Cub vs Cub midair - non fatal

dbahn

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
1,524
Location
Vermont
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Bahnson
I don't know if this has been posted already, as it showed up on my Facebook page today. Two Cubs collided in Novemeber, 2020, at Weslaco, Texas. One pilot sustained minor injuries and one sustained substantial injuries, but the photos are astounding considering that both survived.

I'm guessing that their entanglement created a sort of falling leaf construct that slowed their descent?



337026463_1370268140475879_7398940343637077129_n.jpg 337262791_612411406934003_4389606781879119833_n.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Report_CEN21LA040_102235_3_27_2023 9_51_26 AM.pdf
    744.8 KB · Views: 7
That's like 2 snails getting into a ground collision.

What was the altitude of the entanglement?
 
That's like 2 snails getting into a ground collision.

What was the altitude of the entanglement?

The pilot of N87715 reported that during the climb following a touch-and-go landing, he inadvertently allowed the airplane’s ground track to drift right of the runway while his attention was diverted to the cockpit instruments, and his airplane collided with another airplane about 80 ft above the ground. The crash site was in a grass area located about 110 ft off the right side of runway.

The trailing aircraft went base to final, decided to go-around and side-stepped right. The leading aircraft was climbing and drifted right into the trailing aircraft.

I suspect closing ground speed was very low.
 
If only they had been painted a bright, high visibility, color like yellow with a contrasting color like a black stripe.


But, wow, what a tangled up mess. "The student pilot flying N87715 was not injured, and the airline transport pilot flying N6463H sustained serious injuries."
 
The trailing aircraft went base to final, decided to go-around and side-stepped right. The leading aircraft was climbing and drifted right into the trailing aircraft.

Was the go-around because the other Cub was taking off?


I suspect closing ground speed was very low.

Yep, you'd think the trailing Cub would have had plenty of time to see and avoid. I suspect that the vertical closure speed was higher than the lateral.
 
Was the go-around because the other Cub was taking off?
Yep, you'd think the trailing Cub would have had plenty of time to see and avoid. I suspect that the vertical closure speed was higher than the lateral.

In the report attached to the original post - yes, the ATP went around because he was too close behind the student - the ATP side stepped to the right and had the other in sight, but looked away for a moment and the student drifted too much to the right.
 
Was the go-around because the other Cub was taking off?




Yep, you'd think the trailing Cub would have had plenty of time to see and avoid. I suspect that the vertical closure speed was higher than the lateral.

Cub A landed and was departing on a touch and go. Cub B felt he was too close and did a go around to the right of the runway when Cub A drifted to the right of the runway during the climb.
 
All 3 of them?
Hey now, the typical Cub has six instruments. Although only five of them are in the cockpit seeing as the fuel gauge is on the HUD. And the compass only reliably points to north if you remove the magnetos. And the altimeter can't be trusted. And the RPM is more of a hearing thing than a seeing thing. So, in conclusion, as I said, the typical Cub has three cockpit instruments. (Airspeed, oil pressure, and oil temperature.)
 
Certainly "see and avoid" failed.

"See" worked just fine; "avoid" needs improvement.

I shouldn't take glee at other's misfortune. But this really is one of the more egregious examples of poor airmanship I have seen in a long time. It's like getting in a car accident in a mall parking lot.
 
Slow enough that you survive long enough to regret it...
 
Back
Top