Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision

Jeff Meininger ) wrote:

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.

There have been more than a few fatal midair collisions at towered
airports. A tower will not prevent a MAC. If Mr. Eldredge is really the
chief CFI (which I accept from your comment), then he should know that.

If you need proof, go to the NTSB aviation accident site and search for
midair crashes. Two notable accidents that come immediately to my mind
since I began flying in March of 2002 are the fatal MAC at Caldwell, NJ
and Carlsbad, CA.

--
Peter

"David Megginson" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
Could the problem be fixed by overhauling VFR pattern procedures? For
example, require all VFR aircraft to join the pattern the same way at
uncontrolled airports, rather than allowing them to come in from all
different directions. You seem to have a *lot* of midair collisions in
the
pattern in the U.S.

I doubt that the number of midairs here, adjusted for traffic density, is a
heck of a lot different from the rate found elsewhere, including Canada.

As for this particular accident, since the Extra was on base turning final,
I don't see how mandating a standard entry would have avoided this accident.
Nothing about the report suggests that either of the involved planes
*didn't* use the preferred 45-degree standard entry.

Pete

I have been in the pattern at a "controlled" field where the controller
issued instructions for a plane "behind me" in the patter to start base from
downwind while I was on final. We would have collided. Neither the
controller nor the other pilot had the situational awareness needed to stop
a collision. Thankfully I did.

Control towers are not always the answer.


"Nasir" wrote in message
. com...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Nasir" wrote in message
. com...
[...]
Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The
traffic
is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a
tower.
We
all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy.

Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had
looked
out for traffic already on final. 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.

Pete

Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit
yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already. This
accident could have also been avoided if both pilots had made position
reports. Since that is not a requirement, a control tower would have also
prevented this miscommunication (or lack of communication) based accident.
I
think thats what the guy meant.

-Nasir

There were two aircraft involved - not just one. Apparently no radios were
involved. I would not place the blame on one pilot.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Nasir" wrote in message
. com...
Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit
yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already.

For an FAA control tower, simple being "a very busy field" is
insufficient.
We have several "very busy fields" in the Washington Puget Sound area --
Arlington, Harvey Field in Snohomish, and Bremerton to name a few -- but
none are busy enough to justify a control tower, even though at those
airports on clear days "its [sic] an excersize [sic] to fit yourself into
the pattern".

As with many accidents, there are a number of things that COULD have
prevented the accident. But that doesn't mean that all of those things
should be implemented. After all, the accident could have been prevented
by
shutting down the airport. I doubt the folks there want that to happen,
right?

The real problem is that the pilot of the Extra wasn't paying attention to
the airspace in front of him. Trying to use this accident as an excuse to
build a control tower makes no more sense than if the neighbors tried to
use
the accident as an excuse to shut down the airport.

Pete

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
. net...
There were two aircraft involved - not just one.

The firsthand report unequivocably puts the pilot of the Extra as being at
fault.

Apparently no radios were involved.

Radios are a useful tool, as an addition to the normal see-and-avoid. Lack
of use of the radios in no way shows fault on either pilot's part.

I would not place the blame on one pilot.

Your choice. But I would.

Pete

Richard Hertz wrote:

I would not place the blame on one pilot.

I would. It's clearly the fault of the pilot of the Extra.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Peter R. wrote in message ...

There have been more than a few fatal midair collisions at towered
airports. A tower will not prevent a MAC. If Mr. Eldredge is really the
chief CFI (which I accept from your comment), then he should know that.


The last few midairs we had in my area were both at towered airports.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

If you need proof, go to the NTSB aviation accident site and search for
midair crashes. Two notable accidents that come immediately to my mind
since I began flying in March of 2002 are the fatal MAC at Caldwell, NJ
and Carlsbad, CA.

My friend was the pilot of the Mooney at the Carlsbad accident. I keep
track of that NTSB report and now a year and a half later it is still
not closed and marked as preliminary. In that prelim report, apparently
the tower told both pilots that a plane is headed in their direction.
So a tower can't prevent any collision but they certainly help the
organization of that traffic.

One time in the pattern at SQL (San Carlos, CA), a mooney pilot
which I presume is someone with more than 41 hours total time couldn't
make a radio call to save his life (or anyone elses). I was in the
pattern and he buzzed off. 10 minutes later he comes back was told
to report at a local VFR point. I told my instructor "Oh ****. he's
back." Well sure enough he doesn't repot and buzzes onto final
and almost lands on another plane. He is told to go "climb to 1200
and circle the airport for spacing." Well he climbs to 800 (pattern
altitude), does one circle and buzzes into the pattern. My heart
was racing as I was watching/listening to this happen. when the
accident almost happened, I told my CFI, "you watch that asshole.
I'll keep an eye on the traffic in front of me." Towers won't
prevent anything but they certainly can help.

On my PPL checkride everyone and their mother was out flying (12/17/03).
I did my engine out landing at TCY (Tracy, CA). A 172 (?, a 4-seater
high-wing) was holding short of the runway and despite our radio
calls he positioned himself right on the numbers and held. No radio,
no looking. I was slow enough and far enough out that it did not
pose a major problem although I was maybe 5 seconds from going around
despite my "engine failure." I'm sure the DE would have been cool
with that but still, just unneeded pressure on the checkride
and unneeded excitement on final at any time. Again, a tower would
have helped a lot as they wouldn't have been cleared onto the runway
(well hopefully).

Gerald

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Nasir" wrote in message
. com...
[...]
Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The
traffic
is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower. We
all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy.

Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had looked
out for traffic already on final. 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.

Pete

The pilot that gave the first hand report knows that the number of
operations determines whether the airport can get a control tower.
GTU is estimated to have 100,000 take off and landings a year. (As
reported in the local paper.)
The FAA agreed to fund 50% of the tower in 2001. The pilots wanted
the tower to improve safety at the airport. The people who live near
the airport did not want the tower to be built because they thought it
would cause the airport to expand even more than it has. Because two
local airports (about 20 miles away) were shutdown, GTU has grown
faster then expected.
The anti airport people in the area would like to have the airport
closed. Since the decision to not build the tower in 2001, the
airshow was canceled after a Stearman crashed into a house during the
airshow in 2002. Since then, there has been a twin that landed in the
houses north of the airport. That was
in July of 2003. (The NTSB prel doesn't even get the location of the
accident correct.) In April of this year, a plane had to land on the
frontage road of I-35 near the airport, fortunately no one was hurt.
Now this.
One city official stated on TV that the FAA will now do a 90%
funded control tower at the airport.
GTU now has three flight training schools, teaching private,
instrument, commercial, multiengine, flight instructor, and
helicopters. In addition, it has a number of turbo prop and jets
based out of there. Add to that the army doing practice approaches,
formation flying, and some acrobatics based out of there. That means
that you have new students who think there is only one way to fly a
pattern, a large number of instrument students flying approaches and
the normal number of pilots with attitudes and lack of situational
awareness. For example, it is not a good idea to do a midfield
crossing into the pattern when another plane is doing an instrument
approach that will probably end in a missed approach procedure. It is
not a good idea to practice hovering upwind from the favored runway.
It is not a good idea to land on 11 when everyone else is landing on
18. So yes, in some ways GTU was an accident waiting to happen, and
it has.
It is fine to say that people should have been using their radios
and should have been looking for the other planes. But, until you
have been there, being a Monday quarterback is always easy and it is
easy to blame someone you don't know. I've heard it on these
newsgroups, with people assuming that only inexperienced pilots will
use the rudder to try to turn the plane on base to final. Pilots have
to learn that these things can happen to experienced pilots as well as
inexperienced pilots. I can't make any comments about what was done
correctly or incorrectly in this situation, because I wasn't there,
and like the rest of you, I don't know all of the details.
So, for those of you that do not fly out of the GTU airport, you
have the luxury of arguing that the building of control towers are a
function of the number of ops, not the number of accidents. You have
the luxury of arguing about the merits of radio calls vs. see and
avoid. You have the luxury of arguing about how to enter the traffic
pattern. You have the luxury of arguing about whether a towered
airport is safer than a nontowered airport. Unfortunately the pilots
at GTU no longer have that luxury. They have to figure out how to
have a safe airport amidst a growing group of citizens that would like
to shut down the airport.

Hobbes

The interesting thing about planes you don't see is that you don't
really know how many of them you haven't seen.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

I would not place the blame on one pilot.

Your choice. But I would.

Pete

FAR 91.113 (g)
Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and
is attempting to
make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft
are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at
the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take
advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final
approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.


One problem I see is a lot of pilots don't like to use the radios.
They would rather fly 50 miles out of thier way than call a class B
controller and ask permission to fly through their airspace.

Another problem with uncontrolled fields is when someone is practicing
instrument approaches. For instance, if someone is using the localizer
approach doing a straight into the landing runway and gives position
reports like "Georgetown traffic, Cessna xxxxx, final for runway 26
VOR-A". To a non-IFR pilot this gives them little information.

My final pet peeve is pilots (at least around here) that don't like to
talk to other pilots that are in the same traffic pattern (at a
uncontrolled field). Most of the time these pilots make position
reports but then "turn off their ears" while they complete landing
checklists. If I'm in the pattern with another pilot that has just
made a position report, I like to say "OK 38Alpha, I have you in
sight" or "38Alpha, we are both 3 miles out from the airport for
runway 26 and I don't see you. I'll slow down a little and let you
join the pattern. Please let me know when your established on downwind
than I'll enter the 45 for downwind for runway 26". This establishes
a two way dialogue with the other pilot and he/she will then be more
likely to "remember" there is another plane near them.

As for Farmer Joe that won't use his radio cause he hasen't seen
another aircraft in the past hour is a lost cause.