MidAir at Centennial Airport Cirrus and Metroliner

eman1200 said:
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.
Click to expand...


You're putting words in my mouth, I was talking specifically to this incident, not all mid airs. I get back to my point about reading these comments, we interpret them through our own eyes and experiences and we all need to cut each other some slack sometimes. You were right to call me out, I should have said "probably would have been lost" which I think would have been more accurate, and we could have gone back and forth on that for a while. But I didn't hence my apology.
 
I wonder if the engine on the Cirrus was still producing power after the impact. I don't see a lot of prop damage in the photo
 
Dave Theisen said:
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?
Click to expand...
What’ll really blow your mind is thinking about whether hand moved to handle before the collision. (Or at least reaction time started before the point of collision)

What’s the human response time? If the Cirrus didn’t know what hit them and behind the airplane in a busy environment, how fast could we really react? When did they know the plane was unflyable?
 
kaiser said:
What’ll really blow your mind is thinking about whether hand moved to handle before the collision. (Or at least reaction time started before the point of collision)

What’s the human response time? If the Cirrus didn’t know what hit them and behind the airplane in a busy environment, how fast could we really react? When did they know the plane was unflyable?
Click to expand...
I bet they pulled seconds before the impact, just a guess
 
I’m still way more curious if a squawking traffic warning from the giant TV screens was both a distraction as well as ignored because of the traffic density.

My Garmin is an utter nuisance in the pattern during heavy traffic at APA. And it’s definitely not helpful most of the time in that much pattern density.

Then again it’s not TCAS and not very smart about resolutions either.

Did the fake “safety” system lower actual safety under conditions it can’t handle? I’m curious.
 
Or to add more fuel to the fire....

There have been instances where the accident report stated that the 'chute activation was caused by the contact with ground, so is it possible that in this instance the 'chute was activated by the collision.??

Just a pure SWAG.

And a question: are the survivors in the Cirrus now eligible for membership in the Caterpillar Club.??
 
kaiser said:
What’ll really blow your mind is thinking about whether hand moved to handle before the collision. (Or at least reaction time started before the point of collision)
Click to expand...
They were turning from base to final. I thought Cirrus pilots were trained to keep one hand on the red handle from downwind until short final.

Zeldman said:
There have been instances where the accident report stated that the 'chute activation was caused by the contact with ground, so is it possible that in this instance the 'chute was activated by the collision.??
Click to expand...
This will be an unusually "good" mid-air collision because everyone survived, which means we will get somewhat or even mostly accurate firsthand accounts of everything that happened in the air. You raise a good question and I hope they can publish the answer without too much of a wait.
 
Zeldman said:
Or to add more fuel to the fire....

There have been instances where the accident report stated that the 'chute activation was caused by the contact with ground, so is it possible that in this instance the 'chute was activated by the collision.??

Just a pure SWAG.

And a question: are the survivors in the Cirrus now eligible for membership in the Caterpillar Club.??
Click to expand...
Not possible. Obviously you haven't even done the basic amount required for speculation as there is video of it coming down in what appears to be one piece under 'chute.

My guess is that the impact caused the Cirrus to "tumble" as I would expect the gear being torn off to induce a significant nose-down moment, and that the pilot wouldn't have been sure if he could regain control or not, so pulled the handle.
 
PaulS said:
You're putting words in my mouth, I was talking specifically to this incident, not all mid airs. I get back to my point about reading these comments, we interpret them through our own eyes and experiences and we all need to cut each other some slack sometimes. You were right to call me out, I should have said "probably would have been lost" which I think would have been more accurate, and we could have gone back and forth on that for a while. But I didn't hence my apology.
Click to expand...
You are probably right. I think you may be right. Most likely you are. etc
 
denverpilot said:
I’m still way more curious if a squawking traffic warning from the giant TV screens was both a distraction as well as ignored because of the traffic density.

My Garmin is an utter nuisance in the pattern during heavy traffic at APA. And it’s definitely not helpful most of the time in that much pattern density.

Then again it’s not TCAS and not very smart about resolutions either.

Did the fake “safety” system lower actual safety under conditions it can’t handle? I’m curious.
Click to expand...


Based on my own limited experience, coming in that fast, with all that traffic close by, along with the rapidity of the turns, one right after another due to his speed, would have made that a very busy time. Add to that a controller constantly pointing out traffic, and the need to look for it, I can imagine the guy was overloaded. Just not a good situation to put yourself in. TCAS was probably of little use at this point and I'm thinking would not have helped here since he already had the traffic pointed out to him.
 
I remember hearing a controller point out traffic to, coincidentally, a Cirrus at “12 O’clock and a mile”, and the pilot’s response was that he had him on the TCAS. I remember thinking, “Dumbass, at 12 o’clock and a mile you should be looking out the darn window”

The closest call I’ve ever had was when a Saratoga over took me on final and passed directly over me by less than 50 feet who then later told me “I saw you on the TCAS.
 
AKBill said:
I bet they pulled seconds before the impact, just a guess
Click to expand...
"Seconds"? The Cirrus was flying at something like 170 mph,roughly 250 feet per second. Even if you assume it was flying directly at the Metroliner, "seconds" would imply the guy pulled the handle more than 500 feet away. With a near-parallel closing, the actual rate of closure would have been less. You seriously think the guy used the CAPS in lieu of a minor control movement to miss?

With the Cirrus (probably) trying to turn back to line up with its own runway, its view of the Metroliner was probably blocked by its left wing. The pilot, also, would have been looking towards his right, towards the runway. As far as ADS-B warnings, I'm guessing A) The amount of warning was minimal as the Cirrus was turning and his ADS-B probably wouldn't have projected the curved flight path, and B) The Cirrus pilot was probably accustomed to ADS-B warnings for aircraft on the parallel runway.

From the Flightaware data, the collision occurred at about 500 feet, which IIRC is the nominal lower bound of the CAPS envelope. I'm sure the impact knocked the Cirrus considerably. He would have had very little time to assess his ability to control the aircraft, plus he was probably disoriented by the collision itself. Pulling the handle was the right choice.
F-8 eject know when to go.jpg
Ron Wanttaja
 
PaulS said:
TCAS was probably of little use at this point and I'm thinking would not have helped here since he already had the traffic pointed out to him.
Click to expand...

To be clear NO TCAS was involved. ADS-B assumed in a newer Cirrus and the Metro due to the airspace they both operate in.

TCAS is a completely different beast and engineered as a proper safety system. It WILL provide collision resolution. ADS-B will NOT and is not designed to be a life-safety level of engineering.

Let’s not mix in the TCAS terminology.
 
denverpilot said:
To be clear NO TCAS was involved. ADS-B assumed in a newer Cirrus and the Metro due to the airspace they both operate in.

TCAS is a completely different beast and engineered as a proper safety system. It WILL provide collision resolution. ADS-B will NOT and is not designed to be a life-safety level of engineering.

Let’s not mix in the TCAS terminology.
Click to expand...

P.S. And I believe the Metro pilot misspoke. Saying you have them on TCAS is often used on air when it’s not the technology being utilized. But I could be wrong about that.

I highly doubt KL paid for TCAS on those old cargo birds though. That said, maybe a few have it. But none I’ve looked inside did. (Like actually opened the door and looked inside — with permission of course.) Those are some old serious workhorse aircraft.
 
denverpilot said:
I’m still way more curious if a squawking traffic warning from the giant TV screens was both a distraction as well as ignored because of the traffic density.
Click to expand...
Either is a possibility. So is neither.

Personally, when I hear, "Traffic! Traffic!" in the pattern, I automatically say out loud, "Airport, Airport." By then I should know where my traffic is; if not, it's time to get those eyeballs in gear, so I look around, but generally not at the screen.
 
denverpilot said:
P.S. And I believe the Metro pilot misspoke. Saying you have them on TCAS is often used on air when it’s not the technology being utilized. But I could be wrong about that.

I highly doubt KL paid for TCAS on those old cargo birds though. That said, maybe a few have it. But none I’ve looked inside did. (Like actually opened the door and looked inside — with permission of course.) Those are some old serious workhorse aircraft.
Click to expand...

Cirrus SRs can be equipped with what they call the "active awareness" system. Here is the description of what it does for traffic: "Active Traffic interrogates nearby transponder equipped aircraft and creates a 360° zone of detection and awareness around the aircraft and provides visual and ATC-like audio alerts to potential traffic hazards"

Who knows if this guy was equipped with this, and I don't know if it is considered TCAS, but it works pretty much like one.
 
In regards to the conjecture about WHEN the handle was pulled, it kinda doesn’t matter. IMHO.

Either he saw an imminent collision and reached and pulled, or he twitched the side stick and lifted the airplane enough to take the gear off — instead of getting a Metroliner fuselage to the face — and then yanked it.

I’m not seeing where it matters much either way. A whole lot of crap going on in about the span of four seconds.

The real error was in being pointed at the Metroliner at all. Once that error occurred there was only two seconds to correct it at that speed.

Even flying too fast for the pattern was manageable but ill advised in a pattern full of people doing 90... until the nose was pointed at the spot the metro would be at two seconds later.

You just can’t overshoot the extended runway centerline (by very much) in tight parallel runway ops. And yeah I’ve done it at that airport and it puckers your butt if you’re really paying attention to what it means. Because tightening base to final or trying to speed it up with rudder is playing a different sort of aerodynamic chicken — if you’re slow.

If fast (and your radius of turn is way too big) your aerodynamic “out” is an aggressive climb. If slow an aggressive nose down to tighten it up. The “stabilized approach” mantra will be harmful to your thought process at that critical choice instant. You need to “unstabilze” it and treat it as an emergency escape maneuver right freakin now.

You have 2 seconds if you lost sight of the traffic. If something bad is gonna happen it’s gonna happen QUICK at those pattern corners with tight parallels.

I think our local instructors repeat “don’t overshoot, don’t overshoot, don’t overshoot” only second to “right rudder, right rudder, right rudder”.
 
PaulS said:
Who knows if this guy was equipped with this, and I don't know if it is considered TCAS, but it works pretty much like one.
Click to expand...

It really does not. TCAS goes into an active interrogation mode of the other aircraft’s transponder and depending on the responses two of them can even coordinate the escape routes of both aircraft.

Those escapes are also mandated to behave a certain way and there’s NO mandated behavior of the synthetic toys.

Do NOT be fooled into thinking the synthetic things are the same level of engineering. That’s frankly, marketing wank.

It’s close but it’s a lot dumber system with a lot of leeway on how each implementation behaves. TCAS must behave in specific defined ways.

(And most pro flight departments also mandate specific responses to TCAS RAs that their crews must follow, also. I don’t know of any that mandate anything for synthetic alerts created by other advisory systems, but I could be wrong there. Haven’t seen any yet, though.)
 
PaulS said:
Based on my own limited experience, coming in that fast, with all that traffic close by, along with the rapidity of the turns, one right after another due to his speed, would have made that a very busy time. Add to that a controller constantly pointing out traffic, and the need to look for it, I can imagine the guy was overloaded. Just not a good situation to put yourself in. TCAS was probably of little use at this point and I'm thinking would not have helped here since he already had the traffic pointed out to him.
Click to expand...

I’d think TCAS, real TCAS, not other types of traffic things, might have, assuming that RA’s were complied with.

EDIT: this was obviously one a them times I replied before reading on
 
luvflyin said:
I’d think TCAS, real TCAS, not other types of traffic things, might have, assuming that RA’s were complied with.
Click to expand...

Agree. But I’m also not sure with tight parallels it would get complied with.

I’m sure SOME of the bizjets utilizing the airport have it.

I’ve never heard anyone say they’re following an RA from one to our tower folks though.

I’ve heard a LOT of queries by out of town bizjets asking the tower if they see “that aircraft over there to the west” ... perhaps driven by alerts of whatever sort of tech.

“That aircraft is for the parallel, you are number two for your runway, your traffic is just touching down, cleared to land...” reeeeelly commonly heard.
 
PaulS said:
Cirrus SRs can be equipped with what they call the "active awareness" system. Here is the description of what it does for traffic: "Active Traffic interrogates nearby transponder equipped aircraft and creates a 360° zone of detection and awareness around the aircraft and provides visual and ATC-like audio alerts to potential traffic hazards"

Who knows if this guy was equipped with this, and I don't know if it is considered TCAS, but it works pretty much like one.
Click to expand...
Doesn't help with birds, Aeroncas, Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Luscombes, part 103 ultralights, etc...
 
My guess is that the impact caused the Cirrus to "tumble" as I would expect the gear being torn off to induce a significant nose-down moment, and that the pilot wouldn't have been sure if he could regain control or not, so pulled the handle.[/QUOTE]

My money is on this as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
It really does not. TCAS goes into an active interrogation mode of the other aircraft’s transponder and depending on the responses two of them can even coordinate the escape routes of both aircraft.

Those escapes are also mandated to behave a certain way and there’s NO mandated behavior of the synthetic toys.

Do NOT be fooled into thinking the synthetic things are the same level of engineering. That’s frankly, marketing wank.

It’s close but it’s a lot dumber system with a lot of leeway on how each implementation behaves. TCAS must behave in specific defined ways.

(And most pro flight departments also mandate specific responses to TCAS RAs that their crews must follow, also. I don’t know of any that mandate anything for synthetic alerts created by other advisory systems, but I could be wrong there. Haven’t seen any yet, though.)
Click to expand...

Ok, I just pulled the garmin manual to refresh myself on the terminology. The cirrus most likely had the TAS system, that will alert you to traffic. This system interrogates nearby transponders, is capable of tracking up to 45 close in threats, and can visually display up to 30 high threat targets at a time. There is a visual screen, which can present on several screens. There is an alert, that when it calculates a threat will alert "traffic" both visually and aurally. It will announce traffic, bearing(such as 12 o'clock), then "High, low, or same altitude, then distance. It does not issue RAs, and of course is completely advisory. While it is advisory in nature, it certainly is much more useful than a marketing gimmick.

I use this system often where I am. I can see traffic on the "fish finder" long before I can see it visually. And it helps greatly finding traffic that ATC has called out if I can't find it visually at first. It works well, it's useful to see what's going on in a pattern, especially before you get there.

It's good stuff, but it can't reverse physics. And it doesn't relieve you of the need to look outside.
 
N1120A said:
A surprising amount of ME training is going on in DA62s
Click to expand...

I knew a lot of ME was done in the DA42, but I didn't figure the DA62 was used for that. The DA62 always seemed large enough (and expensive enough) to be an individual's private plane, but not so much for rental or training. But who knows, maybe Diamond is making more inroads into that kind of thing with the 62 also. It's a very nice plane - wish I had the $$$ for one!
 
Lindberg said:
Not unless you believe ever other aircraft is accurately participating with this distracting garbage. If your eyes are anywhere other than outside when in the traffic pattern, you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

RyanShort1 said:
Doesn't help with birds, Aeroncas, Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Luscombes, part 103 ultralights, etc...
Click to expand...

So I should turn it off then?? Suggest you give it a try before you nix it.
 
luvflyin said:
I’d think TCAS, real TCAS, not other types of traffic things, might have, assuming that RA’s were complied with.

EDIT: this was obviously one a them times I replied before reading on
Click to expand...

btw - TCAS II is the system that provides Resolution Advisories (RAs). TCAS I just provides Traffic Advisories (TAs)

"smaller" part 135 aircraft (10-30 paxs) only need TCAS I. More than 30 paxs means TCAS II.

edit: and ADS-B is only traffic information

another btw - TCAS II can only do one conflict at a time and only does vertical escape.
 
Bob Noel said:
btw - TCAS II is the system that provides Resolution Advisories (RAs). TCAS I just provides Traffic Advisories (TAs)

"smaller" part 135 aircraft (10-30 paxs) only need TCAS I. More than 30 paxs means TCAS II.

edit: and ADS-B is only traffic information

another btw - TCAS II can only do one conflict at a time and only does vertical escape.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info
 
PaulS said:
So I should turn it off then?? Suggest you give it a try before you nix it.
Click to expand...
You need help. I never suggested that, just pointed out it's limitations. I fly with both, depending on the plane I'm in. Usually 12-15 hour a week.
 
RyanShort1 said:
You need help. I never suggested that, just pointed out it's limitations. I fly with both, depending on the plane I'm in. Usually 12-15 hour a week.
Click to expand...

You got that right, I guess I lumped you in with the guy who called it "distracting garbage". As you know, it's got limitations, but, as I now think you know, it's definitely not "distracting garbage".
 
Bob Noel said:
btw - TCAS II is the system that provides Resolution Advisories (RAs). TCAS I just provides Traffic Advisories (TAs)
Click to expand...

In this case even a TCAS II would only have given a TA as you will not get an RA below 1000' AGL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top