MidAir at Centennial Airport Cirrus and Metroliner

Lindberg said:
How were only 110 aircraft involved in 144 mid air collisions?
Click to expand...
The type list provided in the post is incomplete. It doesn't include, for example, 28+ homebuilts in midairs during that period.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Velocity173 said:
That’s why I fly helicopters. No midairs on that list. ;)
Click to expand...
A piper slammed into a hovering r-22 here just a couple years ago, so I’m not sure I buy that list.
 
Salty said:
A piper slammed into a hovering r-22 here just a couple years ago, so I’m not sure I buy that list.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I stated earlier, the list isn’t even close to being complete. It appears it’s only a common fixed wing GA manufacturer list.
 
LoneAspen said:
That's interesting. The DA62 seems so specialized, I wouldn't have thought anybody would be renting those out. Really cool plane. If I ever had the $$$, I'd definitely check one out.
Click to expand...

A surprising amount of ME training is going on in DA62s
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
144 entries for mid air collisions in the NTSB data base would be 72 actual collision events. Each airplane gets its own entry.
Click to expand...

I believe that was accounted for in the tabulation, but again, I didn't do it so I won't vouch for it, but the poster said 144 and he seems to know his stuff.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
The right engine never went out. When the Cirrus hit him and made him yaw right, the pilot assumed he had lost his right engine to yaw right.
Click to expand...

I kinda suspected that, who would have been thinking, ‘I’ve just had a mid-air” rack it up to engine failure or something. Was thinking same as you, engine out had nothing to do with it. Credit the PIC with great flying and thank the builder of the metro for building a brick ****house


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
PaulS said:
I believe that was accounted for in the tabulation, but again, I didn't do it so I won't vouch for it, but the poster said 144 and he seems to know his stuff.
Click to expand...

Ah, must be from beechtalk because those guys are never wrong.
 
Crow said:
In my days of watching approach radar scopes and working in control towers (over 30 years ago in the Air Force) the radar sweep would take approximately 4 1/3 seconds per sweep. Maybe their equipment is faster I don't know. Now thinking as a tower controller by the time you realized the Cirrus had blown through final for his runway on the repeater in the tower or visual observation he would already have nailed the Metro. I've also got over 3,000 hours in the Metro (SA227, almost same cockpit setup as this SA226) that pilot would probably not seen the Cirrus as he would be watching traffic he is to follow and his final checks. The first thing I would have checked when the collision occurred and with the plane yawing is the engine instruments, find they were good, then land.
Click to expand...
I think it's still about that slow some places. I frequently fly photo missions near a place that has T-38s and if one is coming from my right and they call 2 o'clock, it's frequently already at 11 o'clock...
 
eman1200 said:
Wow, it’s amazing how you know that.
Click to expand...
Based on the timing, it seems more likely that the pilot went straight for the red handle. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that it doesn't seem he took much time to determine what condition the plane was in.
 
Lindberg said:
Based on the timing, it seems more likely that the pilot went straight for the red handle. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that it doesn't seem he took much time to determine what condition the plane was in.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m not second guessing his actions at all, not one bit. There’s just absolutely zero way to know what could have happened without a chute. We’ll even completely ignore the fact that the other plane had a successful landing, um, you know, without a chute. But we won’t discuss that.
 
eman1200 said:
Yeah I’m not second guessing his actions at all, not one bit. There’s just absolutely zero way to know what could have happened without a chute. We’ll even completely ignore the fact that the other plane had a successful landing, um, you know, without a chute. But we won’t discuss that.
Click to expand...

One airplane had landing gear intact.
 
eman1200 said:
Yeah I’m not second guessing his actions at all, not one bit. There’s just absolutely zero way to know what could have happened without a chute. We’ll even completely ignore the fact that the other plane had a successful landing, um, you know, without a chute. But we won’t discuss that.
Click to expand...

There are precious few CAPS pulls that were clearly the wrong choice. I can think of maybe one offhand.

Hint: It's not this one.
 
FastEddieB said:
There are precious few CAPS pulls that were clearly the wrong choice. I can think of maybe one offhand.

Hint: It's not this one.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part where I said I didn’t second guess his decision.
 
eman1200 said:
Yeah I’m not second guessing his actions at all, not one bit. There’s just absolutely zero way to know what could have happened without a chute. We’ll even completely ignore the fact that the other plane had a successful landing, um, you know, without a chute. But we won’t discuss that.
Click to expand...

The section I marked in bold, screams for the macho attitude as defined here: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media.../flight-training-magazine/hazardous-attitudes
But when I see such an attitude, I always think of this bad song:



Tim
 
eman1200 said:
Yeah I’m not second guessing his actions at all, not one bit. There’s just absolutely zero way to know what could have happened without a chute. We’ll even completely ignore the fact that the other plane had a successful landing, um, you know, without a chute. But we won’t discuss that.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, so you are saying a Cirrus pilot would have the superior skills needed to land a damaged plane if it was still flyable? I'm sorry, but it's extremely rare that a Cirrus pilot is given any credit here as capable pilots.

But you are absolutely right, there is no way to know if the Cirrus could have been landed after that impact, which is why the chute was the obvious choice. Had he not had the chute, then maybe he would have been able to fly to a successful landing, but given the chute I would have pulled too. Or, I like to think, I would have been way further ahead of the airplane than he was, slowed down as soon as I knew I'd be following a Cessna and this would have never happened. Unfortunately, everyone screws up, it's just some screw ups are more spectacular than others.
 
tspear said:
The section I marked in bold, screams for the macho attitude as defined here: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media.../flight-training-magazine/hazardous-attitudes
But when I see such an attitude, I always think of this bad song:


Tim
Click to expand...

This is such a bizarre reply, maybe I don’t even understand it. You’re saying I have some kind of hazardous attitude because I’m stating the fact that the other plane landed successfully? How....what....I really don’t even know what to say.
 
@eman1200

Very simple, your statement: We’ll even completely ignore the fact that the other plane had a successful landing, um, you know, without a chute.
Is a back handed compliment at best, or a passive aggressive statement at a minimum. Obviously, the metro pilot had bigger cajones and is a better pilot because he had no need for a chute and landed just fine without one. e.g. a macho attitude.
If you left off the "um, you know, without a chute" no one would have said anything. But that simple statement speaks volumes about your disdain and attitude to "wimpy" pilots who dare show they would rather live than prove they are a man.

Yes, I am being harsh, this is the exact attitude that is behind getthereitis, I can make the last mile, yes I can land the plane with no wing....

Tim
 
tspear said:
@eman1200

Very simple, your statement: We’ll even completely ignore the fact that the other plane had a successful landing, um, you know, without a chute.
Is a back handed compliment at best, or a passive aggressive statement at a minimum. Obviously, the metro pilot had bigger cajones and is a better pilot because he had no need for a chute and landed just fine without one. e.g. a macho attitude.
If you left off the "um, you know, without a chute" no one would have said anything. But that simple statement speaks volumes about your disdain and attitude to "wimpy" pilots who dare show they would rather live than prove they are a man.

Yes, I am being harsh, this is the exact attitude that is behind getthereitis, I can make the last mile, yes I can land the plane with no wing....

Tim
Click to expand...

Lol this is laughable. But you be you, spear. Can’t waste any more time with you.
 
eman1200 said:
Lol this is laughable. But you be you, spear. Can’t waste any more time with you.
Click to expand...

Ah, the written language is such a poor medium for some communication. As your latest statement screams your disdain again as you failed to defend your original assertion, or you have chosen to concede by again showing disdain for how others may read your material. (Yes, I am being argumentative).

Tim
 
Once a Cirrus pulls the chute, is the airframe totaled? Not necessarily in this case since there was damage prior to the chute deployment, but in general can the aircraft be repaired after a chute deployment?
 
ColoPilot said:
Once a Cirrus pulls the chute, is the airframe totaled? Not necessarily in this case since there was damage prior to the chute deployment, but in general can the aircraft be repaired after a chute deployment?
Click to expand...

of course, just need a bucket of CA glue
 
tspear said:
Ah, the written language is such a poor medium for some communication. As your latest statement screams your disdain again as you failed to defend your original assertion, or you have chosen to concede by again showing disdain for how others may read your material. (Yes, I am being argumentative).

Tim
Click to expand...


You know Tim, I don't want to get in the middle of this, but thinking about eman's initial response to my comment, he is right. I know I tend to look at the world through our my prism which usually is based on what I'm doing at the time. I assume other's do the same.

When I said, "superior flying skills wouldn't have saved them", I was thinking in the mentality of someone who flies Cirrus, where the chute is the obvious choice. Eman read that comment, I'm pretty sure he doesn't fly with a chute, and read, correctly I might add, that I was saying if the Cirrus didn't have the chute, then they had no other option but to die. So effectively I was saying someone without a chute had no chance, which obviously isn't true. If I put myself in eman's shoes, not that I would try, but let's just say I did, I'd read that statement and say to myself, "what a minute, I don't have a chute, and if I'm ever in that situation, I'll fly it to the ground if at all possible and it may have been possible in this case." I was effectively telling pilots without chutes that they were dead in that situation, not what I meant, and definitely not true.

So anyway, I shouldn't have written it the way I did, obviously there was a chance that the Cirrus could have been flown to a landing after that impact, at least with the limited info we have now.

Sometimes we need to cut each other some slack, I could see where my comment could be controversial, and I apologize for that.
 
ColoPilot said:
Once a Cirrus pulls the chute, is the airframe totaled? Not necessarily in this case since there was damage prior to the chute deployment, but in general can the aircraft be repaired after a chute deployment?
Click to expand...

texasclouds said:
of course, just need a bucket of CA glue
Click to expand...

Generally, from an insurance view, the airframe is totaled. But many have been rebuilt and fly again.
 
PaulS said:
You know Tim, I don't want to get in the middle of this, but thinking about eman's initial response to my comment, he is right. I know I tend to look at the world through our my prism which usually is based on what I'm doing at the time. I assume other's do the same.

When I said, "superior flying skills wouldn't have saved them", I was thinking in the mentality of someone who flies Cirrus, where the chute is the obvious choice. Eman read that comment, I'm pretty sure he doesn't fly with a chute, and read, correctly I might add, that I was saying if the Cirrus didn't have the chute, then they had no other option but to die. So effectively I was saying someone without a chute had no chance, which obviously isn't true. If I put myself in eman's shoes, not that I would try, but let's just say I did, I'd read that statement and say to myself, "what a minute, I don't have a chute, and if I'm ever in that situation, I'll fly it to the ground if at all possible and it may have been possible in this case." I was effectively telling pilots without chutes that they were dead in that situation, not what I meant, and definitely not true.

So anyway, I shouldn't have written it the way I did, obviously there was a chance that the Cirrus could have been flown to a landing after that impact, at least with the limited info we have now.

Sometimes we need to cut each other some slack, I could see where my comment could be controversial, and I apologize for that.
Click to expand...

no need to apologize for anything. I quoted exactly what I was rebutting....you said that absolutely no other plane could have survived without pulling the chute, and I clearly pointed out that, well, 50% of the planes in this incident alone survived without a chute. now you said single engine, but I don't think that makes a lick of difference in this particular case since the other plane's engines weren't impacted at all, but the point remains. "superior skills" or not, the only FACT that I was pointing out (I know how a certain subset of people these days think FACTS can be thought of as racist hazardous attitudes, but my point was you said no plane could survive without a chute, and I said at least one can, and did. wasn't really much to it until people get offended by facts.
 
Just to stir it up some more, what if we find out that it was the passenger that pulled the chute? :)

But then we would have to know why? Was the pilot injured, or was the passenger just scared out of his mind?
 
FastEddieB said:
There are precious few CAPS pulls that were clearly the wrong choice. I can think of maybe one offhand.

Hint: It's not this one.
Click to expand...
There are at least a couple where three occupant died. Maybe they would have died anyway. They're was the one here where the pilot flew into a thunderstorm, had a failed deployment and landed dragging the parachute.

This pull here certainly wasn't wrong. The airplane was totaled after the midair, and he was within the deployment envelope, so go ahead and pull. But the question was whether the deployment was necessary, i.e., might the pilot have survived if he hadn't had a parachute.

Since everyone lived, the NTSB will no doubt be conducting thorough interviews, and maybe we'll find out. But for now, the fact that all the major parts necessary for flight were located at the scene of the "landing" leaves that as an open question. Maybe they weren't working. We'll see.
 
Lindberg said:
Maybe they weren't working.
Click to expand...
Or, maybe there was a concern that the working parts might not make it all the way. At best, there was likely a pretty significant prop strike leaving at least some doubt about how long it would continue to make noise.

Pull baby pull.
 
Bill said:
Just think of the notoriety of being the first pilot to gear up land a Cirrus! You'd be famous!
Click to expand...
..this would almost make it worth NOT pulling the chute just to have that fame..

ColoPilot said:
Once a Cirrus pulls the chute, is the airframe totaled? Not necessarily in this case since there was damage prior to the chute deployment, but in general can the aircraft be repaired after a chute deployment?
Click to expand...
the TLDR answer is "yes" - but there are a number of rebuilt Cirrus out there flying around


**I spent a good while last night reading through all the CAPS pulls, which the COPA people keep a log of with links to the NTSB (or appropriate country's authority) reports.. it's worth a read. It's not all morons who can't fly planes pulling it for no reason. There are cases like "loss of power at 200 agl" (not all fuel either.. counterweights coming apart, loss of oil, IE, stuff a pilot wouldn't have been able to prevent) and plenty of jungle pulls, no real gliding to a field.. IMC disorientation .. ice .. and I couldn't find it now but I seem to recall at least one pilot incapacitation (70+ year old pilot) who's niece in the right seat (not a pilot) pulled the chute at something like 150 agl.. the guy died and she was critical.. but she lived.. and that was from a super low altitude pull. But I can't find it now so the details are hazy**

It's worth a peruse.

I see the chute as a life jacket. If you are on a sinking ship you can still die with it on. But I'd much rather have the life jacket to wear than assume I'll be able to swim to shore/tread water until help comes. The second engine (on a twin) I see as a life boat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top