Crash in Carrollton GA 2 airplanes down, 3 dead.

Why do some of you assume that because some of us advocate radios in all aircraft that we do not have our eyes open and outside of the aircraft?

Another thing to think about is that aircraft that do not have radios due to not having an electrical system do not have any lights either which also makes them harder to see. Requiring them to carry a radio is a minimalist approach to reducing risk.

Goodness, the airlines have TCAS but I don't hear people crying that the big airplane pilots should just see and avoid.
 
I saw it just the other day at our airport. We have an instructor who is about to turn 90. He has a student and says he's making all of the calls... downwind, base, and final. We have another local pilot who is doing a straight-in approach and says he called 10 miles, 5 miles, 3 miles, and final. They were both surprised the other one was on final, one claiming they got a lot closer than the other one! They were both on the correct frequency, but neither heard the other.

Later that week, I was doing an air-to-air photography session with a friend who was flying the same Cessna the instructor had been in. We talked through most of the flight on 122.75 and it went well. Then on the way back, he suddenly couldn't hear me and when he tried to talk, I could barely make out that it was his voice, but not what he was saying. Then he could suddenly hear me, but couldn't communicate. I had him click twice if he could hear and understand me, then made calls as a flight of two for the last 10 miles into the airport. As we're about to land, his radio started working again.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Why do some of you assume that because some of us advocate radios in all aircraft that we do not have our eyes open and outside of the aircraft?
Click to expand...
My question would be, how many mid-air collisions are attributed to planes that have no radios? I don't think it's a high number.

In this case, both planes came from the factory with electrical systems and radios. If they weren't communicating, it was by choice, or one of them was on the wrong frequency, or maybe radio failure.
 
mscard88 said:
See and avoid, keep your eyes outside especially nearing and around an airport. There's even, from my many years of experience, that there's even plane w/ radios installed that don't or refuse to talk on the radio. So what about them? How are you going to force them to talk? How would you even enforce a requirement for old planes without electrical systems to have and use a handheld? Keep your eyes outside.
Click to expand...

Yes and how well did "see and avoid" work in this accident?? The DA-20 has amazing visibility and it had four eyeballs in it. The Bonanza has average visibility. Are you going to claim that all three pilots were watching TV, mindlessly following the magenta line while fiddling with radios to the touch down point? I am damn sure they were looking out the windows.

See and avoid is very important tool to prevent mid airs, but to claim it is all we really need is absolute bull crap!! It wasn't enough in the '30s, it wasn't enough in the '40s, it wasn't enough in the '50s and it's not enough right up until today.

IMO, use of radios in the traffic pattern should be mandatory and use of all available lighting should be taught and mandatory as well. Enforcement is difficult and likely not going to happen much, but the fear of the possibility of being caught is enough for many pilots to adopt the practice and become compliant. Of course there will always be scoff laws, just as there is now with people flying without licenses, BFRs, IPCs, annuals, or medicals, but many would follow the law and that would be a good help.

How would new regs have helped here? We don't know yet and we may never know, but it couldn't have hurt.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Ya but I seriously doubt your conjecture. :D
Click to expand...

Maybe but I do have a lot of experience working for me, instructing at controlled and uncontrolled airports. And what I did as a CFI in TPs. Not saying what you suggest didn't happen either, and I acknowledged that.
 
Dav8or said:
Enforcement is difficult and likely not going to happen much, but the fear of the possibility of being caught is enough for many pilots to adopt the practice and become compliant.
Click to expand...

I think enforcement wouldn't be difficult, it would be impossible. How would you prove they were on the right frequency? Do they get a fine if they're not? If you don't hear them, how do you prove you were on the right frequency? I think most of us use our radios most of the time.

We just had a fly-in at Blakesburg where they don't use radios. You get a green flag when cleared to land, a red one if you're not. We had a record 400 airplanes there and no mid-air collisions. Not only that, they've been having this fly-in since the 70s and have never had a mid-air. See and avoid at it's best.
 
Lowflynjack said:
My question would be, how many mid-air collisions are attributed to planes that have no radios? I don't think it's a high number.

In this case, both planes came from the factory with electrical systems and radios. If they weren't communicating, it was by choice, or one of them was on the wrong frequency, or maybe radio failure.
Click to expand...

I don't know the stats either, but the problem is, since the Feds have given the antique fliers a pass, they have to give everybody else a pass. So you end up with a situation where a guy in a plane full of radios doesn't use them because "The regs say I don't have to...". In the pass it made sense because installing radios in antique planes wasn't practical and portables either didn't exist, or were pretty crappy. However things have changed. The portables are now pretty good and they are affordable.

We have several ultralight guys at our field that use portable radios and battery operated lighting regularly in our pattern. They do not have any electrical systems either. The excuses used by antique flyers are just that... excuses, with the fall back being, "The regs say I don't have to..."
 
midcap said:
It still shocks me that as safety oriented as the FAA is, they don't make having a radio and making calls mandatory around an airport.
Click to expand...
They both had radios, I would bet the DA 20 was making a lot of position calls as it is standard procedure for that school. The $64 questions are, was the Bo pilot on the radio and what frequency were they both tuned to?? The other unknown and it's happened to me, is did the Bo pilot's headset jack get pulled out just a bit? Lot's of little things are possible, most seem benign, until something like this happens. I think my son is getting traffic in the 182 for Christmas!
 
Lowflynjack said:
I think enforcement wouldn't be difficult, it would be impossible. How would you prove they were on the right frequency? Do they get a fine if they're not? If you don't hear them, how do you prove you were on the right frequency? I think most of us use our radios most of the time.

We just had a fly-in at Blakesburg where they don't use radios. You get a green flag when cleared to land, a red one if you're not. We had a record 400 airplanes there and no mid-air collisions. Not only that, they've been having this fly-in since the 70s and have never had a mid-air. See and avoid at it's best.
Click to expand...

Did you have guys doing straight ins? How about entering on crosswind, or base, or opposite direction base? Where there some guys doing over head breaks while others entering on a 45? My guess is your event had a published approach procedure and everybody read it and followed it. It does not sound like a typical un-towered GA airport on an average day. Of course when you go to the big show everybody brings their "A" game, but on a regular day when there isn't the potential of 399 other planes trying to kill you, people slack off and do whatever the hell they want because the regs say you can.

My point is, by changing the regs, some will change their habits out of fear of enforcement, or just peer pressure and that would be a good thing. Some is better than none.
 
N747JB said:
They both had radios, I would bet the DA 20 was making a lot of position calls as it is standard procedure for that school. The $64 questions are, was the Bo pilot on the radio and what frequency were they both tuned to?? The other unknown and it's happened to me, is did the Bo pilot's headset jack get pulled out just a bit? Lot's of little things are possible, most seem benign, until something like this happens. I think my son is getting traffic in the 182 for Christmas!
Click to expand...

Awesome! Traffic systems are another useful tool. Particularly ones with audio alert capability.
 
Dav8or said:
Yes and how well did "see and avoid" work in this accident?? The DA-20 has amazing visibility and it had four eyeballs in it. The Bonanza has average visibility. Are you going to claim that all three pilots were watching TV, mindlessly following the magenta line while fiddling with radios to the touch down point? I am damn sure they were looking out the windows.

See and avoid is very important tool to prevent mid airs, but to claim it is all we really need is absolute bull crap!! It wasn't enough in the '30s, it wasn't enough in the '40s, it wasn't enough in the '50s and it's not enough right up until today.

IMO, use of radios in the traffic pattern should be mandatory and use of all available lighting should be taught and mandatory as well. Enforcement is difficult and likely not going to happen much, but the fear of the possibility of being caught is enough for many pilots to adopt the practice and become compliant. Of course there will always be scoff laws, just as there is now with people flying without licenses, BFRs, IPCs, annuals, or medicals, but many would follow the law and that would be a good help.

How would new regs have helped here? We don't know yet and we may never know, but it couldn't have hurt.
Click to expand...

Typical California mentality here, we know more than you do types. Obviously you know more than us and want to use the government to force it on us. Its no wonder I hate sharing airspace with idiots like you...
 
I think the radio is a better tool than see and avoid.
I hear people on the radio that I can't see all the time.
For whatever reason, I have near perfect vision but I suck at visually identifying traffic.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I think enforcement wouldn't be difficult, it would be impossible. How would you prove they were on the right frequency? Do they get a fine if they're not? If you don't hear them, how do you prove you were on the right frequency? I think most of us use our radios most of the time.
Click to expand...
I've had another airplane give me crap for not using the radio. "Jet off Heber, thanks for taking off without talking!" I replied that I had announced both taxiing and taking off. Then the FBO chimed in saying, "We heard all your calls." Silence. Of course, the other airplane probably had the volume turned down or was listening on a different frequency than he was talking on, so he didn't hear the FBO either.
 
I've never found that I can win in life with a strategy that assumes everyone else follows all the rules all the time. There is already plenty of FAA encouragement to communicate, as well as to use standard entries to standard traffic patterns at standard altitudes. I do my best to fly accordingly. But I also look out the window constantly for the same reason that I assume that a semi truck is going to show up without headlights at night, blow through the stop sign, and turn into the wrong lane without signaling.

What I am trying to understand is what I can do to prevent something similar from happening. The speculation so far is that the Bonanza came up behind the Diamond on final approach to the same runway, straight in, and struck it from above. Let's just assume that's true. Let's also accept that I do not trust regulations as a 100% solution to the problem. What could the Diamond pilot have done to increase situational awareness?
 
iamtheari said:
What could the Diamond pilot have done to increase situational awareness?
Click to expand...

I think this is where for the Diamond pilot... Sometimes there are accidents.
We cannot control everything. Given your scenario, the Bo was in charge of the events that transpired.

People sometimes get killed by stray bullets.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think the radio is a better tool than see and avoid.
I hear people on the radio that I can't see all the time.
For whatever reason, I have near perfect vision but I suck at visually identifying traffic.
Click to expand...

At the uncontrolled airport we do touch and gos at, there is a helo outfit right to the south of the strip. So, naturally when you are making your down wind, you look there to see if any helos are doing anything that yo
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think this is where for the Diamond pilot... Sometimes there are accidents.
We cannot control everything. Given your scenario, the Bo was in charge of the events that transpired.

People sometimes get killed by stray bullets.
Click to expand...

If the Bo did what you guys are suggesting, it's the equivalent of an airplane running a stop sign.
 
iamtheari said:
What could the Diamond pilot have done to increase situational awareness?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the diamond had ADS-B in/out. Coverage may be sketchy at pattern altitude but I pick up ads-b in the pattern and even on the ground for ads-b out equipped planes. Nothing like an audio traffic alert to get your attention even if the plane is behind you.
 
Stingray Don said:
I wonder if the diamond had ADS-B in/out. Coverage may be sketchy at pattern altitude but I pick up ads-b in the pattern and even on the ground for ads-b out equipped planes. Nothing like an audio traffic alert to get your attention even if the plane is behind you.
Click to expand...

Exactly what we need, is more crap to be focused on inside, versus looking outside... Exactly what we need
 
wayne said:
A car may seem like that to you, but it's not an absolute necessity. Only ~25% of people living in NYC have a drivers license. I have coworkers in Atlanta that don't have a car; adults with children, not teenagers. That shocks me in Atlanta, which is very car centric. One ex-coworker has/had a car, but said they were thinking of selling it as they only filled the tank 3 or 4 times in the prior year. The percentage of 19 year olds with a DL has dropped to 69.5% nationwide.

Spouses "banning" activities is whole 'nother issue. My wife might tell me I'm stupid for doing something dangerous, but other than doing something ridiculously dangerous she would just tell me I'm being stupid. I intentionally never learned to ride a motorcycle because I think I'd kill myself doing it. My vision was that my last thought, while leaned over at high speed in a turn, would be "sand?" :eek:
Click to expand...

Well I live in Dallas area and don't know anyone that could live a remotely normal life without a car. Things are much more spread out without near the transportation infrastructure that NYC has. So here I would say it is a necessity.

Point being, aviation is a hobby for most and it certainly has it's risks. There are definitely other enjoyable hobbies without the lethality that aviation brings. It's funny I always said I would never buy a motorcycle because I would kill myself and here I am doing something just as dangerous. I don't have kids though, perhaps my views would change at that point.
 
As far as radios, I can't understand for the life of me why everyone doesn't have a radio or hand controlled at least. You are a danger to everyone around you. Having a radio and looking is much better than just looking.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
<SNIP>
For whatever reason, I have near perfect vision but I suck at visually identifying traffic.
Click to expand...

Because it's damn difficult. Looking out a not optically perfect windscreen that probably has some dirt and/or bugs on it, for a light colored airplane which appears tiny until you are about to hit it, against an irregularly covered background is not what our sense of sight is good at.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think the radio is a better tool than see and avoid.
I hear people on the radio that I can't see all the time.
For whatever reason, I have near perfect vision but I suck at visually identifying traffic.
Click to expand...

I spot people in the pattern visually a lot easier/quicker after they announce their position. I bat about 0.500 on spotting traffic ATC tells me about.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Typical California mentality here, we know more than you do types. Obviously you know more than us and want to use the government to force it on us. Its no wonder I hate sharing airspace with idiots like you...
Click to expand...
Quite the generalization. Let's not paint everyone in California with such a broad brush...

noobJohn said:
I spot people in the pattern visually a lot easier/quicker after they announce their position. I bat about 0.500 on spotting traffic ATC tells me about.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. On the whole fishfinder thing in the pattern, you're in close enough proximity to other planes that you'll get a lot of distracting alerts where the other planes aren't a threat. There's enough task saturation in the pattern already, so I'm good with just radio calls and ever-scanning eyeballs.
 
Me thinks the old mans been around the patch more than the young gal.
 
I use to live in New York and it has the most convenient transit system in the world, (NOT the cleanest) you can pretty much go anywhere in the city. I vote in favor of the radios too anything that would make GA safer for all pilots.

The Diamond DA series is suppose to have the best safety record of all piston single aircraft. How is this accident going to affect that record?
 
I can honestly say, (From experience) that some Flight Instructors...shouldn't be Flight Instructors......and they are teaching others...SMH.
 
TexDeuce said:
Well I live in Dallas area and don't know anyone that could live a remotely normal life without a car. Things are much more spread out without near the transportation infrastructure that NYC has. So here I would say it is a necessity.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that a car is at least very beneficial to needed in most of the US. My only quibble was that it was stated as "an absolute necessity". It may be depending upon where and how one lives, but certainly not as a simple statement. I live in Atlanta and it's a big area that I for one would find hard to dang near impossible to live here without a car. None the less I know several people who also live and work here and either don't have a car or rarely drive; not occasionally, for years.

TexDeuce said:
Point being, aviation is a hobby for most and it certainly has it's risks. There are definitely other enjoyable hobbies without the lethality that aviation brings. It's funny I always said I would never buy a motorcycle because I would kill myself and here I am doing something just as dangerous. I don't have kids though, perhaps my views would change at that point.
Click to expand...

I learned to fly after having kids, even though I wanted to most of my life. Two of our kids and my wife, fly with me, the third doesn't like flying and only does it commercially out of need; we refer to her as "chicken big" as she's the oldest/biggest of the kids, and for far more fears than her fear of flying. My wife and I have left the kids at home and flown off for the day or weekend; with the oldest (out of college) or my parents to watch them and one or both kids were old enough to drive. Some people dang near have a conniption when they hear that.

People have died playing golf, and not just old people having heart attacks. People fall and die in their bathroom. Or fall down the stairs and injure or maim their selves or die. Stuff happens. Can I die flying? Yep. No doubt. I could die any day I get into my car too. Yes, the odds of an accident or death in the plane is higher than in the car. No argument on the statistics.

While the risk is greater in the plane than in the car I have control over many of the risks in the plane. There are so many bad drivers that could kill me and that level of risk from others doesn't exist when flying. Yes, mid-airs happen, including one on short final near here just a couple of days ago. It's just far more likely driving than flying. I see multi-vehicle accidents on the road on an almost daily basis. In flying I can easily make huge reductions in the risks by simply not being stupid; not running out of fuel, no VFR into IMC, no CFIT, no flying into thunderstorms, no stupid-human tricks (low level flights for showing off).
 
We may never know for certain how these 2 planes came together on final, but I wont be suprised if the BO either didnt announce in the pattern or was a straight in and plowed into the DA.

That may not be remotely what happened, but if I could get a bet in Vegas either of scenarios, at even money or better, I would take it.
 
I'm thinking to myself if I were put into this situation. Im short final in a DA20, and I'm focused on the runway and suddenly I see a Bo descending on top of me..the initial reaction may not be quick enough. What would you do in this case to avoid the Bo at such a low altitude? Im trying to visualize this accident and think about how I would handle it.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Exactly what we need, is more crap to be focused on inside, versus looking outside... Exactly what we need
Click to expand...

How does an audio traffic alert put your eyes inside? I don't know about you but when I hear a radio call near me, or a TCAS/ADS-B alert, or center has identified traffic my eyes are outside scanning like crazy.

I realize that you don't like the "California Mentality" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean but coming from a Kansan, I certainly appreciate any safety measure that can be brought into the cockpit. And yes, mandating radio use around a Class E airport might be a good place to start.
 
Ryanb said:
I'm thinking to myself if I were put into this situation. Im short final in a DA20, and I'm focused on the runway and suddenly I see a Bo descending on top of me..the initial reaction may not be quick enough. What would you do in this case to avoid the Bo at such a low altitude? Im trying to visualize this accident and think about how I would handle it.
Click to expand...

Seriously consider the prop of the Bo slicing the tail clean of your Diamond.
Could have broke off when it hit the ground. Might have happened in air. It's gone though.

090816_Two_Plane_Crash_HS08.JPG
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Seriously consider the prop of the Bo slicing the tail clean of your Diamond.
Could have broke off when it hit the ground. Might have happened in air. It's gone though.

090816_Two_Plane_Crash_HS08.JPG
Click to expand...
That's true, which brings me back to the obvious statement of, even if the CFI and student could see the Bo coming down on top of them (if this is what happened) there might not have been much of a reaction time, if any at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top