How not to Taxi and or land-

Bill wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/05/15/vo.plane.lands.on.plane.wfaa
>
> Was that you Dallas?
>
> Bill
>
>

Not on the ground, but we had a fatal accident at an airfield near where
I live a few years back. Two pilots on VFR same heading right above each
other, the one above descends and hits the lower one. No way they could
see each other. VFR can be dangerous.


T.
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

"Ray Roberts" <rayr08057.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nMidncGdz5a6yrLVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> The Piper that was on final had the right of way, but don't be too quick
> to blame the pilot of the departing aircraft! With tall trees close to the
> arrival end of the runway, it's possible the pilot of the red airplane did
> all the right things, including a making clearing turn, but wasn't able to
> see the Piper. This would be the case if the Piper pilot was "dragging it
> in", i.e. making a shallow or level approach, flying just over the
> tree-tops. It's an all-too-common mistake. In this case, by the time the
> Piper passed the trees, the departure end of the runway (and the departing
> aircraft below) may have been beneath the nose of his airplane and
> impossible to see.
> Proper radio calls by both aircraft can prevent this kind of mishap, but
> here in the USA, a radio is not required at non-towered airports and it's
> common for small aircraft not to have one.
> So this incident might turn out to be be a graphic illustration of why
> it's important for landing aircraft to avoid flat approaches that prevent
> the landing zone from being clearly visible (and prevent landing aircraft
> from being visible to pilots waiting to take off).
>
> We had the same tall-tree problem at our local municipal airport and it
> caused some close calls that I witnessed. Thankfully the municipality has
> now purchased the adjoining property and removed the trees.

The Cherokee had a student pilot and instructor on board and made all the
calls in the pattern.

I've departed north from that airport many times. The proper thing to do is
just sit and wait at the departure end until you're sure there is no
aircraft behind the trees. There's about a 1/2 mile blind spot, so for even
a slow aircraft with a headwind you're only talking about waiting 30
seconds. The Stinson was based out of that airport and should have known
better, but certainly the airport itself deserves some of the blame for not
doing anything about the trees.









>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" <nospam.DeleteThis@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:smEXj.5953$IK5.3250@trnddc04...
>> "TOCA" <Not.DeleteThis@valid.com> wrote in message
>> news:482efee5$0$56794$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>
>>> "Mike" <nospam.DeleteThis@microsoft.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>> news:mgoXj.1241$dh.226@trnddc05...
>>>>
>>>> Landing north, that particular runway has a displaced threshold with
>>>> trees very close to the end of the runway. It would have been all but
>>>> impossible for the Cherokee to land on the Stinson unless the Stinson
>>>> was on his takeoff roll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sounds about right, they must both have been at about the same speed, at
>>> impact, or one of them would have been more damaged /
>>>
>>> Imagine all the things that had to fit here, for this accident not to be
>>> fatal, or not happening at all /
>>>
>>> Had one of the two pilots been just 2 seconds late, it would have been a
>>> whole different story, 25 seconds and nothing would have happened. I
>>> know, the difference between accidents and nothing unusual is a split
>>> second decision /
>>>
>>> But I'm still a bit freaked out about the look of it, theoretically it
>>> is not possible to do this, only thing missing from making it totally
>>> freaked, would have been for the Cherokee to stand on its wheels on top
>>> of the red planes wings )
>>
>> That particular airport is VERY busy. By traffic count, it is the 1st
>> busiest single runway airport in the metroplex. It's also uncontrolled.
>> The problems with the trees at the south end have been noted for years.
>> There have been numerous close calls with the same symptoms. Those
>> reasons and other mismanagement issues are why I don't fly out of that
>> airport anymore.
>>
>> There's really nothing freakish about the accident. It was the classic
>> low wing on top, high wing on bottom collision. It could have been
>> easily prevented by simply taking care of the trees on the south end. I
>> wasn't all that surprised by the accident. I'm just glad nobody got hurt
>> and I hope they learn from the experience and fix the problems at that
>> airport.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:51:13 +0200, TOCA wrote:

> But I'm still a bit freaked out about the look of it, theoretically it is
> not possible to do this,

And yet it happens all the time:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Dallas52/Dallas/Mating2.jpg
--
Dallas
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:10:33 +0200, Tom P wrote:

> Two pilots on VFR same heading right above each
> other, the one above descends and hits the lower one. No way they could
> see each other. VFR can be dangerous.

The first fatalities at my airport were a (low wing) Mooney landing on top
of a (high wing) Cessna 172.

The guys in the Cessna lived, the couple in the Mooney weren't so lucky.



--
Dallas
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

"Dallas" <Cybnorm.RemoveThis@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:12uv4pgd6gpzx$.n0yp5n2b3b2a$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:51:13 +0200, TOCA wrote:
>
>> But I'm still a bit freaked out about the look of it, theoretically it is
>> not possible to do this,
>
> And yet it happens all the time:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Dallas52/Dallas/Mating2.jpg
> --
> Dallas

That's probably the smoothest landing the Cherokee pilot ever made.
Cessna should use that pic to show how rugged their landing gear is.

The strange thing is that if you look behind the right wheel and tail
of the Cessna, the gouges on the ground only appear to be about
3 - 4 feet long.

ID
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

"Tom P" <notreallylgogp DeleteThis @freenet.de> wrote in message
news:698ot8F3224mmU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bill wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/05/15/vo.plane.lands.on.plane.wfaa
>>
>> Was that you Dallas?
>>
>> Bill
>
> Not on the ground, but we had a fatal accident at an airfield near where I
> live a few years back. Two pilots on VFR same heading right above each
> other, the one above descends and hits the lower one. No way they could
> see each other. VFR can be dangerous.

Most collisions are within a half mile of an airport, and often happen in
VMC severe clear conditions.

I've flown in aircraft that have true TCAS systems and the airplane I fly
the most has TIS-B. It's very nice technology to have.
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

"TOCA" <Not RemoveThis @valid.com> wrote in message
news:482efee5$0$56794$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Mike" <nospam RemoveThis @microsoft.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:mgoXj.1241$dh.226@trnddc05...
>>
>> Landing north, that particular runway has a displaced threshold with
>> trees very close to the end of the runway. It would have been all but
>> impossible for the Cherokee to land on the Stinson unless the Stinson was
>> on his takeoff roll.
>>
>>
> Sounds about right, they must both have been at about the same speed, at
> impact, or one of them would have been more damaged /
>
> Imagine all the things that had to fit here, for this accident not to be
> fatal, or not happening at all /
>
> Had one of the two pilots been just 2 seconds late, it would have been a
> whole different story, 25 seconds and nothing would have happened. I know,
> the difference between accidents and nothing unusual is a split second
> decision /
>
> But I'm still a bit freaked out about the look of it, theoretically it is
> not possible to do this,

Why not? It has certainly happened before.

Al G
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

Right you are Mike. I guess I should have said that I feel more
comfortable flying into a towered airport, Class C or Class D. I realize
that accidents can still happen there, and I still keep my neck on a swivel
when I am the pattern at a controlled airport. But I feel more comfortable
knowing that everyone at least has a radio, and that everyone is at least on
the same frequency, and that the control tower is at least making an attempt
at keeping everyone organized. Also, tower and approach controllers are
trained for traffic separation and at least make an attempt to keep everyone
out of each others way. But controllers can make mistakes too. I once had a
control tower operator give me instructions for a landing pattern that would
have taken right into the approach corridor of another runway. When I
pointed this out to him, he realized his mistake and amended the
instructions. But you are correct, "see and avoid" is still the best rule
whenever you are in an airport environment, whether it is a towered airport
or an uncontrolled airport.

Randy L.
--
Remember: Any landing that you can walk away from,
is a landing that you can be fined, sued, or prosecuted for.

"Mike" <nospam RemoveThis @microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4qEXj.5954$IK5.4818@trnddc04...
> The accident mentioned by the OP is on an airport that falls under the
> veil of a TRACON and it didn't help any. Towers help tremendously for
> busy airports, but controllers can still kill you. See and avoid is still
> the rule at VFR towered fields.
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

"RandyL" <rlink RemoveThis @cableone.net> wrote in message
news:fsydnTi-c_I4RK_VnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com...
> Right you are Mike. I guess I should have said that I feel more
> comfortable flying into a towered airport, Class C or Class D. I realize
> that accidents can still happen there, and I still keep my neck on a
> swivel when I am the pattern at a controlled airport. But I feel more
> comfortable knowing that everyone at least has a radio, and that everyone
> is at least on the same frequency, and that the control tower is at least
> making an attempt at keeping everyone organized. Also, tower and approach
> controllers are trained for traffic separation and at least make an
> attempt to keep everyone out of each others way. But controllers can make
> mistakes too. I once had a control tower operator give me instructions for
> a landing pattern that would have taken right into the approach corridor
> of another runway. When I pointed this out to him, he realized his mistake
> and amended the instructions. But you are correct, "see and avoid" is
> still the best rule whenever you are in an airport environment, whether it
> is a towered airport or an uncontrolled airport.

It just so happens I flew into the airport in question today (52F) to eat
lunch at the cafe on the field. I figured it wouldn't be too busy today
since it's not the weekend. When I arrived there were two aircraft in the
pattern, myself, and another plane trying to do a straight in approach.
Neither of the two other aircraft entered the pattern per the AIM. One flew
over mid-field at pattern altitude and made a left turn to the downwind.
The other flew over mid-field probably 300-400' above pattern altitude and
made a diving left turn into the downwind. The guy trying to do a straight
in approach didn't see anyone in the pattern (everyone was making all their
calls) and annoyingly kept asking for position reports. He was about a
couple of miles out when I turned final and finally decided to go around
and follow the pattern in.

When I left, the wind sock showed a 90 degree crosswind and 3 guys were on
the ground taxiing and arguing on the CTAF about which direction should be
the "active" runway. Fortunately I blasted off and got out of the airport
area before any of those jokers made it into the air.

All of this is just the typical daily occurrences at that airport and it
turns into a circus on the weekends. I dearly love low traffic uncontrolled
airports, but here in the metroplex, I'm glad I fly out of a controlled
field.









>
> Randy L.
> --
> Remember: Any landing that you can walk away from,
> is a landing that you can be fined, sued, or prosecuted for.
>
> "Mike" <nospam RemoveThis @microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4qEXj.5954$IK5.4818@trnddc04...
>> The accident mentioned by the OP is on an airport that falls under the
>> veil of a TRACON and it didn't help any. Towers help tremendously for
>> busy airports, but controllers can still kill you. See and avoid is
>> still the rule at VFR towered fields.
>
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

"Mike" <nospam RemoveThis @microsoft.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:RQGYj.1249$ah.919@trnddc06...
> "RandyL" <rlink RemoveThis @cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:fsydnTi-c_I4RK_VnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> When I left, the wind sock showed a 90 degree crosswind and 3 guys were on
> the ground taxiing and arguing on the CTAF about which direction should be
> the "active" runway. Fortunately I blasted off and got out of the airport
> area before any of those jokers made it into the air.
>
Maybe a special license is needed for non controlled fields?

Isn't it a bit late to decide which RW to use, after you have started
taxiing?

Tommy C, Denmark
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:50:57 GMT, Mike wrote:

> When I left, the wind sock showed a 90 degree crosswind and 3 guys were on
> the ground taxiing and arguing on the CTAF about which direction should be
> the "active" runway.

Yeah, that's a nasty situation when it happens, both directions for take
off become valid.

When I was a student practicing landings the wind became light and
variable. I was in the pattern for a landing on 35. At that moment a
Citation came blasting in on 17. The wind was out of the north and it made
his landing roll long, so he called a go around, poured the coal to it
taking off into the landing traffic.

As a student, that's some scary stuff.


--
Dallas
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:46:12 +0200, TOCA wrote:

> Maybe a special license is needed for non controlled fields?

I'm thinking they should declare and publish a default pattern direction
for non-towered airports.

When the wind is 90°or calm you default to a predetermined pattern
direction.

--
Dallas
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land- 

"Dallas" <Cybnorm.DeleteThis@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:vmqkl2w8kp8m.11cyd174zrkk0$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:46:12 +0200, TOCA wrote:
>
>> Maybe a special license is needed for non controlled fields?
>
> I'm thinking they should declare and publish a default pattern direction
> for non-towered airports.
>
> When the wind is 90°or calm you default to a predetermined pattern
> direction.
>
> --
> Dallas

In an ideal world, there would be posters all over such airports telling
which way to go if and when, and the penalty for doing othervice.

But then the "free spirits" would have no place to go flying, and would
start crying about tight restrictions and government dictatorship /

In my fantasy world all registered airfields have flight patterns for all
directions and magnitudes of wind, and standardized regulations for just
about every thing but the price for beer in the nearest pub )

Tommy C, Denmark
Still planning his Utopia
 >> Stay informed about: How not to Taxi and or land-