MidAir at Centennial Airport Cirrus and Metroliner

eman1200 said:
but these weren't instrument approaches so what does that have to do with anything? also, did they just narrow the distance between runways or has it always been 700'? so really not sure what your points are.
Click to expand...
I don't know what your point is either. You're equating operations at an airport with over half a mile between the runways to one that only has 700'.
 
flyingron said:
I don't know what your point is either. You're equating operations at an airport with over half a mile between the runways to one that only has 700'.
Click to expand...

My point is simple. Pilot error.
 
eman1200 said:
I dunno, I’ve been vectored VFR to final side by side to a heavy at RDU.
Click to expand...
I've been vectored VFR side-by-side both at KAPA and KPUB. At KPUB, my little cherokee and a 757 - I chose not to land but go away until the 757 was downwind on his pattern.
 
Gryder is confusing this situation with radar sep being applied to IFR arrivals conducting simultaneous parallel independent approaches. He mentions “non transgression zone.” That doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s a visual approach vs a VFR inbound. There is no NTZ and no precision runway monitor (PRM) to step in and separate these aircraft. There is no prescribed airborne separation here other than hoping the aircraft maintain runway alignment. It’s all traffic calls and sequencing.
 
Last edited:
I seem to remember reading somewhere in my private pilot studies that atc is not responsible for separation of vfr traffic except on the ground......


I guess that’s only class D
 
Velocity173 said:
Gryder is confusing this situation with radar sep being applied to radar IFR arrivals conducting simultaneous parallel independent approaches. He mentions “non transgression zone.” That doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s a visual approach vs a VFR inbound. There is no NTZ and no precision runway monitor (PRM) to step in and separate these aircraft. There is no prescribed airborne separation here other than hoping the aircraft maintain rain runway alignment. It’s all traffic calls and sequencing.
Click to expand...


pffffttt, you and your FACTS!
 
Funny; even back when I was a student pilot I was cleared to land on the parallel runway right alongside an ERJ full of people. We do it all the time at CMI. Pattern work to the little runway never stops, regardless of who's going to the big one. Of course I was going slower and didn't have a panel full of glass to stare at.

I've found myself pointed directly at those regional jets several times. When tower calls traffic to the parallel runway, I always wind up on a dog-leg final because I'm so paranoid about overshooting. It is kind of fun flying along side them though.

My money is on expectation bias and the Cirrus thought he was cleared to the big runway.

Gryder is full of crap in this one. I love the part where he says if he was in the Cirrus he would've done the same thing. That part might be true.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how you can not put at least some blame on the guy that flew the plane into another plane under vfr rules while doing ludicrous speed and more than 700 feet past the center line.
 
Maybe the Cirrus pilot should have watched the video on hazards and hot spots at APA, were a lot of emphasis is put on the closely spaced runways and the danger of overshooting the base to final turn...
 
Salty said:
Not sure how you can not put at least some blame on the guy that flew the plane into another plane under vfr rules while doing ludicrous speed and more than 700 feet past the center line.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that. It's probably true with most faster airplanes that it is easy to find yourself going much faster than you want or should be going in certain situations. The problem obviously is once you are too fast and start descending, it's that much harder to get slowed, plus it takes a while.
 
eman1200 said:
two things:

1) if the GPS in your car tells you to make a right at the next exit and you sideswipe a car doing it, is it the GPS's fault?

2), more importantly, I thought traffic separation is the pilot's responsibility at Deltas and Charlies?
Click to expand...

Overruling anything about Deltas and Charlies would be the pilot is ultimately responsible for separation in DAY VFR, period full stop.

Is it shared responsibility in reality? Sure. But if the tower goes NORDO, and it’s happened... guess what the overriding rule is?

Hell even if the tower tells you to ram somebody, you’re still PIC and MUST refuse to do so.
 
Velocity173 said:
Gryder is confusing this situation with radar sep being applied to radar IFR arrivals conducting simultaneous parallel independent approaches. He mentions “non transgression zone.” That doesn’t apply in this situation. It’s a visual approach vs a VFR inbound. There is no NTZ and no precision runway monitor (PRM) to step in and separate these aircraft. There is no prescribed airborne separation here other than hoping the aircraft maintain runway alignment. It’s all traffic calls and sequencing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that doesn't drive youtube views.
 
eman1200 said:
two things:

1) if the GPS in your car tells you to make a right at the next exit and you sideswipe a car doing it, is it the GPS's fault?

2), more importantly, I thought traffic separation is the pilot's responsibility at Deltas and Charlies?
Click to expand...
It always has to be someone/something else's fault.
 
PaulS said:
Or, it wakes you up from your slumber saving your bacon.
Click to expand...
Let's see, this thread started with my criticizing this Cirus traffic system by saying, "If your eyes are anywhere other than outside when in the traffic pattern, you're doing it wrong." And your defense of it comes down, yeah but what if you're asleep?
 
Last edited:
Dan Gryder is a pain in the ass. I can't watch his videos, its painful. To blame ATC is ridiculous. If ATC vectors me into the side of a mountain, thats stupid, for me to fly into the mountain because they vectored me, is Darwin.
The Cirrus driver is at fault, look out the damn window. Be at the appropriate speed for the pattern, line up on the correct runway, don't run into the big green and silver twin lined up for his runway. The cirrus driver should have his certificate pulled until he goes through more training, training to spot traffic, training to operate in the pattern, training to speak and UNDERSTAND on the radio, training like for a PPL. He obviously needs it!
 
Lindberg said:
Let's see, this thread started with my criticizing this Cirus traffic system by saying, "If your eyes are anywhere other than outside when in the traffic pattern, you're doing it wrong." And your defense of it comes down, yeah but what if you're asleep?
Click to expand...

I disagree, the traffic warning based on TAS has show me multiple times traffic I was unaware of in a busy pattern. Should you stare at it, no. A quick glance should give you all the info you need to know where to look.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I disagree, the traffic warning based on TAS has show me multiple times traffic I was unaware of in a busy pattern. Should you stare at it, no. A quick glance should give you all the info you need to know where to look.

Tim
Click to expand...
I disagree. As you approach the pattern sure. Once you are in the pattern no. If you’re looking inside at a traffic display at that point you are behind the airplane.
 
Earlier I had agreed 100.00% with Gryder's opinion that this was the controllers fault.

I've changed my thought behind this.

Who is at fault, at the end of the day, when all the pieces are back on the ground? - The Cirrus driver. If he had maintained his centerline, this wouldn't have happened.

It also wouldn't have happened if they were staggered.
 
Cloudhound said:
Earlier I had agreed 100.00% with Gryder's opinion that this was the controllers fault.

I've changed my thought behind this.

Who is at fault, at the end of the day, when all the pieces are back on the ground? - The Cirrus driver. If he had maintained his centerline, this wouldn't have happened.

It also wouldn't have happened if they were staggered.
Click to expand...

It may not have happened this time if the planes were staggered some; however at that speed, it would have happened eventually.

Tim
 
Lindberg said:
Let's see, this thread started with my criticizing this Cirus traffic system by saying, "If your eyes are anywhere other than outside when in the traffic pattern, you're doing it wrong." And your defense of it comes down, yeah but what if you're asleep?
Click to expand...

Yeah, good talk.
 
Last edited:
Cloudhound said:
Earlier I had agreed 100.00% with Gryder's opinion that this was the controllers fault.

I've changed my thought behind this.

Who is at fault, at the end of the day, when all the pieces are back on the ground? - The Cirrus driver. If he had maintained his centerline, this wouldn't have happened.

It also wouldn't have happened if they were staggered.
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
It would be difficult to maintain a stagger on these two runways as the airplanes landing at KAPA often have substantially different approach speeds.
Click to expand...

I agree, the Cirrus was too fast and he said he had the metroliner in sight. I still think he was task saturated from the calls and the speed at which things were happening. I hope we get to understand why he turned into the Metroliner after he called it in sight.
 
Everskyward said:
It would be difficult to maintain a stagger on these two runways as the airplanes landing at KAPA often have substantially different approach speeds.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I’ve been cleared to land and passed by an F-18...

Wonder if folks here even realize F-18s are beyond commonplace at APA these days. Figured I’d mention it.
 
I know that 700 ft between runways isn't very much, but think about the distance between runways at Oshkosh when they used the taxiway as a parallel runway. I am thinking that is much closer than 700 feet, at least as I remember it. Have they had very many midair collisions as a result of using the taxiway as a simultaneous landing runway at Oshkosh? They may have, I just don't know.
 
luvflyin said:
What are they doing there?
Click to expand...

murphey said:
One of the FBOs at KAPA has the contract for Navy refueling. All sorts of interesting aircraft stop by.
Click to expand...

Yeah. One of the FBOs got on the magic military refueling list and it helps the cross country training folk avoid the BOQ at BKF as well as getting paid per diem instead. Ha. And we have a really good restaurant. Heh.

Good food, beer money, authorized gas... and probably avoiding the local spook bases that aren’t really aviation oriented — no matter what the name is on the sign... :)
 
denverpilot said:
Yeah. One of the FBOs got on the magic military refueling list and it helps the cross country training folk avoid the BOQ at BKF as well as getting paid per diem instead. Ha. And we have a really good restaurant. Heh.

Good food, beer money, authorized gas... and probably avoiding the local spook bases that aren’t really aviation oriented — no matter what the name is on the sign... :)
Click to expand...

And they can practice their Close Aerial Combat Lock On skills with traffic going to 17R:fingerwag:
 
luvflyin said:
And they can practice their Close Aerial Combat Lock On skills with traffic going to 17R:fingerwag:
Click to expand...

Lol. Tower usually clears them for low passes into the overhead break, which is fun. Especially watching it from 500’-ish feet above them in the parallel pattern, doing the sound of slow. Ha.
 
denverpilot said:
Lol. Tower usually clears them for low passes into the overhead break, which is fun. Especially watching it from 500’-ish feet above them in the parallel pattern, doing the sound of slow. Ha.
Click to expand...

LOL. Ya caught me mid sentence getting ready to ask if they do the break. Do they come in as flights often? How many?
 
luvflyin said:
LOL. Ya caught me mid sentence getting ready to ask if they do the break. Do they come in as flights often? How many?
Click to expand...

Usually two or four ship flights with occasional solos. The solos seem to be if someone broke down. Most seem to be training flights. The local photo group loves seeing them coming on FlightAware.

We also see the Texan IIs coming up from TX and such on XCs pretty regularly and a scattering of interesting stuff like the Army’s Dash-7 and others covered in radomes...
 
denverpilot said:
Yeah. One of the FBOs got on the magic military refueling list and it helps the cross country training folk avoid the BOQ at BKF as well as getting paid per diem instead. Ha. And we have a really good restaurant. Heh.

Good food, beer money, authorized gas... and probably avoiding the local spook bases that aren’t really aviation oriented — no matter what the name is on the sign... :)
Click to expand...
I was curious why the Government bought fuel at Centennial when Buckley was nearby.

And I did a four-year hitch in the spook part of the base....

Ron "But then I'd have to kill you" Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I was curious why the Government bought fuel at Centennial when Buckley was nearby.

And I did a four-year hitch in the spook part of the base....

Ron "But then I'd have to kill you" Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Because Buckley is USAF, not Navy, and they really don't want the Navy there. I've spent some time in hangar 9, which is where we used to park some of our CAP airplanes.
 
wanttaja said:
I was curious why the Government bought fuel at Centennial when Buckley was nearby.

And I did a four-year hitch in the spook part of the base....

Ron "But then I'd have to kill you" Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I guess I probably should have added that crashing on a buddy’s couch with per diem usually beats the BOQ life too when they RON. LOL.

(Haven’t stayed at the BKF BOQ but have stayed at the Peterson BOQ. Would say it was as fine as most three star hotels. Heh. I just wanted to sleep anyway. The 80s decor don’t bother me... stayed in worse!)
 
murphey said:
Because Buckley is USAF, not Navy, and they really don't want the Navy there. I've spent some time in hangar 9, which is where we used to park some of our CAP airplanes.
Click to expand...

Kinda. There’s actually a full fledged Navy facility on the north side. But as mentioned, it’s ummmm only peripherally related to “aviation”... heh heh.

I think in general BKF just doesn’t want airplanes — unless the airplane in question is bringing in heavy data center toys. Ha.

They “put up with” CO ANG and CAP.

And we both know the background check silliness to even get to the dilapidated old hangar... heh.

Heck, if they wanted aviation there they could upgrade those arresting wires and really let the Navy practice... haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top