C150 hits Helicopter, Carlisle, PA, Fatalities, 8/19/26

Bell206 said:
I thought it was stated earlier in the thread the interval between the 407 crossing the threshold vs the 150 crossing was around 30 seconds. Is there another reference somewhere that states the 3 minute difference and that the 407 had a CVR as stated earlier?
Click to expand...
Witnesses and video
 
Bell206 said:
I thought it was stated earlier in the thread the interval between the 407 crossing the threshold vs the 150 crossing was around 30 seconds. Is there another reference somewhere that states the 3 minute difference and that the 407 had a CVR as stated earlier?
Click to expand...
From the published ADS-B track, the helicopter was already beside the runway and stationary when the C150 turned base. At 65 kts, that's a lOT more than 30 seconds away from the touchdown point. Should be just about 1 minute from base turn to the runway threshold, then add time for the 407 to have traversed the distance down roughly half of the runway. I would guess somewhere between 90-120 seconds. Is that enough? Not if the Helicopter is still hovering within hazardous distance of the runway.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
Witnesses and video
Click to expand...
Do you have any links? One video I found stated only non-volatile data was downloaded from both aircraft, and it specifically noted neither aircraft had a CVR/FDR nor were they required to. So curious where you heard the CVR comment?

StraightnLevel said:
From the published ADS-B track, the helicopter was already beside the runway and stationary when the C150 turned base. At 65 kts, that's a lOT more than 30 seconds away from the touchdown point.
Click to expand...
Yet from the same ADSB data several people on different forums have calculated a 30 second and 2400ft lateral separation when the 150 crossed the threshold. And there were other public statements made the 407 crossed the threshold at 6:51 local with the collision at 6:52 local. Hence my question on the 3 minute hover.
 
3-3-2 isn’t enough
StraightnLevel said:
From the published ADS-B track, the helicopter was already beside the runway and stationary when the C150 turned base. At 65 kts, that's a lOT more than 30 seconds away from the touchdown point. Should be just about 1 minute from base turn to the runway threshold, then add time for the 407 to have traversed the distance down roughly half of the runway. I would guess somewhere between 90-120 seconds. Is that enough? Not if the Helicopter is still hovering within hazardous distance of the runway.
Click to expand...

Really should be 3-3-5 for the vortices. Then and also you have the wash with the 3 being violated.

FlightmechH3 said:
1. The State Police did not have to hover next to the runway like that with other traffic needing to use the runway. Fault: police.

2. The C150 pilot could have asked them to move so he could land, but didn't press the issue. Fault: police. Why? See #1.

3. You land and expedite your egress out of the runway zone.

The staties were hovering for about 3 minutes before the crash. I bet they had no intentions of landing for a while or clearing the runway. So I thing they had an attitude problem as noted earlier "We are the State Police and we do what we want!".
Click to expand...

In terms of wash, yes. In terms of vortices, not really. 3-3-2 is a mistaken rule; vortices can last three to five minutes meaning the rule really should be 3-3-5. Had they actually cleared, may still have had vortices which could still result in a crash though would have had the midair potential removed (read a more survivable crash). As the vortices can last so long, the helicopter better showing consideration via landing at east ramp avoiding runway really would have helped both vortices and wash. Landing short on runway and clearing would still be far better than painting nearly the whole of runway with vortices. But parking “well off the runway” where wash continued over the runway was the height of inconsiderate.


Note this incident has made me change my verb to being considerate not being courteous. I’m thinking courteous could enable being insufficiently assertive and that may have been at play with the Cessna. Helicopter was most definitely inconsiderate but Cessna may have been too courteous regarding others so as to be a touch inconsiderate regarding the situation hence not asserting. Interesting my thesaurus does show considerate as alternate when viewing courteous but does not show the reverse courteous when viewing considerate. Dictionary on considerate gives something more fitting to flying as compared to courteous. I say this as I’ve seen FAASTs presenting a stupid mantra of “is it legal, is it safe, is it courteous” which I previously would shuffle but now will also substitute to be ‘is it safe, is it considerate, is it legal.’ Perhaps better when facing horns of dilemmas would be ‘is it survivable, is it considerate.’
 
Bell206 said:
Do you have any links? One video I found stated only non-volatile data was downloaded from both aircraft, and it specifically noted neither aircraft had a CVR/FDR nor were they required to. So curious where you heard the CVR comment?


Yet from the same ADSB data several people on different forums have calculated a 30 second and 2400ft lateral separation when the 150 crossed the threshold. And there were other public statements made the 407 crossed the threshold at 6:51 local with the collision at 6:52 local. Hence my question on the 3 minute hover.
Click to expand...
Go to 1:15 in the blancolirio vidio where he shows the two ADS-B tracks:
Rick A

Post in thread 'C150 hits Helicopter, Carlisle, PA, Fatalities, 8/19/26'

Juan Browne says sun glare right down the runway was also a factor...


Just after the C150 turns base, his timestamp is 1:30 later than the timestamp of the helicopter at midfield. At that point, he was still a bit more than a mile East of the runway threshold. The helicopter had come in from the West, so any residual rotor wash would have been beyond a normal landing distance.

Add the 1 mile flight at ~65 kts to the 1:30 that had already elapsed, and we're at 2:30. Add the time to traverse the runway to a touchdown point at minimum airspeed, and it's close to 3 minutes. Had the helicopter cleared away.....?
 
StraightnLevel said:
At that point, he was still a bit more than a mile East of the runway threshold.
Click to expand...
Except the ADSB timestamp of the 407 just prior to the runway threshold is 6:51p local time and the time of the collision has been stated at 6:52p local, which also fits the 30 second calculations on the other forums. So where do the extra two minutes come from in your calculation? And why do think the 150 didn’t land on the numbers well before the 407 since he knew it was there?
 
Bell206 said:
Except the ADSB timestamp of the 407 just prior to the runway threshold is 6:51p local time and the time of the collision has been stated at 6:52p local, which also fits the 30 second calculations on the other forums. So where do the extra two minutes come from in your calculation?
Click to expand...
Simple math. More than a mile away from the runway, 60-65 kts approach speed. Again, look at the ADS-B timestamps.

Bell206 said:
And why do think the 150 didn’t land on the numbers well before the 407 since he knew it was there?
Click to expand...
That's a really good question.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Simple math.
Click to expand...
Except my math shows the 407 timestamp just before the threshold at 22:51Z and the collision time being publicly stated happened at 22:52Z. Other than the timestamp below, is there any other authoritative public comment or additional ADSB timestamp info on the 150?

1787968376962.png
 
Bell206 said:
Except my math shows the 407 timestamp just before the threshold at 22:51Z and the collision time being publicly stated happened at 22:52Z. Other than the timestamp below, is there any other authoritative public comment or additional ADSB timestamp info on the 150?

View attachment 154644
Click to expand...
Curious on this myself. The adsb data shows the time intervals. There’s no chance “witnesses” timed the helicopter crossing the threshold to the time of the collision. The adsb data is factual.

The 407 did not have a CVR in it wherever that false statement came from.

Next, it was a training flight. My guess, based upon all the data provided, they were practicing hovering maneuvers with the aircraft. I’m not a helo pilot but I’ve been told it’s very difficult and takes a lot of practice and training to get it down.

As far as faults, I’ll wait for the investigation. Alot of theories, assumptions and such. I know in my years of flying I’ve never been trained anything about helo rotor wash, down wash, vortex, etc. We have multiple medical helicopters nearby and knowing this now, I’ll be very cautious.
 
Bell206 said:
Except the ADSB timestamp of the 407 just prior to the runway threshold is 6:51p local time and the time of the collision has been stated at 6:52p local, which also fits the 30 second calculations on the other forums. So where do the extra two minutes come from in your calculation? And why do think the 150 didn’t land on the numbers well before the 407 since he knew it was there?
Click to expand...
Was he on the "Go" part of a Touch-and-Go?

Ron Wanttaja
 
jmarine225 said:
As far as faults, I’ll wait for the investigation.
Click to expand...

And this is the problem isn’t it. The investigation is wrongly designed to blame one thing hence generally only one fix comes of it. Yet you may want multiple fixes so as both confluences more likely cause issues than a singular root cause and as with multiple fixes you cover a little more broad a set of similar circumstances. “Taking a link out of the chain” doesn’t actually prevent things as you tend to have chainmail not merely a singular chain line. You don’t need to wait on an investigation to refresh your awareness for and caution of helicotper vortices and wash. Nor do you need to wait if helicopter to realize distances needed for consideration.
 
jmarine225 said:
There’s no chance “witnesses” timed the helicopter crossing the threshold to the time of the collision. The adsb data is factual.
Click to expand...
Except its been stated publicaly after reviewing witness testimony, communication data, and additional video, the 407 crossed the threshold at 6:51p local time and the collision happened at 6:52p?? Which validates the 407 timestamp. Another question is why did the ADSB data drop off for the 150?


wanttaja said:
Was he on the "Go" part of a Touch-and-Go?
Click to expand...
The only statements made on the 150 indicate unusual atitude on approach and out of control prior to impact. Regardless, they've had a complete week to review the aircraft and data in a controlled environment so my guess is we'll see a prelim next week, unless they're waiting on test results or other results considering the severity of collision.
 
Fffflats said:
And this is the problem isn’t it. The investigation is wrongly designed to blame one thing hence generally only one fix comes of it.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Nearly every final accident report I've read mentions multiple factors, aside from the ones that are obviously a single major issue, like mis-fueling.
 
Bell206 said:
Except its been stated publicaly after reviewing witness testimony, communication data, and additional video, the 407 crossed the threshold at 6:51p local time and the collision happened at 6:52p??
Click to expand...
So, you're giving more weight to someone holding a cellphone who was startled by a massive collision, vs. the automated ADS-B data?

Seriously?
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, you're giving more weight to someone holding a cellphone who was startled by a massive collision, vs. the automated ADS-B data? Seriously?
Click to expand...
No. I'm giving full weight to the NTSB IIC who reviewed witness testimony, communication data, ADSB data, and video, startled cellphone or not, and stated the 6:51p and 6:52p time references above during public briefings. Seriously.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Seriously? Nearly every final accident report I've read mentions multiple factors, aside from the ones that are obviously a single major issue, like mis-fueling.
Click to expand...
But they treat one as probable while these others are contributing. They might not call it such but in effect they assign blame, be it to a person or to a system, such is singular, and this leads to singular focus to a fix where really you want more than one fix. And they often either discount factors that still played or don’t even recognize that factors even existed. They write a nice neat simplified story. They don’t find truth, they ascribe it attribute it meaning they define it. And this means dogma and religion not science.

“Don’t dither the rudders.” “Single throw single axis.” True and good to reemphasize, but how about and also better separation? Wake avoidance? A more appropriate value for Va fitting the textual definition of Va? Or separate Va for pitch with different yaw limits and roll limits? (See AA 587 example as it has fed this discussion in this thread RE inadequacies of investigations and reports.)
 
Fffflats said:
But they treat one as probable while these others are contributing. They might not call it such but in effect they assign blame, be it to a person or to a system, such is singular, and this leads to singular focus to a fix where really you want more than one fix. And they often either discount factors that still played or don’t even recognize that factors even existed. They write a nice neat simplified story. They don’t find truth, they ascribe it attribute it meaning they define it. And this means dogma and religion not science.

“Don’t dither the rudders.” “Single throw single axis.” True and good to reemphasize, but how about and also better separation? Wake avoidance? A more appropriate value for Va fitting the textual definition of Va? Or separate Va for pitch with different yaw limits and roll limits? (See AA 587 example as it has fed this discussion in this thread RE inadequacies of investigations and reports.)
Click to expand...
I agree that in some cases they focus on the proximate cause instead of the chain of events leading up to the crash but if you read the entire report they do list all of the events leading up to the crash. They also frequently list a bunch of things just like you want. e.g.

Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
Findings
Occurrence #1: MIDAIR COLLISION
Phase of Operation: DESCENT - NORMAL
Findings

1. (C) RADAR ASSISTANCE TO VFR AIRCRAFT - NOT USED - PILOT IN COMMAND
2. (C) ARTCC SERVICE - DELAYED - PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
3. RADAR SEPARATION - NOT POSSIBLE - ATC PERSONNEL(ARTCC)
4. (F) VISUAL LOOKOUT - INADEQUATE - PILOT IN COMMAND
5. (F) VISUAL LOOKOUT - INADEQUATE - PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT

Here’s another.
Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: the pilot's failure to set the trim as prescribed by the published check list. This led to a steep climb angle which caused the airspeed to decay, resulting in a stall at an altitude too low to allow recovery.
Findings
Occurrence #1: LOSS OF CONTROL - IN FLIGHT
Phase of Operation: TAKEOFF - INITIAL CLIMB
Findings
1. (C) CHECKLIST - NOT COMPLIED WITH - PILOT IN COMMAND
2. (C) ELEVATOR TRIM - IMPROPER - PILOT IN COMMAND
3. (C) AIRSPEED(VS) - NOT MAINTAINED - PILOT IN COMMAND
4. (C) STALL - INADVERTENT - PILOT IN COMMAND
5. (F) ALTITUDE - LOW - PILOT IN COMMAND
----------
Occurrence #2: IN FLIGHT COLLISION WITH TERRAIN/WATER
Phase of Operation: DESCENT - UNCONTROLLED
 
Man, that is hard to watch...

Seems like he got upset by the wake turbulence early, and fought it while attempting a go-around?

The loss of control at the end looks almost like a carbon copy of the one I posted earlier.
 
I had to land at KCNI (Canton) yesterday waiting for a hospital pad to clear. C172 holding short of rwy 5 transmits to another inbound, “we’re gonna hold short until the helicopter lands.” Even though I was about 250 ft from the runway and downwind, I think both of us had this accident on our minds.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Well, that absolutely nails down the timing, to ~31 seconds apart.
Click to expand...

I've never timed myself but that seems awfully close.

Looks apparent from the video he did not give the vortex enough time to dissipate.

Helos make air do unpredictable things. Give those suckers a wide berth.
 
The Cessna definitely appears to have initiated a climb before being yanked to the right. Probably encountered turbulence over the runway, and realizing it wasn't going to get any better as he approached the helicopter.
 
Had the helicopter been a fixed wing airplane, the Cessna would have been way too close following and either been forced to go around or been attempting to force the other aircraft off the runway. Not knowing much more than what has been publicized, I get the impression there may have been some ego at play here.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Had the helicopter been a fixed wing airplane, the Cessna would have been way too close following and either been forced to go around or been attempting to force the other aircraft off the runway. Not knowing much more than what has been publicized, I get the impression there may have been some ego at play here.
Click to expand...
Half a minute at 65 kts is over 3,000 feet; close, but I've been cleared to land with that, and you aren't gonna "catch up" with much in a 150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top