A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Towplane-Baron accident



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 3rd 18, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Towplane-Baron accident

Your reply was cut off, and I definitely want to hear the rest of the story..

I found the court's account quite educational from a safety standpoint, yet riveting from a personal standpoint. Reading through the court's account of how to decide the pre-impact pain and suffering--the thoughts and feelings that must have been in their minds those few seconds--sent a chill down my spine.

I'm sorry for all involved. What a tragedy.

Troy
  #32  
Old June 3rd 18, 04:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Towplane-Baron accident

Sorry, must have prematurely hit the send button...

Continued:

....and thus KLGC was obligated to support all forms of aviation activity.

For decades, LaGrange, GA, was the ad hoc headquarters for the regional textile manufacturing business, that had all but been transferred overseas by the early 2000s. In its heyday, however, it was not uncommon for KLGC to have corporate bizjet sorties, along with the traffic conflicts that mixing jets and gliders periodically causes. The money, politics, and power wielded by the local textile companies continuously caused the glider flying to be considered as an undesirable nuisance at best and a safety threat at worst.

The glider club's stance that it had a right to operate at KLGC on an equal basis with every other aviation activity caused the airport authority to hire an aviation attorney. The lawyer counseled the airport authority that glider flying at KLGC could not be restricted.

That should have been the end of story. Yet, from this the airport aurhority enacted a set of glider operating rules (still posted at the KLGC website) to include the requirement for a "spotter" to be stationed at the intersection of the runways to verify there was no conflicting traffic prior to a towplane/glider launch. In essence, causing a degree of traffic pattern control at a FAA designated uncontrolled airport, to be done by an untrained/unqualified person. A usurpation of FAA standardized uncontrolled airport operating procedures and confusing established inflight right-of-way rules..

An public airport authority cannot mandate anything that is contrary to FAA regulations, and has no "authority" to enact any rules of flight. In essence, the KLGC airport authority attempted to introduce a degree of traffic pattern control at a designated uncontrolled airport to be performed by an untrained/unqualified person. This usurps FAA standardized uncontrolled airport operating procedures and confuses right-of-way rules.

A few other points to consider: 1) One airport authority board member would frequently attempt to control the traffic pattern using the CTAF, 2) Another board member is a local real estate broker with listings to sell vacated textile warehouses on the airport premises. At the time, KLGC was in the running for the KIA auto production plant eventually built in nearby West Point, GA, 3) Ironically, the airport authority had used glider sorties to count towards the traffic numbers it needed to procure federal funding, 4) ANY aviation activity utilizing the non-ILS runway had the potential to create a flight conflict at the intersecting runways; however, only the glider operators had to post a "spotter"?

IMO, the "legal" judgment ignores the fact that 1) Codefied FAA regulations clearly mandate that IF there was a flight conflict at, or near, intersecting runways, that the powered aircraft is supposed to give way to the towplane/glider combination, and 2) A public airport authority's "authority" is limited. A local airport authority cannot enact rules affecting flight operation--only the FAA can do that. Attempting to do so confuses universally applicable standard operating procedures to the detriment of the very flight safety those universal procedure were enacted to ensure.

I do hope the government's defense attorney made these points in court.

In hindsight, perhaps the glider club and the CAP should have pooled their resources to formally invalidate the unauthorized, conflictive local operating rules. Ignoring such a circumstance, no matter how obviously obtuse such local airport rules are to an aviator's sense of regulatory "legality", may have nonsensical consequences in an ill adept court of law.

Ray Cornay







  #33  
Old June 4th 18, 12:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Towplane-Baron accident

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...crashes-n36371

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 8:37:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Sorry, must have prematurely hit the send button...

Continued:

...and thus KLGC was obligated to support all forms of aviation activity.

For decades, LaGrange, GA, was the ad hoc headquarters for the regional textile manufacturing business, that had all but been transferred overseas by the early 2000s. In its heyday, however, it was not uncommon for KLGC to have corporate bizjet sorties, along with the traffic conflicts that mixing jets and gliders periodically causes. The money, politics, and power wielded by the local textile companies continuously caused the glider flying to be considered as an undesirable nuisance at best and a safety threat at worst.

The glider club's stance that it had a right to operate at KLGC on an equal basis with every other aviation activity caused the airport authority to hire an aviation attorney. The lawyer counseled the airport authority that glider flying at KLGC could not be restricted.

That should have been the end of story. Yet, from this the airport aurhority enacted a set of glider operating rules (still posted at the KLGC website) to include the requirement for a "spotter" to be stationed at the intersection of the runways to verify there was no conflicting traffic prior to a towplane/glider launch. In essence, causing a degree of traffic pattern control at a FAA designated uncontrolled airport, to be done by an untrained/unqualified person. A usurpation of FAA standardized uncontrolled airport operating procedures and confusing established inflight right-of-way rules.

An public airport authority cannot mandate anything that is contrary to FAA regulations, and has no "authority" to enact any rules of flight. In essence, the KLGC airport authority attempted to introduce a degree of traffic pattern control at a designated uncontrolled airport to be performed by an untrained/unqualified person. This usurps FAA standardized uncontrolled airport operating procedures and confuses right-of-way rules.

A few other points to consider: 1) One airport authority board member would frequently attempt to control the traffic pattern using the CTAF, 2) Another board member is a local real estate broker with listings to sell vacated textile warehouses on the airport premises. At the time, KLGC was in the running for the KIA auto production plant eventually built in nearby West Point, GA, 3) Ironically, the airport authority had used glider sorties to count towards the traffic numbers it needed to procure federal funding, 4) ANY aviation activity utilizing the non-ILS runway had the potential to create a flight conflict at the intersecting runways; however, only the glider operators had to post a "spotter"?

IMO, the "legal" judgment ignores the fact that 1) Codefied FAA regulations clearly mandate that IF there was a flight conflict at, or near, intersecting runways, that the powered aircraft is supposed to give way to the towplane/glider combination, and 2) A public airport authority's "authority" is limited. A local airport authority cannot enact rules affecting flight operation--only the FAA can do that. Attempting to do so confuses universally applicable standard operating procedures to the detriment of the very flight safety those universal procedure were enacted to ensure.

I do hope the government's defense attorney made these points in court.

In hindsight, perhaps the glider club and the CAP should have pooled their resources to formally invalidate the unauthorized, conflictive local operating rules. Ignoring such a circumstance, no matter how obviously obtuse such local airport rules are to an aviator's sense of regulatory "legality", may have nonsensical consequences in an ill adept court of law.

Ray Cornay


  #34  
Old June 4th 18, 02:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Towplane-Baron accident

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:26:19 AM UTC+12, wrote:
Your reply was cut off, and I definitely want to hear the rest of the story.

I found the court's account quite educational from a safety standpoint, yet riveting from a personal standpoint. Reading through the court's account of how to decide the pre-impact pain and suffering--the thoughts and feelings that must have been in their minds those few seconds--sent a chill down my spine.

I'm sorry for all involved. What a tragedy.


I'm quite troubled that the court ruled it's too much to expect a licensed pilot to be able to successfully execute a go-around without stalling and crashing.
  #35  
Old June 4th 18, 03:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Towplane-Baron accident

I am with Bruce.
Go arounds/balked landings are part of flying, trained reguarly. All very sad but the main cause of the accident was not the tow combination being in the way although it was a factor.
Tom
  #36  
Old June 4th 18, 04:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Towplane-Baron accident

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:55:00 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:26:19 AM UTC+12, wrote:
Your reply was cut off, and I definitely want to hear the rest of the story.

I found the court's account quite educational from a safety standpoint, yet riveting from a personal standpoint. Reading through the court's account of how to decide the pre-impact pain and suffering--the thoughts and feelings that must have been in their minds those few seconds--sent a chill down my spine.

I'm sorry for all involved. What a tragedy.


I'm quite troubled that the court ruled it's too much to expect a licensed pilot to be able to successfully execute a go-around without stalling and crashing.


The decision was assignment of liability for the accident's cause, not a test of the deceased pilot's emergency responses. The judge considered this and rejected it. What it boiled down to is the Baron had the right-of-way. It is like someone ran a red light and you hit him. The other guy can argue that you might not have hit him if you had swerved, or applied your brakes sooner and more aggressively, but he will lose in court.

Tom
  #37  
Old June 4th 18, 05:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default Towplane-Baron accident

It's dangerous to speculate on a situation like this so I'll just pose a few questions, recognizing that some will conclude I'm looking for a way to assign blame. I'm not.

1. Does it make sense that the airport-authority-required spotter's primary reason was to watch for powered aircraft taking off on the cross runway? Wouldn't landing aircraft (like the Baron) be visible to the glider launch crew? Or are the sight lines that restricted there?
2. The Court mentioned the Baron was making a simulated instrument approach.. The Baron pilot was well acquainted with the airport and the glider operation located there. Does a simulated instrument approach mean he was probably "under the hood" and therefore unable to scan the cross runway on final for possible glider traffic as he might otherwise have done? Since he was apparently not operating under an IFR flight plan, should there have been a safety pilot watching for conflicts? The co-pilot was a CFI but apparently disqualified for medical reasons.

Very sad situation, for everyone involved.

Chip Bearden
  #38  
Old June 4th 18, 07:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Towplane-Baron accident

All:

KLGC has been an uncontrolled airport with intersecting runways for many, many decades.
My understanding is at least as far back as a WW2 training base.

Aircraft operation from Rwy 3 have good line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31.

Due to the prevailing winds and runway length, power traffic typically uses Rwy 31.
So as not to congest the approach end of the "primary" runway, gliders typically operated from Rwy 21.
Aircraft departing from Rwy 21 do not have line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31; hence, justification for a local rule to require an "agent" to be stationed at the intersection to advise "that no apparent traffic conflict will be involved".
See: http://www.lagrangeairport.com/Home/Rules_Regulations

As I previously pointed, non-glider related aircraft utilizing Rwy 21 have the same inability to see the approach end of Rwy 31, but the airport rule does not require an "agent" to advise in such a case.

Furthermore, since an aircraft departing Rwy 3 has good line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31, the need for an agent to advise Rwy 3 glider ops is moot.

Regarding determination of right-of-way:

It is unclear to me from the court documents what phase of flight the Baron was at the intersection.

If the Baron was still on the ground from a touch and go, then it was still in the landing phase and thus had the right of way.
However, if the Baron was still on the ground by the intersection, that left precious little runway remaining to intiate a takeoff from that point.
The intersection of Rwy 31 & 3 is ~4000' from the approach end of Rwy 31.

If, as it seems from all accounts, the Baron was airborne at the intersection (~4000' from the approach end of Rwy 31), either from a go around, low approach, or touch and go, then the pilot probably wasn't intending to land within the remaining ~1500 of runway. The Baron was arguably no longer in the landing phase and, if a conflict with another airborne aircraft developed, standard right of way rules should have applied.

If auch an airborne conflict did occur at the intersection, standards dictate the less manuverable aircraft, being the tow plane with glider in tow, had the right of way.

IMO, there is too many specifics not known to be adamant about the Baron having the right of way.

My take, from the reports, is that the situation was not one of two airborne aircraft converging. Consequently, in flight right of way standards don't apply.

My take, from the reports, is that the cause of the crash is that the pilot of the Baron failed to maintain aircraft control. Other factors may be deemed contributory, but not causal. The only way the towplane could have caused the Baron to crash is if the towplane had impacted it. That did not happen.

The fact that a court of law can make an adamant ruling about the "cause" an aircraft accident, and assign liability therefom, without its discovery including an accurate determination about phase of flight, should concern every aviator, regardless of what type of aircraft they operate.

The fact that a local, political-appointed airport authority whose board members, who may or may not have flight training/experience, can independently institute rules specific to "their" public airport that conflict with FAA regulations but, nevertheless, will be used against you in a court of law should concern every aviator, regardless of what type of aircraft they operate.

Ray Cornay




  #39  
Old June 5th 18, 02:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Towplane-Baron accident

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:40:11 AM UTC+12, wrote:
All:

KLGC has been an uncontrolled airport with intersecting runways for many, many decades.
My understanding is at least as far back as a WW2 training base.

Aircraft operation from Rwy 3 have good line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31.

Due to the prevailing winds and runway length, power traffic typically uses Rwy 31.
So as not to congest the approach end of the "primary" runway, gliders typically operated from Rwy 21.
Aircraft departing from Rwy 21 do not have line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31; hence, justification for a local rule to require an "agent" to be stationed at the intersection to advise "that no apparent traffic conflict will be involved".
See: http://www.lagrangeairport.com/Home/Rules_Regulations

As I previously pointed, non-glider related aircraft utilizing Rwy 21 have the same inability to see the approach end of Rwy 31, but the airport rule does not require an "agent" to advise in such a case.

Furthermore, since an aircraft departing Rwy 3 has good line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31, the need for an agent to advise Rwy 3 glider ops is moot.

Regarding determination of right-of-way:

It is unclear to me from the court documents what phase of flight the Baron was at the intersection.

If the Baron was still on the ground from a touch and go, then it was still in the landing phase and thus had the right of way.
However, if the Baron was still on the ground by the intersection, that left precious little runway remaining to intiate a takeoff from that point.
The intersection of Rwy 31 & 3 is ~4000' from the approach end of Rwy 31.


I got the impression the Baron never made it as far as the intersection, and didn't overfly either the intersection or the runway the glider&towplane were on before impact.

Official landing distance for a Baron is 2490 ft (from 50') with 1440 ft ground roll. You'd think from a reasonably normal approach stopping within 4000 ft of the threshold shouldn't be an issue even if not planning a maximum performance stop. Takeoff performance (at gross weight of course) is actually a shorter distance: 1373 ft of ground roll and 2345 ft to clear a 50 ft obstacle.

So a well flown Baron could touch down, come to a dead stop, then accelerate takeoff and clear a 50 ft obstacle in a total of 3785 ft. That's less than the distance to the intersection. With any kind of speed kept in a touch-and-go or a missed approach it *should* be a doddle.

The airport altitude is 700 ft, which will have an effect on those numbers, but not a major one. It probably wasn't hot in Georgia in February.
  #40  
Old June 5th 18, 01:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Towplane-Baron accident

Here's the NTSB report
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...Final&IType=FA

An unfortunate event with plenty of opportunities for improvement on all sides.

CAP could have done better in showing their intentions and understanding the traffic situation.
The Barron pilot could have brushed up on landing before instrument stuff.
The Airport could have been clearer on why the spotter was important.

It's a public use airport with random pilots of limited skill and limited visibility. With the benefit of hindsight, there may still be a few possible ways to prevent this.
1) Use a spotter so the glider operation can 'see' 31 traffic.
2) Don't use runway 31 after the intersection. (The defacto plan?)
3) Positive handshake on the radio.
4) Do the glider ops from 31.

2 and 3 don't work with random pilots.
4 would require CAP to be efficient in their use of the runway.
Which leaves 1.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cessna 170 for a towplane? Scott Alexander[_2_] Soaring 9 April 30th 12 06:57 PM
Have towplane will travel Tim Gundersen Soaring 0 June 30th 11 07:13 PM
Pik-27 towplane Brad[_2_] Soaring 2 March 10th 09 01:01 AM
Towplane accident at The Dalles, Oregon Stewart Kissel Soaring 24 September 20th 04 07:20 PM
C 172XP Towplane Thomas F. Dixon Soaring 3 March 14th 04 09:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.