Two Cessnas collide over La Messa, CA

alaskaflyer said:
I've never read that emoticon to be smiling...oh, but now I see it is labeled ROFL. Well, not what I meant.
Click to expand...

What did you read it to be? It's a smiley face laying down laughing rolling back and forth..
 
I'm not surprised they ignore the warnings, seeing as how they have parallel runways at KSEE and often have two planes coming in on final at the same time.
 
deafsound said:
I'm not surprised they ignore the warnings, seeing as how they have parallel runways at KSEE and often have two planes coming in on final at the same time.
Click to expand...
Approaches under VFR are up to the pilot to insure there is separation between himself and those ahead or adjacent to his position. Standard right-of-way applies. The controller can only advise of traffic. It's up to the pilot to maintain visual separation. Parallel runways are a non-issue as long as the rules are followed.

Parallel approaches under IFR have specific guidelines that pilots and controllers must follow. Independent instrument approaches to parallel runways requires 4300 feet between the centerlines plus a final vector controller is required. Dependent approaches to runways less than 4300 feet between centerlines must be at forty-five degrees from adjacent traffic. Those runways must still be 2500 feet between centerlines.

According to one witness in the NTSB report... One aircraft was traveling East while the other was traveling Southwest at the time of impact. One was under IFR while the other was under VFR. But, VMC prevailed with exceptional visibility. Even when under an IFR plan, the pilot is still responsible for visual separation when conditions permit. So, both pilots had a requirement to see and avoid.

I believe the controllers got complacent with a faulty system. But, it still falls on the pilots in the end.
 
Not trying to blame the controllers, just commenting.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Ha ha...but really that thing :rofl: looks more like it is grimacing than smiling or laughing...
Click to expand...
It does look like it is having colic. maybe we should use this one.
 

Attachments

  • roflmao.gif
    roflmao.gif
    1.3 KB · Views: 96
KennyFlys said:
According to one witness in the NTSB report... One aircraft was traveling East while the other was traveling Southwest at the time of impact. One was under IFR while the other was under VFR. But, VMC prevailed with exceptional visibility.

I believe the controllers got complacent with a faulty system. But, it still falls on the pilots in the end.
Click to expand...

I was going to say who was at the wrong altitude but after reading the NTSB report neither were at cruise. Both pilots should have been looking out the window and the controller should have advised of the traffic. Three people weren't doing their job.
 
KennyFlys said:
According to one witness in the NTSB report... One aircraft was traveling East while the other was traveling Southwest at the time of impact. One was under IFR while the other was under VFR. But, VMC prevailed with exceptional visibility. Even when under an IFR plan, the pilot is still responsible for visual separation when conditions permit. So, both pilots had a requirement to see and avoid.

I believe the controllers got complacent with a faulty system. But, it still falls on the pilots in the end.
Click to expand...

While I agree that when conditions permit, the pilot must see and avoid, but doesn't the controller have a responsibility to the IFR pilot for separation services from all other aircraft? The controller, sitting in his/her radar room, has no real knowledge of the weather conditions, nor should that matter to him/her. His/her responsibility is to his/her airspace and the IFR operators within it. If his/her workload permits, he/she can provide services to the requesting VFR operators as well.

Sorry, had to go back and edit for chauvinistic references.
 
bjohnson said:
I was going to say who was at the wrong altitude but after reading the NTSB report neither were at cruise. Both pilots should have been looking out the window and the controller should have advised of the traffic. Three people weren't doing their job.
Click to expand...

I don't always see traffic when its pointed out to me. I wouldn't say the pilots weren't doing their jobs, Its very possible they just didn't see each other, could be they were scanning different areas when it happened. I had to dive and turn to miss a plane once. if it had been 1 second later I wouldn't be here today. Trust me, I was looking. sometimes its hard to see other traffic. over LA with all the houses....probably very hard.
 
Aztec Driver said:
While I agree that when conditions permit, the pilot must see and avoid, but doesn't the controller have a responsibility to the IFR pilot for separation services from all other aircraft?
Click to expand...

NO.

ATC's job is to separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft. All other services are on an "if-able" basis.

Theoretically, a VFR aircraft will be obeying VFR weather mins, and a VFR and an IFR aircraft will be able to see and avoid each other. It is NOT the job of ATC to separate them.
 
Aztec Driver said:
While I agree that when conditions permit, the pilot must see and avoid, but doesn't the controller have a responsibility to the IFR pilot for separation services from all other aircraft? The controller, sitting in his/her radar room, has no real knowledge of the weather conditions, nor should that matter to him/her. His/her responsibility is to his/her airspace and the IFR operators within it. If his/her workload permits, he/she can provide services to the requesting VFR operators as well.
Click to expand...
As already said, nope.

Per the NTSB report:
The closest official aviation weather information was an unedited surface weather observation for Gillespie Field. At 1647, the following conditions were reported: ceiling, 20.000 feet broken; visibility, 25 statute miles; wind from 260 degrees at 8 knots; temperature, 73 degrees Fahrenheit; dew point, not reported; and altimeter, 29.93 inches of mercury.
Click to expand...

Per Aeronautical Information Manual:
5-5-8. See and Avoid
a. Pilot. When meteorological conditions permit, regardless of type of flight plan or whether or not under control of a radar facility, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, terrain, or obstacles.
b. Controller.
1. Provides radar traffic information to radar identified aircraft operating outside positive control airspace on a workload permitting basis.
2. Issues safety alerts to aircraft under their control if aware the aircraft is at an altitude believed to place the aircraft in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft.
Click to expand...
Under these rules, the controllers were only guilty of complacency with a faulty system.
 
KennyFlys said:
As already said, nope.

Per the NTSB report:


Per Aeronautical Information Manual:

Under these rules, the controllers were only guilty of complacency with a faulty system.
Click to expand...

Er, no, they were guilty of continuing complacency with a faulty system as well as specifically negligent for not warning a particular IFR aircraft of a potential conflict as they are supposed to do under FAA procedures, which partially contributed to multiple fatalities. In other words all three parties to the conflict royally screwed the pooch, IMHO. (Though the PIC of the overtaking aircraft was the most negligent.)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
NO.

ATC's job is to separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft. All other services are on an "if-able" basis.

Theoretically, a VFR aircraft will be obeying VFR weather mins, and a VFR and an IFR aircraft will be able to see and avoid each other. It is NOT the job of ATC to separate them.
Click to expand...

As I said before, I understand VFR see and avoid procedures, and certainly these two did not do it very well. Yes, theoretically speaking, VFR aircraft are obeying minimums. But I have personally seen on multiple occasions VFR aircraft that are pointed out to me by the controllers that are dancing in and out of clouds. If the controllers are not responsible for me being separated from these yahoos, what is to keep them from bringing me down? I had always thought that VFR separation services were on a workload permitting basis only to VFR aircraft. I have always had all other aircraft pointed out to me, with the occasional miss here and there. After seeing a few VFR aircraft violating the rules, I may have to rethink flying in IMC.
 
I think see and avoid accidents are all too often blamed on incompetent pilots. Who here honesty hasn't missed seeing an airplane after a traffic call? Who here honestly hasn't had a near miss with an airplane they totally didn't see until the last second?

Sure - legally it is our responsibility, and we should ALWAYS be looking for other aircraft. All that responsibility does really is make it obvious whose fault the accident is. In reality, we all miss traffic, despite our best efforts to "see and be seen."

Don't assume the pilots were executing poor technique because they failed to see each other.
 
Aztec Driver said:
As I said before, I understand VFR see and avoid procedures, and certainly these two did not do it very well. Yes, theoretically speaking, VFR aircraft are obeying minimums. But I have personally seen on multiple occasions VFR aircraft that are pointed out to me by the controllers that are dancing in and out of clouds. If the controllers are not responsible for me being separated from these yahoos, what is to keep them from bringing me down?
Click to expand...

Nothing.

And therein lies the problem. I'm all for requiring ADS-B...
 
SkyHog said:
I think see and avoid accidents are all too often blamed on incompetent pilots. Who here honesty hasn't missed seeing an airplane after a traffic call? Who here honestly hasn't had a near miss with an airplane they totally didn't see until the last second?

Sure - legally it is our responsibility, and we should ALWAYS be looking for other aircraft. All that responsibility does really is make it obvious whose fault the accident is. In reality, we all miss traffic, despite our best efforts to "see and be seen."

Don't assume the pilots were executing poor technique because they failed to see each other.
Click to expand...

What Nick said. I've had traffic called out at 1 mile, same altitude and still couldn't see it - And I have good eyes!
 
SkyHog said:
I think see and avoid accidents are all too often blamed on incompetent pilots. Who here honesty hasn't missed seeing an airplane after a traffic call? Who here honestly hasn't had a near miss with an airplane they totally didn't see until the last second?

Sure - legally it is our responsibility, and we should ALWAYS be looking for other aircraft. All that responsibility does really is make it obvious whose fault the accident is. In reality, we all miss traffic, despite our best efforts to "see and be seen."

Don't assume the pilots were executing poor technique because they failed to see each other.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to imply these pilots were incompetent. I have missed traffic called out to be and never did see them, even knowing where to look for them. Some of our aircraft are not very conducive to seeing very well. And we all get distracted from the ever important vigilance.
 
Aztec Driver said:
... But I have personally seen on multiple occasions VFR aircraft that are pointed out to me by the controllers that are dancing in and out of clouds.
...
After seeing a few VFR aircraft violating the rules, I may have to rethink flying in IMC.
Click to expand...

I had a scary conversation with the chief flying instructor at my gliding club here in New Zealand. I had been up to cloud base at about 3300' AGL with one of his instructors, and when I told the instructor that we were violating the CARs (NZ version of FARs) and weren't allowed to go closer than 1000' below the cloud, the instructor told me gliders were able to all the way up. We checked the rules, and gliders are only allowed to go within 500'.

Not only was the chief instructor not concerned about his instructor's mistake, he then proceded to tell me that everybody breaks that rule all the time and it's no big deal. He then told me that I'd be breaking it too once I had more experience. I told him that the rule was there because IFR traffic could come flying out of the cloud at 200 knots at any given time, and he told me that "there isn't that much IFR flying around here." He said that the only thing he tells students is not to fly in and out of the wisps at the bottom of the cloud because another glider might be doing the same thing.

This same chief instructor then went for a flight and upon his return was telling everyone who'd listen (including students) about his amazing flight along a convergence line where he was screaming along the convergence cloud with his wing in the cloud. I'm certain he was over 3000' AGL.

Oh yeah, and all the gliders here have transponders, but they keep them off because they drain the batteries. There's very little primary radar, so there's no way that a controller could have given IFR traffic a heads up.

NZ pilots are a bunch of freaking cowboys.

Chris
 
cwyckham said:
NZ pilots are a bunch of freaking cowboys.

Chris
Click to expand...

Not much different on this side of the Tasman, which is why I never really pursued flying here. I did my writtens and got my medical then went to do some flying to warm up for my check flight, and from what was being "taught" to me about flying here, I just said "F- this, it's gonna get me killed." (as you said, the rules aren't really a major concern "That's just a bunch of BS the international community forced on us). I did a bit of work for a guy who didn't even care if I had an Aussie license "You got enough time and an Aussie license don't mean F-All anyway, you want to take the chance, I've got a few days of work for you." Old ag planes are never insured anyway. BTW, scud running is completely legal here. All cloud clearances and min altitudes are a joke because there is the proviso at the end of the section which reads "except under press of weather". Now this is a reality in the States as well, but in order to use it, you have to declare under PIC emergency authority. here it's part of standard ops.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top