Mid air collision reported at T31

[Dav8or]

To be honest, the only time a nonstandard pattern use freaked me out was when I encountered a airplane that just blew right through the pattern (and the DZ) on a diagonal, NORDO at exactly 1000 AGL and went on his merry way. At least he flew in a straight line. Well, I guess there was the time a Bo blasted by me on the left perhaps 100 feet off, on a long straight in (that's why I don't do those at uncontrolled fields anymore, outside the context of an instrument approach).

I suspect in the case of your Bo, it was not so much a case of a potential mid-air collision as it was a butt hurt pilot. He probably called final two miles out and figured he had priority to the runway because "He called it first". He probably saw you clearly and decided to buzz right by you. After all, he chose the straight in because it was the fastest way to a tie down and he really didn't want to change that plan.

I do straight ins a lot if they make sense and are permitted at the airfield. I will break off my straight in if I feel there are too many planes in the pattern, or if somebody on base might get to final before me. I let other people go ahead of me all the time, particularly if they are faster turbine equipment. I find on straight in approach, traffic is just as easy to spot. If nobody is there, I'm doing it. If there is one guy in the pattern and I can see him, I'm doing it. If there are two people in the pattern, I can see them both and depending on where they are, I'm doing it. If there are three or more in the pattern, I'm not doing it.

 

[MAKG1]

If he called it two miles out, he did it on the wrong frequency. I monitor CTAF as soon as practicable, and had been for some time on that approach. If he passed 100 feet off intentionally, I question whether that's better or worse than unintentionally. It's a good thing I didn't want to make a left turn right there.

 

[dtuuri]

The NTSB report is in. The blame is on the Piper pilot for using the "alternate entry" so many of you argue in favor of. Read it and weep:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20161231X24638&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

Thank you @Aeromot, over on the AOPA Forum, for keeping up with these reports.

 

[Peter Anderson]

The NTSB report is in. The blame is on the Piper pilot for using the "alternate entry" so many of you argue in favor of. Read it and weep:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20161231X24638&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

Thank you @Aeromot, over on the AOPA Forum, for keeping up with these reports.

You don’t cross mid field or do a tear drop at TPA. You need to be at least 500 above. That’s what caused this accident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SToL]

You don’t cross mid field or do a tear drop at TPA. You need to be at least 500 above. That’s what caused this accident.

Actually you do. What you don't do is come in high and descend into the traffic pattern. You enter the traffic pattern at pattern altitude.

If you want to cross at 500 above TPA, that's fine, but then you need to extend out and come in on a 45 at TPA.

 

[3393RP]

The FAA disagrees with those that think it's proper to cross midfield 500’ above TPA and descend to enter the traffic pattern, according to AC 90-66B.

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 90-66B, Non -Towered Airport Flight Operations, addresses, in part, communications operational procedures and traffic patterns for aircraft operating at an airport without an operational control tower.

11.3 Traffic Pattern Entry. Arriving aircraft should be at traffic pattern altitude and allow for sufficient time to view the entire traffic pattern before entering. Entries into traffic patterns while descending may create collision hazards and should be avoided. Entry to the downwind leg should be at a 45-degree angle abeam the midpoint of the runway to be used for landing. The pilot may use discretion to choose an alternate type of entry, especially when intending to cross over midfield, based upon the traffic and communication at the time of arrival.

Note: Aircraft should always enter the pattern at pattern altitude, especially when flying over midfield and entering the downwind directly. A midfield crossing alternate pattern entry should not be used when the pattern is congested. Descending into the traffic pattern can be dangerous, as one aircraft could descend on top of another aircraft already in the pattern. All similar types of aircraft, including those entering on the 45-degree angle to downwind, should be at the same pattern altitude so that it is easier to visually acquire any traffic in the pattern.

 

[Cluemeister]

So not only was he crossing midfield at TPA instead of 500 feet above, he was also not talking to anyone. Nice.

Is it possible the Piper pilot was tuned to the wrong frequency?

 

[Kenny Phillips]

You don’t cross mid field or do a tear drop at TPA. You need to be at least 500 above. That’s what caused this accident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'd say that "see and avoid" failed again. ADS-B, originally thought of as a curse (as were seat belts, ABS, and stability control in autos) my have cost as its only downside.

 

[FlyingTiger]

See and avoid was part of the problem for sure. The Arrow pilot was at the proper altitude (TPA) for a direct entry into the pattern from a midfield crosswind. That being said, if he was listening to the radio, he would of known about the conflicting traffic on downwind and should have been 500 ft above TPA until over downwind and the conflict, then descending and executing a teardrop to enter 45 degrees midfield at TPA.

 

[Velocity173]

While the 500 ft abv pattern to the teardrop 45 is the preferred method, the alternate method that the pilot chose is an approved pattern entry. While some might not necessarily agree with that choice, it’s not wrong by the FAA’s standards. Perhaps NTSB should communicate with the FAA on the safety of a maneuver that’s in the AC.

Personally, while I don’t care for that entry and never have done it, I have no problems with others doing it. Doesn’t matter how you enter, you could do a 45 and it still result in a midair if pilots aren’t communicating and scanning.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=196240

 

[Lindberg]

While the 500 ft abv pattern to the teardrop 45 is the preferred method, the alternate method that the pilot chose is an approved pattern entry. While some might not necessarily agree with that choice, it’s not wrong by the FAA’s standards. Perhaps NTSB should communicate with the FAA on the safety of a maneuver that’s in the AC.

Personally, while I don’t care for that entry and never have done it, I have no problems with others doing it. Doesn’t matter how you enter, you could do a 45 and it still result in a midair if pilots aren’t communicating and scanning.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=196240

This. The same collision could have occurred If he'd been directly entering downwind from the other side.

 

[Lindberg]

I'd say that "see and avoid" failed again. ADS-B, originally thought of as a curse (as were seat belts, ABS, and stability control in autos) my have cost as its only downside.

The Luscomb had no transponder, so ADSB wouldn't likely have made a difference here.

 

[dtuuri]

I think climbing on downwind isn't such a hot idea either. Better to make a level turn from crosswind to downwind at pattern altitude, especially in a high wing airplane.

 

[flyingron]

The AIM says nothing about teardrops or 45's. All it says is enter abeam the midpoint at pattern altitude. The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook actually lists both the descend in teardrop and the midfield crossover entry (though it does say preferred with regard to the 45 entry).

 

[EppyGA]

So not only was he crossing midfield at TPA instead of 500 feet above, he was also not talking to anyone. Nice.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20161231X24638&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

They further reported hearing the pilots of other airplanes making calls on the CTAF, but they were not sure if any of the calls were from the Piper pilot. Therefore, it could not be determined if the Piper pilot was making the FAA-recommended traffic pattern entry radio calls.

The report seems to be at odds with your statement.

 

[pburger]

TLDR = The NTSB is full of chit!! They have placed blame on a man [for the wrong reasons].
[EDIT- Okay, it looks like the Piper hit the Luscombe, so I'm okay with putting some blame on the Piper guy for failing to see and avoid, but his choice of pattern entry should not be a factor in the report.]

I take strong exception to the way that the NTSB report passes judgement on the midfield crosswind entry. It places blame on a pilot who is using a perfectly acceptable procedure to enter the traffic pattern. I personally believe it is much safer than the preferred method, but that's not my argument here.

"The pilot's use of an alternate traffic pattern entry procedure, which resulted in his inability to see and avoid the other airplane, which was flying the preferred traffic pattern, and the subsequent midair collision."

Inability to see? I call complete and total bullchit on that. He's facing directly perpendicular to the downwind leg, looking forward, at pattern altitude. His low-wing will not block his view of the downwind leg at all. He's got a great view. He should be able to see anyone. He should be looking for planes coming from the crosswind - possibly still climbing, and for planes entering on the 45 from the other side, as well as any planes already on downwind. Any plane directly across won't be a factor. In my opinion it's the best view in the house.

So, let's say he overflew the field at 500', went out a mile or two, descended, and then made a 235° turn to join the 45° entry. Now, he's at pattern altitude, heading toward the downwind. What's different? Why can he more easily see? NOTHING. In this particular case, it's actually harder to see because of the sun.

Taking the sun out of it, if the "preferred" opposite direction pattern entry is made with the 500' overflight, the descent, and the 235° turn to join the 45° entry, any plane that would be in conflict when entering the pattern would probably have just lifted off the runway when the overflight was made. While flying away from the airport, descending and turning, you won't know whether that guy is staying in the pattern if he's NORDO (which is ALWAYS a possibility). You have to rely on your eyes when you are entering the pattern, whichever side you come from. The radio helps tremendously, of course, but you better watch out for those NORDOs, or guys on the wrong frequency, or whatever -- or maybe you're NORDO, which is OK.
---------------------------

The "preferred" opposite side method, really?
Can we agree that the preferred method if approaching from the downwind side is the 45° entry? I think we can. I think we can say that the majority of traffic will be converging on a point about a half mile or mile out along the 45° line from the middle of the downwind. That traffic is coming from all directions, and descending to pattern altitude before they get to that point. How far out do they descend to TPA? 5 miles? 2 miles? probably not 10 miles. So, we have a potential flow of traffic descending and converging on a point in space. Now, let's take a guy from the other side of the field, who flies over midfield 500' above the pattern, then goes out a mile or so and descends 500' RIGHT INTO A POTENTIAL FLOW OF INCOMING TRAFFIC. Okay, once level, he starts a 235°turn to the right showing his belly to this potential flow of traffic, as he then begins to join that flow toward the convergence point to get in line for the 45° entry. How is this better than just staying at pattern altitude, with the best view in the house of the downwind, and merging in? If the pattern is so full that I can't work my way in from the opposite side, I just turn out to the right before crossing the runway, and swing out way wide and join the incoming flow. Most of the time (>90%) for me the pattern isn't that full, and the midfield crosswind entry is safe, easy, and PREFERRED by me. NONE of the time is the overhead teardrop, descending into a potential flow of other traffic either preferred or used by me. It seems inherently UNSAFE to me. I feel like I'm the only one. No one has been able to give me a clear explanation of why the 500' overflight with teardrop and descent to join the 45 is safer.

 

[dtuuri]

If the pattern is so full that I can't work my way in from the opposite side, I just turn out to the right before crossing the runway, and swing out way wide and join the incoming flow.

This, all the time, every time, no exceptions, IMO.

 

[Lowflynjack]

[EDIT- Okay, it looks like the Piper hit the Luscombe, so I'm okay with putting some blame on the Piper guy for failing to see and avoid, but his choice of pattern entry should not be a factor in the report.]

I agree their wording is not the best. "The pilot's use of an alternate traffic pattern entry procedure, which resulted in his inability to see and avoid the other airplane" Maybe one airplane being slightly below pattern altitude or one being slightly above, or the fact that he was flying into the sun resulted in his inability to see. The alternate method states, "Yields to the preferred 45 degree and downwind traffic" so the Piper pilot does get the blame.

We should all remember that all of us being at pattern altitude is dependent on pilots having the right setting on their altimeters and all altimeters reading correctly. In this case, the FAA does mention "The Piper's low wing configuration may also have restricted the Piper pilot's ability to see the Luscombe that was in front of and likely slightly below him." I don't start descending at midfield, so are they saying the Luscombe was low or the Piper was high and dropping into downwind?

NONE of the time is the overhead teardrop, descending into a potential flow of other traffic either preferred or used by me. It seems inherently UNSAFE to me. I feel like I'm the only one. No one has been able to give me a clear explanation of why the 500' overflight with teardrop and descent to join the 45 is safer.

You're not the only one. I fly over midfield and turn directly into downwind. I'll go out and come back in on a 45 if there's a lot of traffic, but otherwise I'm like you and don't see the safety in it.

 

[SToL]

TLDR = The NTSB is full of chit!! They have placed blame on a man unjustly.

I, and I believe several of us here, agree with you. Having had the opportunity to be involved with the NTSB on numerous accidents, I have often shook my head in the end at the conclusions the NTSB comes too and the things they write.

Additionally, although I don't usually do the midfield entry, I have done it. There is a very busy airport in Alaska where because of the direction of all the returning commercial traffic, the midfield entry is done frequently.

I do agree that you have better view-ability from a 90 degree angle than you do from a 45 degree. It would seem that's common sense. A disadvantage might be you have less time to take advantage of that view-ability.

It's a pretty safe assumption that most mid-airs happen because pilots didn't see each other. It sounds like such a simple solution. Keep your eyes outside the cockpit and keep your head on a swivel. In reality, this sometimes seems harder to do than we realize. People, on all forms of transportation manage to collide with objects every single day. Objects they should have seen long before they collide with them.

In airplanes it can be particularly difficult to see other planes in certain conditions. Sometimes because of the background the planes can essentially disappear. It's even more compounded by the fact that, the airplane you're about to hit appears to be a stationary object, which now makes it even harder to see.

What we can do as pilots to help alleviate this fact is learn a proper scan, rescan and then continue scanning. Confirm you're on the proper frequency and if you hear of another airplane in your vicinity and have not been able to visually identify him, consider altering your course if applicable. Use every piece of equipment you have on board to your advantage to see, and be seen. Use strobes, anti collision lights, flashing landing lights, radio and any type of traffic alert/avoidance you might have.

Remember, not everyone will be practicing everything you are, so you must be extra vigilant.

 

[Tommar98]

I don’t know if there are any facts to support the teardrop 45 entry as safer but it’s what I almost always do. I prefer to not feel rushed turning downwind at midfield and find myself abeam the no#’s a few seconds later (I guess that depends on length of runway). Also if it is windy the turn downwind from midfield can push you along quickly - again rushing my landing procedure. For that reason I like overflying midfield and taking some time to make the turn to the 45 and get established. If it seems really busy then I might overfly by more than 500 (announcing) and take more time to turn and enter the 45. I just never want to feel rushed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk