Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om...
[snipped]

You know, posting it four times, once in HTML, doesn't make incorrect
conclusions any more correct.

Well Peter, welcome to the wonderful world of using Google Groups to
post a
message.

I beleive that reasonable people will not disregard my point simply
because of the multiple posting. When the Google software did not
respond, I resumbitted it, because I felt my message was important. I
posted the message, not to change your position on this matter, but
to, hopefully, reach other pilots that would read the message.

Hobbes

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
A tower can make a pilot aware that there IS (rather than might be) an
airplane
somewhere over there in the ground clutter. It can even give the pilot an
idea
as to where.

It can also tell you that the airplane is a long way from where it actually
is (Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column recently related a fatal accident
caused by this very thing).

I have had tower controllers make all sorts of mistakes. If it weren't for
the fact that I already had a good mental picture of the situation, and had
visually identified the traffic prior to the tower's instructions, each of
those mistakes could easily have resulted in a fatal accident.

I like towered airports, and having a tower does solve a variety of
problems. But it is simply false to assume that mid-air collisions are
prevented by tower controllers. The accident rates don't bear that out.

Pete

No one is saying that a tower will prevent all mid-air collisions.
But, a tower does improve safety. You are misunderstanding the
accident rates. If the question is, is it safer to fly into GTU,
Georgetown Texas, non-towered, or into AUS, Austin, towered class C,
then, if the statistics supported it, you could argue that it is safer
to fly into a non-towered airport.

However, that is not the issue being discussed. The question is,
would the GTU airport be safer with a tower? When the FAA determines
that an airport will be safer, based on a number of factors, they
authorize a tower. The FAA
has done so. The FAA has realized that if the number of operations a
year is below a certain number, a tower will not improve safety enough
to justify a tower. After the number of operations reaches a given
threshold, they do realize that a tower will be justified. Average
number of operations per day is just one simple statistic. The number
of operations per day can vary widely based on the weather and the day
of the week. So, just looking at total number of operation a year
does not tell the whole picture. For that reason, the FAA does a
detailed study to determine the need for a tower.

You state that "the accident rates don't bear that out." I take this
to mean that there are more mid-airs at towered airports than at
non-towered airports. Do you actually think the total number of
mid-airs would go down if we got rid of all of the towered airports
that are not class C or class B?
I ask that question so that reasonable people will understand that it
is ridiculous to think that. It is just as ridiculous to think that
all mid-airs will be eliminated if all airports had towers.

For GTU, the question is more difficult. Will safety and other
operational considerations be improved enough to justify the expense
of a tower? Experienced pilots, FBO's on the field, and the FAA
believe the answer is yes. The anti-airport contingent don't want the
tower, because they feel it will further expand the airport and make
it more difficult to close.

Unfortunately, there is a group of pilots that are afraid of towered
operations. These are usually the pilots that trained at a
non-towered field and have simply never been trained in tower
operations. Most of these are good pilots, but some are a safety
issue. They fly into non-towered airports because their skills are
not up to the standards of towered operations.

There is also a group of pilots that were trained at a towered
airport. These pilots are afraid of non-towered operations. Most of
these are good pilots, but some are a safety issue because they depend
too much on having a tower tell them what to do and on radio
communication. They sometimes forget the importance of see and avoid.
The pilots are a danger at both towered and non-towered fields, but
it is less obvious at a towered airport.

Fly safe,
Hobbes

Peter Duniho wrote:

You might hope it would. But knowing about the other plane has not in the
past always prevented accidents. I don't see why it always would in the
future.


The infamous case of a PSA B727 running over a C-172 under the hood at
San Diego comes to mind.

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/78-09-25(PSA).asp

Despite this I think the odds are still better with a control tower,
however you still have to look!

Richard Russell wrote in message . ..

Amen. I have encountered more disturbing situations at towered fields
than I have at uncontrolled fields.


No doubt because towered fields tend to have more traffic than
uncontrolled fields.



When I say towered, they
invariably are Class D. It's not always the controllers fault as they
are dependent upon accurate position data from the pilots.


Some pilots are hoorribly inaccurate with position reports. Austin
approach provides IFR services to Georgetown, they're about 29 miles
away. If a tower was established at Georgetown it would probably be
equipped with a BRITE scope and feed from the Austin radar. That
would ease the position report problem.

wrote in message
om...
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
A tower can make a pilot aware that there IS (rather than might be) an
airplane
somewhere over there in the ground clutter. It can even give the
pilot an
idea
as to where.

It can also tell you that the airplane is a long way from where it
actually
is (Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column recently related a fatal
accident
caused by this very thing).

I have had tower controllers make all sorts of mistakes. If it weren't
for
the fact that I already had a good mental picture of the situation, and
had
visually identified the traffic prior to the tower's instructions, each
of
those mistakes could easily have resulted in a fatal accident.

I like towered airports, and having a tower does solve a variety of
problems. But it is simply false to assume that mid-air collisions are
prevented by tower controllers. The accident rates don't bear that out.

Pete

No one is saying that a tower will prevent all mid-air collisions.
But, a tower does improve safety.

Not saying it isn't true but I have not seen anything to support the fact
towers improve safety. Could you provide a reference especially regarding
class D airports. I can see it is probably true for class B and C but have
my doubts about Class D.

Thanks for mentioning where Bill is these days. I knew him when he was in
CA about 8 years ago, but lost track of him. We were both very active in Los Medicos Voladores
(Flying Doctors) flying medical teams to Mexico to provide free services. Great guy.
Max T, CFI

Jeff Meininger wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" writes:
"Nasir" wrote in message
. com...
[...]

The guy who wrote that account should
probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.


I should probably keep my mouth shut as I'm not even an official student
pilot yet... but the author of that account is Bill Eldredge, the chief
flight instructor at Wright Aviation (an FBO at GTU). I assume he knows
what he's talking about. Also, AFAIK, GTU has been trying to raise
money for a tower for a while now. I think they increased hangar rates
by a significant amount for just this reason.

Peter Duniho wrote:

Due to the additional failure modes, it could just
as
easily reduce the odds.

I'm not sure how you're seeing this. All additional failure modes are
independent of anything that exists w/o the tower. That is, any way that
the tower can fail has no impact on the "see & avoid" technique that would
be present with or without a tower.

At least, this is what I see. What do you see differently?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
[...]
I'm not sure how you're seeing this. All additional failure modes are
independent of anything that exists w/o the tower. That is, any way that
the tower can fail has no impact on the "see & avoid" technique that would
be present with or without a tower.

A tower failure mode can introduce a situation where a pilot who would
otherwise have been more diligent about "see & avoid" might wind up relaxing
their efforts, resulting in a crash. Mid-airs in Class D airspace very
likely almost always involve at least to some degree this effect.

The failure modes are NOT independent.

Pete

"Nasir" wrote in message . com...
There was a midair at Georgetown yesterday. Apparently two planes were on
final and landed on top of each other. Both pilots had injuries but both
survived.

Anyone know more details on this? Was it lack of radio communication ..did
they just not announce positions or something else was involved?

-Nasir


A very similar accident few years ago in Mascouche (near Montreal)
Canada...

Here's the link to the report
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...0/a97q0250.asp

Best wishes for both pilots involved.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...And the Diamond pilot was walking around????

I toured their factory last year...and took note of the
seating structure that they said would not collapse under the
occupant/pilot..

Kinda looks like they got it right, at least in this case...

Dave


On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:44:27 GMT, "Nasir"
wrote:

"Jeff Meininger" wrote in message


Folks,

What we have been talking about, and fearing happened this afternoon at the
Georgetown airport. I was taxiing to the run-up area near runway 18 when I
saw a Diamond Star on short final. Then all of a sudden I saw a yellow and
blue Extra sport plane approaching fast from short left base to final. He
was higher and slipping down from behind as they usually do. At first I
could not believe my eyes. It looked like the Extra sport plane was going to
go around, or over the Diamond and then they collided about 50 feet in the
air. Both planes spun around in the air and landed on the runway. The
Diamond spun in and landed on its nose then settled on its mains. The Extra
did a flat spin and hit hard on the runway. It happened so fast. I don't
recall hearing any radio calls prior to the collision. Anyway, we stopped in
the run-up area and I got out and ran over to the wreckage on the runway.
The pilot of the Diamond was walking around in a daze and the Extra pilot
was laying on his back on the runway. When I got to him, he was in pain and
complaining about his back. He kept saying that he never saw the other
plane. We calmed him down until emergency personnel came. EMS, Fire
Department, DPS and Police were there in a very short time. The news media
was also there as usual.