Marion Indiana Accident

The 'mode S' code in the registry does not indicate the presence of a mode s transponder. It's just a conversion of the n number into hex code to standardize the programming of the units.
 
@Chicago Bearhawk. Hello and welcome aboard POA. I noticed that you just joined POA yesterday and have made just three posts, all on this thread. So I feel compelled to ask if you have a particular interest in this accident and if so what it is? It’s perfectly ok if you do, I’m just curious. You seem to have done quite a bit of research and put some thought into it. Did you know someone involved?
 
Chicago Bearhawk said:
OK, I found 511AC talking to Grissom as he was going into Marion. Forgot that Marions is UTC -4 this time of the year...
KGUS-Apr-02-2018-2030Z.mp3 from liveatc, (I can't post the full link yet).

511AC was cleared to desend to 2500, and instructed to report Marion in-sight.
at 27:18, or just a few seconds before, 511AC reported airport in-sight
ATC offered to cancel IFR, or wait till on the ground,
511AC cancelled IFR.
Tower said "No traffic between you and the airport, cancellation received, change to advisory frequency approved"
511AC acknowledged.
That would have occurred about 11 or 12 minutes before the time of the reported incident.

So without the recording from 122.7, there is no way to know what happened, except that the airport manager or someone had reported that the C150 pilot did broadcast intentions, I read that in one of the news articles but can't confirm it at this point.

....
Click to expand...

I wonder if the jet switched to the wrong freq? if the airport mgr heard the 150, they either did or didn't hear the jet. maybe.
 
SkyDog58 said:
@Chicago Bearhawk. Hello and welcome aboard POA. I noticed that you just joined POA yesterday and have made just three posts, all on this thread. So I feel compelled to ask if you have a particular interest in this accident and if so what it is? It’s perfectly ok if you do, I’m just curious. You seem to have done quite a bit of research and put some thought into it. Did you know someone involved?
Click to expand...
Don't know anyone involved, but I fly in that area from time to time.

There are a few other reasons:
1. This accident is very disturbing to me for some reason, I think it is because I am unclear what the C150 could have done to prevent it. Also, in a collision where two planes are on a collision course it may not be easy for either plane to see the other (relative motion does not exist). Both take-off and landing are high workload periods. Almost all collisions are the fault of "both" pilots. There are many chances to for either one to take corrective action. I am not sure I see that in this case.

2. Last summer I was flying into Anderson IN, and had an issue that was disturbing happen to me, where it was my fault I had the intercom set to com2 not com1 luckily the other pilot saw me or it would have been bad. I heard him, but he did not hear me, and I said to my passenger/pilot should I land he said you have right of way. I kept trying to announce, the other plane some how knew I was listening to him, because he finally total me to check my com setting as I was landing. Since then I have started doing "Unicom Mic Check please" calls If I don't hear anyone at an airport, or think something is not right.

3. At KVPZ I have been witness to 2 or 3 runway incursions or near incursions (no accidents yet thank goodness), because of the crossing runways. This has included people on final unannounced.

4. In Fort Wanye, at a control towered airport I was on final and had a jet pull onto the runway. I did not see it but at about 400 ft AGL the tower sent an urgent message to step right upwind and go around. Then gave the JET an ear full. I tried to get the liveatc feed, but it did not exist. I always wondered if a report was filed but I never heard anything.

Also, I have been seeing mixed messages as to who was at fault and how it could have been prevented. Seems like the FAA will most likely lay significant blame on the C150 because of 91.113, although 91.113(b) may lay partial blame on the citation.

I think all pilots should read and study this ASI article.
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/pilot-resources/asi/safety-advisors/sa08.pdf?la=en
 
Sounds like things have been interesting for you up there. Can't fault your extra level of curiosity on this one.
 
Check out the scratches in the concrete right in front of the wreck. I am at a loss.

We like to think we can picture the momentum, dynamics, and where and how things should end up, but as fast as these things happen, it’s so unpredictable.

Even a “simple” 2D head-on or t-bone between 2 cars can result in so many different rebound trajectories of each vehicle. The only way you’d know it was a head on or t-bone is by looking at the crush zones. But where they end up parked you have to ask yourself wtf happened and how in the world did they end up like this? I used to be a first responder and was perplexed at some of the MVAs I saw.

Now add a 3rd dimension, a blender out front, and an aluminum can, and who can figure anything out is beyond me.
 
Chicago Bearhawk said:
3. At KVPZ I have been witness to 2 or 3 runway incursions or near incursions (no accidents yet thank goodness), because of the crossing runways. This has included people on final unannounced.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering too if I became a bit desensitized to all this. I remember in Tucumcari a couple of years back I landed on runway 8. As I rolled out, a crop duster landed on an intersecting runway silently. Although I was going to stop before the intersection, he saw me, throttled it up and leaped over the intersection, leaving me room to roll through (in the event, I didn't need to take it). I know I was on the right frequency, because an employee of the FBO asked me if I needed fuel. I suppose the cropduster was on a separate frequency to talk to his ground support. Instances like this happen pretty regularly and most of the time nothing happens, until this time. Have to ask if something I do needs to change.
 
Long time lurker (years!), first time poster. Not the type of thread I'd usually want my first post to be on but felt inclined to comment since this is near me (I'm in Indy) and this type of accident has always been my nightmare as a student pilot.

This type of incident shouldn't happen in 2018. Technology that costs less than a refueling might have been able to prevent this. Many GA accidents make me sad but this one just makes me angry. There is really no excuse for something like this to happen.

To be clear, I'm not faulting the pilots of either plane or anything like that (far from it!). I'm also not trying to be an armchair quarterback, especially given that we don't know all the details. I'm just saying, at a high level, this type of incident isn't acceptable any more (not that it ever has been!).

<This portion of my post removed for clarity :) >

Speaking of cheap tech - one thing this incident is inspiring me to do is to research ways to stream data real-time with low latency so that, in the event of an accident the audio, flight data, and perhaps even video are stored on remote systems. That way, if anything ever happens, people that care can access it accordingly.

The tech to do the aforementioned is already there. The only issues would be bandwidth, latency, error handling, and data caps. That said, "off the shelf tech" can probably handle those issues with little or no tweaks and cost.

Our aircraft are excellent antennas - between satellites and terrestrial stations there should be very few data coverage gaps on our planet. If you can get wifi on international flights across vast swaths of ocean, there should be zero reason why things like Malaysia Flight 370 are still a mystery. Flight data and audio streaming should only take a few kilobits per second - you could hack out 1's and 0's via morse code and be it'd be close to being sufficient for that little amount of data.

My point with all of the above is - this incident shouldn't have happened in the first place and, since it has, we should already know far more than we do about it.

Perhaps a good first step would be if people donated less than $100 worth of equipment (RTL-SDR + Raspberry Pi for instance) to each non-towered airport that has an internet connection to stream their CTAF to somewhere like liveatc so that when incidents like this happen we at least have some more information. I plan on making said donation to my local FBO if they will take it.
 
Last edited:
skypesos said:
Long time lurker (years!), first time poster. Not the type of thread I'd usually want my first post to be on but felt inclined to comment since this is near me (I'm in Indy) and this type of accident has always been my nightmare as a student pilot.

This type of incident shouldn't happen in 2018. Technology that costs less than a refueling probably could have prevented this (and I'm not talking about just ADS-B receiver + tablet etc...). Many GA accidents make me sad but this one just makes me angry. There is really no excuse for something like this to happen.

To be clear, I'm not faulting the pilots of either plane or anything like that (far from it!). I'm also not trying to be an armchair quarterback, especially given that we don't know all the details. I'm just saying, at a high level, this type of incident isn't acceptable any more (not that it ever has been!).

A cheapo tablet with GPS, a data connection, and everyone using an app that reports locations might have been able to help. Lights that change colors placed on or near the runways when sensors detect large objects or weight might have helped. Everyone communicating on the CTAF might have helped. Who knows. What I do know is we have more than enough cheap technology to make sure everyone has situational awareness at this point.

Speaking of cheap tech - one thing this incident is inspiring me to do is to research ways to stream data real-time with low latency so that, in the event of an accident the audio, flight data, and perhaps even video are stored on remote systems. That way, if anything ever happens, people that care can access it accordingly.

The tech to do the aforementioned is already there. The only issues would be bandwidth, latency, error handling, and data caps. That said, "off the shelf tech" can probably handle those issues with little or no tweaks and cost.

Our aircraft are excellent antennas - between satellites and terrestrial stations there should be very few data coverage gaps on our planet. If you can get wifi on international flights across vast swaths of ocean, there should be zero reason why things like Malaysia Flight 370 are still a mystery. Flight data and audio streaming should only take a few kilobits per second - you could hack out 1's and 0's via morse code and be it'd be close to being sufficient for that little amount of data.

My point with all of the above is - this incident shouldn't have happened in the first place and, since it has, we should already know far more than we do about it.

Perhaps a good first step would be if people donated less than $100 worth of equipment (RTL-SDR + Raspberry Pi for instance) to each non-towered airport that has an internet connection to stream their CTAF to somewhere like liveatc so that when incidents like this happen we at least have some more information. I plan on making said donation to my local FBO if they will take it.
Click to expand...

Overthinking it. And overreacting.

We have the information. The Citation crew survived the accident, remember?

It’ll all be in the report in a year.

As an engineer I did chuckle that all of your “solutions” that “cost less than a refueling” all cost significantly more than a refueling. :)

The solutions were pretty awful also and didn’t even account for basic time/speed/distance math.

Maybe Sales is more your thing than engineering? LOL.
 
skypesos said:
Long time lurker (years!), first time poster. Not the type of thread I'd usually want my first post to be on but felt inclined to comment since this is near me (I'm in Indy) and this type of accident has always been my nightmare as a student pilot.

This type of incident shouldn't happen in 2018. Technology that costs less than a refueling probably could have prevented this (and I'm not talking about just ADS-B receiver + tablet etc...). Many GA accidents make me sad but this one just makes me angry. There is really no excuse for something like this to happen.

To be clear, I'm not faulting the pilots of either plane or anything like that (far from it!). I'm also not trying to be an armchair quarterback, especially given that we don't know all the details. I'm just saying, at a high level, this type of incident isn't acceptable any more (not that it ever has been!).

A cheapo tablet with GPS, a data connection, and everyone using an app that reports locations might have been able to help. Lights that change colors placed on or near the runways when sensors detect large objects or weight might have helped. Everyone communicating on the CTAF might have helped. Who knows. What I do know is we have more than enough cheap technology to make sure everyone has situational awareness at this point.

Speaking of cheap tech - one thing this incident is inspiring me to do is to research ways to stream data real-time with low latency so that, in the event of an accident the audio, flight data, and perhaps even video are stored on remote systems. That way, if anything ever happens, people that care can access it accordingly.

The tech to do the aforementioned is already there. The only issues would be bandwidth, latency, error handling, and data caps. That said, "off the shelf tech" can probably handle those issues with little or no tweaks and cost.

Our aircraft are excellent antennas - between satellites and terrestrial stations there should be very few data coverage gaps on our planet. If you can get wifi on international flights across vast swaths of ocean, there should be zero reason why things like Malaysia Flight 370 are still a mystery. Flight data and audio streaming should only take a few kilobits per second - you could hack out 1's and 0's via morse code and be it'd be close to being sufficient for that little amount of data.

My point with all of the above is - this incident shouldn't have happened in the first place and, since it has, we should already know far more than we do about it.

Perhaps a good first step would be if people donated less than $100 worth of equipment (RTL-SDR + Raspberry Pi for instance) to each non-towered airport that has an internet connection to stream their CTAF to somewhere like liveatc so that when incidents like this happen we at least have some more information. I plan on making said donation to my local FBO if they will take it.
Click to expand...
First of all, welcome to POA as a first time poster! The incidents close to us geographically do tend to affect us more. I’m in Indy as well and based out of KUMP (Fishers) and we had our first (I believe) fatal at the airport last year, and it occurred shortly after I landed. I think the investigators will be able to determine the cause(s) for the Marion crash. I heard that an airport worker heard the radio transmissions and will be able to provide unbiased feedback. They will also be able to interview the jet pilot. I agree that it would be beneficial to have more airports with CTAF recordings. Additionally, equipping more of the GA fleet with ADS-B out will help prevent some of these incidents as well.
 
Also the C150 did have a MODE S transponder (per registry info at FAA)
Click to expand...
Eh? The FAA registry has no clue whether you have a mode S transponder or not. All aircraft in the registry have Mode S codes allocated (even those without electrical systems).
 
denverpilot said:
Overthinking it. And overreacting.

We have the information. The Citation crew survived the accident, remember?

It’ll all be in the report in a year.

As an engineer I did chuckle that all of your “solutions” that “cost less than a refueling” all cost significantly more than a refueling. :)

The solutions were pretty awful also and didn’t even account for basic time/speed/distance math.

Maybe Sales is more your thing than engineering? LOL.
Click to expand...

I just re-read my original post and I'm afraid I didn't clearly articulate what I was intending to say. For that I would argue that I shouldn't be a writer more so than doing sales or engineering lol. I did not intend to imply that those solutions would cost less than refueling but that is absolutely how it read. I debated letting it stay "as is" (although I'm aware it will remain in its full, un-edited glory for all eternity in your reply) to set an example of why one shouldn't post when in a hurry but have opted to edit out the portion in question to save face.

What I probably should have stated is "We have plenty of technology available today, a lot of which costs less than a refueling, that helps provide situational awareness and might have helped prevent an incident like this one".

Regardless, I stand by everything else in my now revised post. I understand and respect that not all loss of life can be avoided but I also don't feel it is over-reacting for anything else I said.

I'm aware and am happy the crew survived of the Citation survived and should provide invaluable information as to what happened on their end. I also know that a recording of the CTAF would provide critical, unbiased information that would hopefully help us understand - and begin learning from - this incident.
 
Last edited:
skypesos said:
What I probably should have stated is "We have plenty of technology available today, a lot of which costs less than a refueling, that helps provide situational awareness and might have helped prevent an incident like this one".
.
Click to expand...

But it doesn’t, and you have yet to give an example of one that does.

Certainly nothing inexpensive enough to deploy widely for this sort of accident which is, exceedingly rare, when looked at against total flight ops.

Is there some cheap solution you forgot to mention?
 
denverpilot said:
But it doesn’t, and you have yet to give an example of one that does.

Certainly nothing inexpensive enough to deploy widely for this sort of accident which is, exceedingly rare, when looked at against total flight ops.

Is there some cheap solution you forgot to mention?
Click to expand...

OK, I'll take a shot. Super cheap? FlightRadar24 on a cheap Android tablet with a data connection. Of course the flaw with this is that all aircraft must have ADS-B and the data needs to be real-time (although, from my experience, it is near real-time to within a few seconds) and there must be something receiving ADS-B nearby for anything at low altitudes. Pull it up after run-up and check for anything near the field. Overkill? Not ideal? Imperfect? Absolutely - but I do it. I'm not saying communicating on CTAF and a thorough check for traffic isn't and shouldn't be the primary method for avoiding this type of incident. But additional situational awareness is generally a good thing, especially given there is no requirement to communicate on CTAF (and I've observed many that don't) and the difficulty in seeing things in the distance sometimes.

Slightly more expensive but better? Foreflight + Stratus + ipad. Still need all aircraft to have ADS-B though.

I get what you're saying on the total flight ops versus incident rate. I understand and respect that you're OK with the status quo. I just think we can do better, but that is just my opinion and I'm leaving it at that.

Happy flying and safe skies my friend!
 
skypesos said:
OK, I'll take a shot. Super cheap? FlightRadar24 on a cheap Android tablet with a data connection. Of course the flaw with this is that all aircraft must have ADS-B and the data needs to be real-time (although, from my experience, it is near real-time to within a few seconds) and there must be something receiving ADS-B nearby for anything at low altitudes. Pull it up after run-up and check for anything near the field. Overkill? Not ideal? Imperfect? Absolutely - but I do it. I'm not saying communicating on CTAF and a thorough check for traffic isn't and shouldn't be the primary method for avoiding this type of incident. But additional situational awareness is generally a good thing, especially given there is no requirement to communicate on CTAF (and I've observed many that don't) and the difficulty in seeing things in the distance sometimes.

Slightly more expensive but better? Foreflight + Stratus + ipad. Still need all aircraft to have ADS-B though.

I get what you're saying on the total flight ops versus incident rate. I understand and respect that you're OK with the status quo. I just think we can do better, but that is just my opinion and I'm leaving it at that.

Happy flying and safe skies my friend!
Click to expand...

FlightRadar is far from “near real time”. Look up the specs of how they get their feed from FAA. Certainly nowhere close to being able to avoid a collision. In fact nothing that requires an RF data link processed elsewhere through a computer off-site will meet the speed requirements.

ADS-B is already mandated for controlled airspace in two more years. Not sure what you’re getting at by bringing it up as a solution. It’s already here and will be for quite some time. It has some very significant limitations especially if both aircraft aren’t participating on 1040ES but a mixture of 1040ES and UAT.

ForeFlight/Stratus is a fill in measure for those unwilling to purchase certified ADS-B in and has numerous documented failure modes. It’s just an ADS-B receiver with poor antenna placement is all it really is. And if you haven’t read about how FAA crippled ADS-B for safety purposes by forcing the transmission of target data ONLY inside of a “hockey puck” of a participating ADS-B OUT aircraft’s general location, you probably should.

Additionally ADS-B targets on the ground are squelched by most implementations. The specification requires OUT participants to flag when they’re on the ground and airborne. It’s designed as an airborne system and anything transmitting that it’s on the ground will likely go completely unseen. In this scenario, that would mean the Cessna would see the Citation, but not the other way around. Being it’s not designed for ground collision avoidance, it isn’t a proper solution.

You claimed the situation was completely untenable and could be fixed with a tank of gas. You still haven’t provided a method that does that. Anything that uses ADS-B cost us all $2B to deploy. Not the mythical tank of gas.

I suspect you’re not much into designing or supporting RF data systems and speaking from a place of absolute cluelessness so I’m being nice here, and asking you to clarify your assertions instead of just applying over 20 years of engineering knowledge and telling you you’re flat wrong about the price tag for such things.

The CLOSEST you’ll get to what you’re looking for is FLARM. You can look it up. It’s not a standard but popular amongst glider operators. It’s not intended nor designed for runway collision avoidance. And considering you’re unaware of it, and haven’t mentioned it in three requests for an inexpensive system, I knew you really aren’t speaking from a place of knowledge on any of this.

Your speech on “status quo” is cute but not my opinion. Make up stuff about yourself if you like, don’t make up things for me. You can be as emotionally frustrated as you like about the state of the art in ground collision avoidance technology, but don’t pretend to know what others think about it or what they know.

The “I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I FEEL like there must be a solution, so you must also....” popularity shame game isn’t an appropriate way to discuss this. Not amongst people who HAVE designed and supported RF systems anyway.

I suggest significant homework if you want to discuss ideas with anyone with experience in the matter. I could continue to prod you with simple questions like “What data rate is required for an actionable collision alert between two objects in a position aware system with a closing rate of >0 and Mach 2?” but I don’t think you’re actually listening. Think. Harder.
 
denverpilot said:

"FlightRadar is far from “near real time”. "

While this has been proven for years, posters on forums talk about FR24 and Flight Aware profiles of accident aircraft as if they were gospel.
 
3393RP said:
denverpilot said:

"FlightRadar is far from “near real time”. "

While this has been proven for years, posters on forums talk about FR24 and Flight Aware profiles of accident aircraft as if they were gospel.
Click to expand...
You want to have real fun, read some of Stuart Wood's books. Initially, for a man who claims to be a pilot and flies a citation, he purports absolute drivel about FlightAware in his books. I was thinking it was just poetic license to make the stories work, but I've found so many errors in his books (just about everything he writes about DC is wrong and even much he writes about flying is way off), I decided he just doesn't care about authenticity.
 
Relying on flight radar 24 for collision avoidance rivals the idea of using an iPad to determine speeds in the pattern in degrees of innovativeness.
 
skypesos said:
OK, I'll take a shot. Super cheap? FlightRadar24 on a cheap Android tablet with a data connection. Of course the flaw with this is that all aircraft must have ADS-B and the data needs to be real-time (although, from my experience, it is near real-time to within a few seconds) and there must be something receiving ADS-B nearby for anything at low altitudes. Pull it up after run-up and check for anything near the field. Overkill? Not ideal? Imperfect? Absolutely - but I do it. I'm not saying communicating on CTAF and a thorough check for traffic isn't and shouldn't be the primary method for avoiding this type of incident. But additional situational awareness is generally a good thing, especially given there is no requirement to communicate on CTAF (and I've observed many that don't) and the difficulty in seeing things in the distance sometimes.

Slightly more expensive but better? Foreflight + Stratus + ipad. Still need all aircraft to have ADS-B though.

I get what you're saying on the total flight ops versus incident rate. I understand and respect that you're OK with the status quo. I just think we can do better, but that is just my opinion and I'm leaving it at that.

Happy flying and safe skies my friend!
Click to expand...
Too bad you're getting flamed for want of better tech. I mean a portable roadside sign can tell me if I'm speeding, why not a runway sign showing a warning light or something when cross runway traffic is 'detected'. ??? dunno, just saying, why flame a guy for wondering why it isn't better.

Welcome to POA (as a poster)! Since you've been lurking a while you probably already know but, put on your helmet and try not to perpetuate an argument with someone who won't let it go.
 
Wearing a cup is more like it...No one poster singled out, that’s like on most threads...time out, gimme a sec to adjust mine...game on.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Two dead in collision of two aircraft at Marion airport

https://www.wthr.com/article/two-dead-in-collision-of-two-aircraft-at-marion-airport
Click to expand...
No doubt the Citation was landing on the longer Rwy 4-22 and the 150 taking off on 15-33. If the Citation wasn't basically touching down at the time it would have been worse. Another example of runway incursion avoidance and situational awareness. There was a similar collision (or near collision with loss of control) on crossing runways in FL not long ago. Condolences all around.
 
Clark1961 said:
No skid marks indicating the jet spun around.
Click to expand...
Kinetic forces being what they are, the jet has a larger mass, solidly on concrete decelerating, but still moving right-to-left, vs. the light 150 just above rotation speed hitting the vertical stablizer with propel the plan in the direction the jet is still moving (right to left). The relative positions make sense of the aircraft make sense in the photo.
 
exncsurfer said:
Too bad you're getting flamed for want of better tech. I mean a portable roadside sign can tell me if I'm speeding, why not a runway sign showing a warning light or something when cross runway traffic is 'detected'. ??? dunno, just saying, why flame a guy for wondering why it isn't better.

Welcome to POA (as a poster)! Since you've been lurking a while you probably already know but, put on your helmet and try not to perpetuate an argument with someone who won't let it go.
Click to expand...

He didn’t ask why. He stated flatly that there were cheap solutions.

We already have such warning light systems. They’re operated by the cheapest and most reliable all weather detectors we could find. They’re called “air traffic controllers”.

The warning light system costs about $20,000 per runway minimum for a standardized set. More intersections, more money.

But let’s say you’re designing this system. Where do the warning lights go? Alongside each runway? Every 1000’? Both directions? We’re up to $50,000 in lights before we buy the mythical detector.

Now the detector. Is it going to detect aircraft in flight on final? Short final? Only when they’re touching the runway? How will it differentiate between a Citation and a Bull Moose standing in the middle of the cross runway? How about a rabbit? What shall the criteria be for this sensor

Okay we deployed the thing. It trips all the time on animals and tumbleweeds and other crap but it’s “better than nothing!” We’re in our single engine trainer and 400’ from the crossing runway the lights start flashing. Do we stand on the brakes and destroy a set of tires? Do we go and hope the detector detected the other airplane on final and didn’t malfunction until they’re also 400’ from the intersection?

How about how does this detector thingy tell you someone is head on with you on YOUR runway vs the crossing runway? Or does it just flash annoying anytime anyone is lined up and waiting on any runway?

What if we have two parallels and a crosswind runway? Does it flash all the time while someone is on the parallel to our left or right?

All of that crap has to be defined and added to airport regs, the signage has to be standardized, and the system has to meet a certification standard so what it actually does can be put into the AIM as well as standards for malfunctions, Notams for out of service conditions, someone to monitor it and fix it. All our current airport lighting systems already have such standards.

Does the ops truck need to go out and drive up and down the runway and ask someone to go check in another truck that all the lights are blinking their important warning?

How much money are we up to now for a sleepy little airport that doesn’t qualify for a “free” tower?

Wouldn’t they just be better off putting up a contract tower and paying for it and the controllers? There’s nothing stopping them from doing so. FAA does have to draw the line somewhere and it’s by number of operations per day.

Nope. There’s not a cost effective simple solution to the problem. There’s solutions, but they’re expensive. Most small municipal airports can’t afford them. If the rate of these rare occurrences is too high, cough up the tax dollars and I’m sure every airport could have a tower and someone else’s eyeballs watching every intersection. Or demand the local municipality do it and pay the taxes to them.

Either way, it’s still the simplest, while not foolproof, system.

You can’t have cheap local small airports and not have a bit more risk than the big commercial airports and all their controllers and toys. Many of those even have ground radar for this during bad weather and low visibility ops.

Is your nightmare a runway crossing accident? Then plan to fly only to controlled airports. You’ll change your personal risk model slightly to one that has a tiny percentage lower chance of that happening, and a larger chance of an in-flight collision, also quite small.

And then you’ll still go kill yourself in your airplane by running out of fuel or a loss of directional control on landing, because you didn’t bother mitigating the largest risks as already seen in real world accident reports.

But you flew less because you felt safer with that new locally owned and operated control tower sucking your wallet dry. They’ll kindly hit the alert button to call an ambulance for you as you slide off the runway in a crosswind and flip your spamcan from lack of experience.

It really is an acceptable risk compared to what really kills light aircraft pilots. Even more harsh, it didn’t kill the crew or passengers of the bigger commercial aircraft in this case.

And yes I’m aware that controlling the airport doesn’t solve all problems. Tenerife comes to mind. But yes, we have to put resources to the most effective use and there is a priority system, and Marion is pretty far down it.

We had this discussion with leadership at work today. “How much security do you really want, and how are you planning to pay for it? Are you charging your customers enough to meet THEIR security requirements on us?” Normal business question. Same goes for “safety”. It’s the same analysis.

If this circumstance isn’t “safe” enough, then cough up the dough. We engineers can make it as “safe” as you like with blinky lights and all sorts of toys and you still have to decide if you’ve got the distance to stop your airplane and blow both mains doing it, if the blinky lights say to.
 
denverpilot said:
He didn’t ask why. He stated flatly that there were cheap solutions.

We already have such warning light systems. They’re operated by the cheapest and most reliable all weather detectors we could find. They’re called “air traffic controllers”.

The warning light system costs about $20,000 per runway minimum for a standardized set. More intersections, more money.

But let’s say you’re designing this system. Where do the warning lights go? Alongside each runway? Every 1000’? Both directions? We’re up to $50,000 in lights before we buy the mythical detector.

Now the detector. Is it going to detect aircraft in flight on final? Short final? Only when they’re touching the runway? How will it differentiate between a Citation and a Bull Moose standing in the middle of the cross runway? How about a rabbit? What shall the criteria be for this sensor

Okay we deployed the thing. It trips all the time on animals and tumbleweeds and other crap but it’s “better than nothing!” We’re in our single engine trainer and 400’ from the crossing runway the lights start flashing. Do we stand on the brakes and destroy a set of tires? Do we go and hope the detector detected the other airplane on final and didn’t malfunction until they’re also 400’ from the intersection?

How about how does this detector thingy tell you someone is head on with you on YOUR runway vs the crossing runway? Or does it just flash annoying anytime anyone is lined up and waiting on any runway?

What if we have two parallels and a crosswind runway? Does it flash all the time while someone is on the parallel to our left or right?

All of that crap has to be defined and added to airport regs, the signage has to be standardized, and the system has to meet a certification standard so what it actually does can be put into the AIM as well as standards for malfunctions, Notams for out of service conditions, someone to monitor it and fix it. All our current airport lighting systems already have such standards.

Does the ops truck need to go out and drive up and down the runway and ask someone to go check in another truck that all the lights are blinking their important warning?

How much money are we up to now for a sleepy little airport that doesn’t qualify for a “free” tower?

Wouldn’t they just be better off putting up a contract tower and paying for it and the controllers? There’s nothing stopping them from doing so. FAA does have to draw the line somewhere and it’s by number of operations per day.

Nope. There’s not a cost effective simple solution to the problem. There’s solutions, but they’re expensive. Most small municipal airports can’t afford them. If the rate of these rare occurrences is too high, cough up the tax dollars and I’m sure every airport could have a tower and someone else’s eyeballs watching every intersection. Or demand the local municipality do it and pay the taxes to them.

Either way, it’s still the simplest, while not foolproof, system.

You can’t have cheap local small airports and not have a bit more risk than the big commercial airports and all their controllers and toys. Many of those even have ground radar for this during bad weather and low visibility ops.

Is your nightmare a runway crossing accident? Then plan to fly only to controlled airports. You’ll change your personal risk model slightly to one that has a tiny percentage lower chance of that happening, and a larger chance of an in-flight collision, also quite small.

And then you’ll still go kill yourself in your airplane by running out of fuel or a loss of directional control on landing, because you didn’t bother mitigating the largest risks as already seen in real world accident reports.

But you flew less because you felt safer with that new locally owned and operated control tower sucking your wallet dry. They’ll kindly hit the alert button to call an ambulance for you as you slide off the runway in a crosswind and flip your spamcan from lack of experience.

It really is an acceptable risk compared to what really kills light aircraft pilots. Even more harsh, it didn’t kill the crew or passengers of the bigger commercial aircraft in this case.

And yes I’m aware that controlling the airport doesn’t solve all problems. Tenerife comes to mind. But yes, we have to put resources to the most effective use and there is a priority system, and Marion is pretty far down it.

We had this discussion with leadership at work today. “How much security do you really want, and how are you planning to pay for it? Are you charging your customers enough to meet THEIR security requirements on us?” Normal business question. Same goes for “safety”. It’s the same analysis.

If this circumstance isn’t “safe” enough, then cough up the dough. We engineers can make it as “safe” as you like with blinky lights and all sorts of toys and you still have to decide if you’ve got the distance to stop your airplane and blow both mains doing it, if the blinky lights say to.
Click to expand...
There are a million reasons to not invent something, thanks for enumerating a few of them for the random idea I pulled out of, well somewhere. :)
 
exncsurfer said:
There are a million reasons to not invent something, thanks for enumerating a few of them for the random idea I pulled out of, well somewhere. :)
Click to expand...

It’s ok. This is what I do in IT.

“Do you really need a $1M solution to document management or would a filing cabinet and an organized part time secretary meet 95% of what you’re trying to accomplish? I know which one we can afford...”
 
denverpilot said:
It’s ok. This is what I do in IT.

“Do you really need a $1M solution to document management or would a filing cabinet and an organized part time secretary meet 95% of what you’re trying to accomplish? I know which one we can afford...”
Click to expand...
I heard a former president of Beech give a talk on the Starship...sounded a lot like that. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
He didn’t ask why. He stated flatly that there were cheap solutions.
...

Okay we deployed the thing. It trips all the time on animals and tumbleweeds and other crap but it’s “better than nothing!” We’re in our single engine trainer and 400’ from the crossing runway the lights start flashing. Do we stand on the brakes and destroy a set of tires? Do we go and hope the detector detected the other airplane on final and didn’t malfunction until they’re also 400’ from the intersection?

How about how does this detector thingy tell you someone is head on with you on YOUR runway vs the crossing runway? Or does it just flash annoying anytime anyone is lined up and waiting on any runway?

What if we have two parallels and a crosswind runway? Does it flash all the time while someone is on the parallel to our left or right?

All of that crap has to be defined and added to airport regs, the signage has to be standardized, and the system has to meet a certification standard so what it actually does can be put into the AIM as well as standards for malfunctions, Notams for out of service conditions, someone to monitor it and fix it. All our current airport lighting systems already have such standards.

Does the ops truck need to go out and drive up and down the runway and ask someone to go check in another truck that all the lights are blinking their important warning?
Click to expand...
I wasn't able to really follow the entire back/forth about the discussion above, but a couple of points I wanted to make:

So kinda interesting as I have been doing more investigation, I was not really clear on what all the "NextGen" feature the FAA had in store, and there is some really good stuff coming in 2020 and beyond. One of the most interesting systems is the ASDE-X, I still can't post links but the premises of this system is pertinent to this conversation:

Airport Surface Detection System — Model X (ASDE-X) is a surveillance system using radar, multilateration and satellite technology that allows air traffic controllers to track surface movement of aircraft and vehicles. It was developed to help reduce critical Category A and B runway incursions.

The data that ASDE-X uses comes from the following sources:
  1. Surface surveillance radar located on top of the air traffic control tower and / or surface surveillance radar located on a remote tower
  2. Multilateration sensors located around the airport
  3. Airport Surveillance Radars such as the ASR-9
  4. Automatic Dependent Surveillance — Broadcast (ADS-B) sensors
  5. Terminal automation system to obtain flight plan data.
of course this is for CAT A and B, and is currently only at large airports.

From an investigator's perspective:
ASAIC
ASAIC is a research and investigation tool that allows users to retrieve information and replay an incident from any airport where a surface monitoring system, such as the Airport Surface Detection Equipment–Model X, is used.

And from the FAA's website:
General aviation operators have joined commercial and corporate aviation to provide voluntary, anonymous operations data to ASIAS. Additionally, the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) adopted a CAST-like process to analyze accident information and devise critical safety enhancements for general aviation.
​
If you read throught he FAA Next Gen capabilities, it has really already thought about much of the activity that is disscussed above and questioned on cost. Because much of the system does not actually require radar but can instead use the Satellite based ADS-B, and because much of the system and logic is via software systems like the ASAIC, it is very conceivable that these safety features and research tools will make there way to the smallest uncontrolled airports, and locations without any radar coverage.

What is coming to light is just how large an effort the NextGen is. I initially laughed at the following statement from the FAA website, but as you read the technologies and tools that are being developed you realize it is possibly correct:

This modernization effort is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in U.S. history. Instead of making minor upgrades to aging infrastructure, the FAA and its partners continue to implement major new technologies and capabilities in shaping a modern, resilient, and secure National Airspace System​

All that said, and as safe is GA is with less that 1 fatal per 100,000 hrs of flight, there is no reason NOT to focus on doing better.

Finally, Airport Managers need to be part of this as well. If an Airport manager is not lobbying for money and making valid arguments to the funding authorities then that airport will loose out on technology and some cases grants for capital infrastructure improvements.
 
So, let me get this straight. On the one hand, according to Nate, implementations exclude targets on the ground. On the other hand, airports install ADS-B on snowplows. Is that how it works?
 
zaitcev said:
So, let me get this straight. On the one hand, according to Nate, implementations exclude targets on the ground. On the other hand, airports install ADS-B on snowplows. Is that how it works?
Click to expand...
Like all POA posters Nate is correct. If you doubt this assertation, just ask any poster if they are correct. Of course this gets us to the point of conflicting positions with all parties being correct. At that point we hand out participation awards and eventually move along. Of course some of the participation awards have negative value and others contain derogatory references. As always YMWV.
 
zaitcev said:
So, let me get this straight. On the one hand, according to Nate, implementations exclude targets on the ground. On the other hand, airports install ADS-B on snowplows. Is that how it works?
Click to expand...

The technology is being developed, and is currently in place at 50+ larger airports currently, yes. As software and data systems are enhanced, and ADS-B is adopted and expensive components will no longer be needed to increase the adoption rate.

Understanding how Satellite based solutions can expand coverage, identify targets, increase utilization, and increase safety is really being missed here.

it was just 22 years ago that the first GPS Unit was FAA approved instrument flight rules.
and today is the primary technology for guiding aircraft in low-visibility approaches.

On February 16, 1994, a significant milestone in American aviation occurred when the Federal Aviation Administration certified the first GPS unit for use in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) operations. Twenty years later, GPS has become the dominant form of en route navigation as well as the primary technology for guiding aircraft in low-visibility approaches to landing.
​
Today, airports that could not afford anything except possibly an NDB Circling approach, can have GPS and even vnav to lower mins.

The point being that as technologies are created that are satellite based, adoption can be cheap because it typically only requires changes to software and procedures, NOT expensive ground based installations.
 
This incident reminds me of the accident where a landing United Express Beech 1900 collided with a King Air trying to take off from an intersecting runway. Everyone in the United Express survived the impact only to be trapped in the burning aircraft by a stuck door. The female pilot was able to get here head out the cockpit window and plead for help in getting the door open. A CFI she knew was the first on scene and tryed to get the door open to no avail. Just a terrible situation, have to believe that guy has nightmares about it.
 
Last edited:
Chicago Bearhawk said:
What is coming to light is just how large an effort the NextGen is. I initially laughed at the following statement from the FAA website, but as you read the technologies and tools that are being developed you realize it is possibly correct:
Click to expand...

You initially laughed because your gut told you the truth. “NexGen” is marketing wank for “We put this label on every high dollar project to convince people they should pay for it.”

ADSE-X via satellite has significant delays built into the system. Notice how the focus was on what *investigators* like about it? Because it’s not “real time”. It’s delayed.

It’ll be about as useful for real time warnings as cops are useful when the burglar is already in your house and you’re waiting for them to arrive.

Also you noticed that it’s “the fifth largest airports” because they have money to spend on wank. And even then, the airliner fleet will take decades to be outfitted with the gear. It’s a solution being built to avoid having another Malaysia style disappearance mostly and it won’t be in all Commerical airliners for decades. Those that have it will he transmitting their locations anyway for datalink to ATC and real operational gains (clearances downloaded into the aircraft automatically) and maintenance alerts “engine two will need a mechanic at the next stop by the telemetry data being sent”, so FAA hops on board and says “we can also show these airplanes on a map!

Awww, precious. That’s nice. Nobody is going to install satellite gear in an airplane unless the benefits outweigh the costs. ADSE-X is a side effect with marketing wank wrapped around it. Rah rah we can SEE you! LOL.

Chicago Bearhawk said:
On February 16, 1994, a significant milestone in American aviation occurred when the Federal Aviation Administration certified the first GPS unit for use in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) operations. Twenty years later, GPS has become the dominant form of en route navigation as well as the primary technology for guiding aircraft in low-visibility approaches to landing.
​
Today, airports that could not afford anything except possibly an NDB Circling approach, can have GPS and even vnav to lower mins.
Click to expand...

Many airliners still don’t have GPS. Almost all of the GPS uptake in the smaller fleet is now due to needing a certified location source for the ADS-B mandate. If it weren’t for the mandate, panel GPS would still cost over $10,000 a copy. Oh wait... it does. Ha.

The real revolution in GPS in light aircraft was on consumer tablets. IFR, it’s still hideously expensive. Amortize out how many NDB approaches you fly in a spamcan that were replaced with a GPS and you’re probably paying $1000 an approach for those over the lifetime of your aircraft. Anywhere you actually wanted to go already had an ILS. :)

Satellite systems that have to transmit up will be an order of magnitude more expensive.

None of that stuff will alleviate the money problems at small airports. Only more flights will. No passengers, no satellite based Buck Rogers. And as it stands right now most of these rural places are served at a loss and government subsidized anyway.

Busy airliner and bizjet airports will get this “gee whiz” stuff and more than half of the aircraft won’t be outfitted to use any of it for two decades. Unless... it speeds the turn time for them. Cockpit data links do that if tied to ATC. Otherwise nobody’s buying.
 
NTSB preliminary info came out.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...D=20180403X00427&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA

There were 3 witnesses in the pilot lounge that were listening to the unicom 2 of them seemed to give statements, and the Cessna 525 jet has a cockpit voice recorder that is now in the possession of the NTSB. The surviving pilot of the Cessna 525 does not recall making a call to the unicom, and was relying on TCAS.

Not much more said. it did discuss some of the signs posted on the runway environment and none of the passengers saw the C150.
 
Chicago Bearhawk said:
NTSB preliminary info came out.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...D=20180403X00427&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA

There were 3 witnesses in the pilot lounge that were listening to the unicom 2 of them seemed to give statements, and the Cessna 525 jet has a cockpit voice recorder that is now in the possession of the NTSB. The surviving pilot of the Cessna 525 does not recall making a call to the unicom, and was relying on TCAS.

Not much more said. it did discuss some of the signs posted on the runway environment and none of the passengers saw the C150.
Click to expand...
Wow, relying on TCAS instead of using the radio. Just sad.
 
Yikes. That is sobering news.
I was about to post that I don't just make plain position calls like most pilots without listening. I build a mental picture in my head and I actually literally verbally TALK to the other pilots if in doubt. Often for the same reason: because they are just saying some automatic stuff without much thought. I want to be certain that I know where they are and they know where I am. You cannot avoid a potential collision without knowing about it first.
But if there was no call made in this case, the C150 pilots would have absolutely hard time seeing the 525 on approach because it was obstructed by the left wing. :(
This one really sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top