high-wing.
Click to expand...
It's possible to not see it as clearly from a distance, even on downwind. Last week, I had a highwing blend in well to a set of stripes. Were it not for watching for the movement, I would not have seen it. But, as you get closer on final you should still be checking out the whole runway, not just the focus point at midfield and further. If this was the case, they should have noticed in plenty time to turn out to the right (assuming left-hand pattern) and climb; dang sure not continue ahead and climb like some might do.
 
KennyFlys said:
It's possible to not see it as clearly from a distance, even on downwind. Last week, I had a highwing blend in well to a set of stripes. Were it not for watching for the movement, I would not have seen it. But, as you get closer on final you should still be checking out the whole runway, not just the focus point at midfield and further. If this was the case, they should have noticed in plenty time to turn out to the right (assuming left-hand pattern) and climb; dang sure not continue ahead and climb like some might do.
Click to expand...

That's happened to me a few times...overall, in and near the pattern, I'm equally surprised at how easily I spy traffic sometimes and by how difficult it can be to see other aircraft at other times. They just don't jump out at you, especially the white ones.

I've had planes take the active when I'm on final, despite my radio calls and my usual M.O. of lighting up everything available when I'm in the pattern...but I've never had trouble seeing THAT in time! :eek:

It really is all about where your attention is focused, and how rigidly it's focused... the time I was about to touch down and my instructor said "what the-?!" and I looked up to see an opposing aircraft landing long the other way, I realized that both of us (scary thought) had been too focused on the touchdown point.

I was lucky- that important lesson didn't cost me anything.
 
KennyFlys said:
Last week, I had a highwing blend in well to a set of stripes. Were it not for watching for the movement, I would not have seen it.
Click to expand...

See, it's just like I told my primary CFI - Landing on the centerline is DANGEROUS! :rofl: (This was standing on the runway outside the airplane after blowing a tire on my first on-centerline landing that day! :rofl:)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
See, it's just like I told my primary CFI - Landing on the centerline is DANGEROUS! :rofl: (This was standing on the runway outside the airplane after blowing a tire on my first on-centerline landing that day! :rofl:)
Click to expand...
If ya would keep your feet resting on the floorboard, you wouldn't have that problem. :)
 
alaskaflyer said:
By the way the latest news appears to say that they were landing simultaneously, one under the other.
Click to expand...

If someone is making a straight in approach and you're in the normal pattern ... depending on the terrain and surroundings .. it can be
pretty hard to detect the straight in.

RT
 
RogerT said:
If someone is making a straight in approach and you're in the normal pattern ... depending on the terrain and surroundings .. it can be pretty hard to detect the straight in.

RT
Click to expand...
Which would be a good reason not to make straight-in approaches. Unless you're on an instrument approach, there's no reason for a straight-in. It violates the standards in the AIM and it's simply an unsafe move. Even if you are making a straight-in for an instrument approach, radio calls must still be made for the sake of those flying a standard pattern and a bit more often.
 
rottydaddy said:
That's happened to me a few times...overall, in and near the pattern, I'm equally surprised at how easily I spy traffic sometimes and by how difficult it can be to see other aircraft at other times. They just don't jump out at you, especially the white ones.

I've had planes take the active when I'm on final, despite my radio calls and my usual M.O. of lighting up everything available when I'm in the pattern...but I've never had trouble seeing THAT in time! :eek:

It really is all about where your attention is focused, and how rigidly it's focused... the time I was about to touch down and my instructor said "what the-?!" and I looked up to see an opposing aircraft landing long the other way, I realized that both of us (scary thought) had been too focused on the touchdown point.

I was lucky- that important lesson didn't cost me anything.
Click to expand...

Despite this, and other physiological reasons of why one cannot "see all", people will say "this pilot was lax". Instead of realizing that one can do something 100% correct, and STILL miss the other plane.

Sorry...and I have argued this before, while I accept that I may get dinged as PIC if something goes wrong, I have checked the god-complex at the door. I do not control all, cannot see all, am not perfect and cannot walk on water. Thus I can study, train, learn, be professional and proficient and STILL have things go wrong.
 
KennyFlys said:
Which would be a good reason not to make straight-in approaches. Unless you're on an instrument approach, there's no reason for a straight-in. It violates the standards in the AIM and it's simply an unsafe move. Even if you are making a straight-in for an instrument approach, radio calls must still be made for the sake of those flying a standard pattern and a bit more often.
Click to expand...

Using the words "violates" and "AIM" in the same sentence is stretching it a bit. In the world of aviation the word violation has a specific meaning. As we all know, the AIM isn't binding, so not following it would not necessarily be a violation. I'm not advocating willfully ignoring the AIM, I'm just saying that perhaps something like "does not adhere to published AIM procedures" might be better.

That said, I think that straight in approaches can be used safely. It's like anything else...you have to know the dangers and weigh your options. If I'm coming in from the south and the wind is from the north and I'm landing 36 and have been monitoring CTAF and there is no other announced traffic and I've properly announced and I have a clear view of the pattern...there is no reason that it can't be done safely. Pretty much all of those things have to come together in order for me to consider the straight in...but it has happened.
 
Last edited:
FlyNE said:
Using the words "violates" and "AIM" in the same sentence is stretching it a bit. In the world of aviation the word violation has a specific meaning. As we all know, the AIM isn't binding, so not following it would not necessarily be a violation. I'm not advocating willfully ignoring the AIM, I'm just saying that perhaps something like "does not adhere to published AIM procedures" might be better.

That said, I think that straight in approaches can be used safely. It's like anything else...you have to know the dangers and weigh your options. If I'm coming in from the south and the wind is from the north and I'm landing 36 and have been monitoring CTAF and there is no other announced traffic and I've properly announced and I have a clear view of the pattern...there is no reason that it can't be done safely. Pretty much all of those things have to come together in order for me to consider the straight in...but it has happened.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I've gotta disagree with ya there. We came back in Sunday night at 10PM with not another around. I still had him fly a normal entry and pattern. There are too many others flying irregular patterns to step away from a standard. I won't get into who is doing it but it's often with a CFI on board.
shakefist.gif


Was the word "violate" misused? Not really. The AIM specifies a standard and it should be adhered to for the sake of uniformity and safety. Isn't that worth an extra half-gallon or so of fuel on a Skyhawk?
 
KennyFlys said:
Sorry, I've gotta disagree with ya there. We came back in Sunday night at 10PM with not another around. I still had him fly a normal entry and pattern. There are too many others flying irregular patterns to step away from a standard. I won't get into who is doing it but it's often with a CFI on board.
shakefist.gif
Click to expand...

But not everybody is flying in/around Atlanta. I think the last time that I used a straight in was flying from Lincoln to Nebraska City (KAFK)...with it's whopping 14 operations per day.

KennyFlys said:
Was the word "violate" misused? Not really. The AIM specifies a standard and it should be adhered to for the sake of uniformity and safety. Isn't that worth an extra half-gallon or so of fuel on a Skyhawk?
Click to expand...

Yes, if the avgas was all that I was paying for. :D
 
FlyNE said:
But not everybody is flying in/around Atlanta. I think the last time that I used a straight in was flying from Lincoln to Nebraska City (KAFK)...with it's whopping 14 operations per day.
Click to expand...
This is in Conroe, Texas; the land of steers and guys with guys with 600 horsepower radial engines. Okay, I've not seen any steers around here.

But, I still push a proper pattern!

Yes, if the avgas was all that I was paying for. :D
Click to expand...
It's only money! But seriously, everyone complains about the money and the need to cut any costs until an incident happens just because one cut a corner during their flight, usually during approach and landing.
 
KennyFlys said:
Which would be a good reason not to make straight-in approaches. Unless you're on an instrument approach, there's no reason for a straight-in. It violates the standards in the AIM and it's simply an unsafe move.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, here we go again.

There is NOTHING WRONG and NOTHING UNSAFE about a straight-in approach. And it doesn't "violate" anything in the AIM - The AIM shows the pieces of a standard traffic pattern and even has a note saying "This diagram is intended only to illustrate terminology used in identifying various components of a traffic pattern. It should not be used as a reference or guide on how to enter a traffic pattern." And underneath the next figure where it shows the pattern with a 45-degree entry, it says "EXAMPLE."

There are lots of times where a straight-in would be safer. For example, last night I was over at C29 practicing landings on runway 10. An airplane called in 10 miles west and said they were going to enter the downwind. How? I'd rather have had them make a straight-in approach where I could see them the entire time and work around them rather than having them do a bunch of maneuvering right near the airport. They ended up going opposite direction less than 1/2 mile off my right wing while I was on downwind and then turned back around to join the downwind behind me, where if they'd have simply made a straight-in approach they'd have been on the ground instead. I felt much less safe with them doing what they did than if they'd have just gone straight in and gotten on the ground and out of my way.

Frankly, airplanes can collide on final just as easily having made a full pattern as they can on a straight in... So I don't think that is the issue here.
 
So, having a standard that EVERYONE follows is worthless? Yeah, ok.
 
After years of human performance evaluation, root cause analysis, and corrective action program development, which is what is left to pick up the pieces after risk management fails, the one thing I've learned is people can be sincerely wrong. People are fallible even with complete and accurate information of their situation. They act on the information available to them in the context of all their previous experience and training, as modified by their current environmental stressors, mental and physical. Fatigue, comfort level, personality traits, mental state, cognitive skills, peer pressure, and any number of other factors can and do influence a person's decision-making. Whether you want to describe it as acting knowingly or unknowingly, the choices they make are moment by moment culmination of all those factors. I believe to say people act unknowingly does not account for the very high probability that in their mental perception of reality they are making choices in the belief that they do know the circumstances in which they act as they perceive them. This doesn't mean they correctly understand their circumstances, only that they act as if they do. To me this is what the quote is trying to convey. To take issue with that is to ignore the fundamental way people act, imho. It is easy to be judgemental after the fact, as I often find myself, but in the course of an event an individual is making decisions and choices at their level of competence they are capable of in a given situation. That level is a dynamic state, too.

So, I'm not agreeing, to a greater extent, although some of your premises are accurate, in my view. The issue of human performance and the philosophy of human behavior is a very broad subject and I've only brought up a few points regarding it as I see them. I felt the quote make a good summation of why people "fail" in an accident scenario, which is why I posted it.

TMetzinger said:
Are you agreeing or disagreeing? I can't tell.
Click to expand...
 
KennyFlys said:
So, having a standard that EVERYONE follows is worthless? Yeah, ok.
Click to expand...

Yes, when those people are coming from infinite different directions, because everyone's method of getting TO the standard is nonstandard. Did you not read the example I posted that just happened last night?
 
Steve said:
It is easy to be judgemental after the fact, as I often find myself, but in the course of an event an individual is making decisions and choices at their level of competence they are capable of in a given situation.
Click to expand...

Excellent and thought-provoking post, Steve.

I've noticed that we (PoA) as a community, and that includes me, tend to be very judgmental, and a thread that I started over a year ago really showed me that. In fact, people posted things on that thread that they would "never" do that I had watched them do, in person.

What that told me is that we all have a concept of what we think we would do in a particular situation, but that when placed in that situation our actions might be very different. It was a valuable lesson, and every person here should consider that despite a lot of chair flying, they may not act the way they'd ideally like to when placed into a certain situation.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I've noticed that we (PoA) as a community, and that includes me, tend to be very judgmental, and a thread that I started over a year ago really showed me that. In fact, people posted things on that thread that they would "never" do that I had watched them do, in person.

What that told me is that we all have a concept of what we think we would do in a particular situation, but that when placed in that situation our actions might be very different. It was a valuable lesson, and every person here should consider that despite a lot of chair flying, they may not act the way they'd ideally like to when placed into a certain situation.
Click to expand...
Amen! That certainly includes me! I sometimes do things that, if I could think about them sitting nice and safe in my office, I would think I'd never do! Casting the first stone and all that, donchaknow!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yes, when those people are coming from infinite different directions, because everyone's method of getting TO the standard is nonstandard. Did you not read the example I posted that just happened last night?
Click to expand...
Not that I recall. I have a lot of irons in the fire even on the days I'm not flying.
 
Straight Ins

KennyFlys said:
Which would be a good reason not to make straight-in approaches. Unless you're on an instrument approach, there's no reason for a straight-in. It violates the standards in the AIM and it's simply an unsafe move. Even if you are making a straight-in for an instrument approach, radio calls must still be made for the sake of those flying a standard pattern and a bit more often.
Click to expand...

Not only does it not violate the standards in the AIM, straight-ins are encouraged by the regulations. Read Deakin's AvWeb column which discusses the regulations: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html

Personally I have found in my 44 years of flying that straight-ins generally offer an increased level of safety to everyone in the pattern. First, exposure time for you and potentially conflicting traffic is absolutely minimized. Second, turns and turning descents are eliminated, and you can concentrate your traffic scan primarily in one area. Third, potentially conflicting aircraft will be oriented in a maximum visibility fashion for you, turning downwind to base and in profile, probably above or at worst at your altitude. Fourth, exposure to traffic departing the pattern in any direction is virtually eliminated.

Courtesy and common sense should always be used. The straight-in should begin more than 3 miles from the runway, with appropriate radio calls. There are traffic conditions which make the use of a straight-in inadvisable, but I find them the exception rather than the rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top