Seanaldinho
Pattern Altitude
Wow, Ive just spent the last two hours reading up on this. Terrible.
Midair at FDK (Frederick, MD)
- Thread starter Pedals2Paddles
- Start date
avi8tor4fn
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 35
- Display Name
Display name:
avi8tor4fn-PA-28-140
Where does this 994 figure come from?
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Controller told the SR-22 to remain at 1300 (recording). KFDK is 306' MSL (AF/D)
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
No she didn't. Please review the recording again.
She told a different helicopter to remain at 1000 due to traffic in the downwind. The accident helicopter was not on the audio at all. She told the cirrus to report downwind. Then she told the cirrus to "maintain current altitude until base". At no time did she assign an altitude to either accident aircraft. There is no audio that reflects what altitude either aircraft was at in the accident sequence.
Last edited:
The AFD entry for FDK doesnt list a helo TPA. Just single & light wins at 1304 and heavy twins at 1504. Unless they issue a specific altitude to each helo, relying on a customary altitude for separation has its limits.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
No way are they running helicopter patterns same side same altitude. If they are it is still the cirrus pilots fault, overtaken aircraft always has ROW.
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
Once again, you are completely making things up with facts not in evidence. Not a single thing you said has any validity or factual basis. You know absolutely nothing about who was where and when or what they were doing. The very limited amount of known evidence suggests the opposite of what you keep babbling. But none of it is enough to draw any firm conclusion of anything.
But lets not let facts and reality get in the way of your personal opinions...
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Overtaken aircraft always have the ROW, I think we can all agree downwind speed in a cirrus is greater then a R44. Student pilots can be so cute.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,421
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
The ignore function works pretty well!
Just sayin'!
Just sayin'!
In ROW there are two parties, the Stand On and the Give Way. Thing about being Stand On especially in an overtaking is that you Stand On course and speed. You are also not allowed to interfere with the party passing.
What happened here was not a RoW issue though. RoW and steering rules do not exist until a risk of collision has been determined. Neither craft saw each other so no risk of collision could be determined.
This was not a failure in RoW, this was a failure in See and Avoid for which both parties are equally responsible for.
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
You have no evidence whatsoever that either party failed to give right of way. You cannot fail to give right of way to someone you do not see. You also have no evidence whatsoever that either aircraft was overtaking the other. In fact, you have no evidence of anything at all. Nor do you care to have any, since your mind was made up before accident even happened.
pilot_dude
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,793
- Display Name
Display name:
pilot_dude
I urge you to read his tag line for which I take pride in providing.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,421
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Not to make light of a tragedy, but...
Here lies the body of Michael O'Day,
Who died defending his right-of-way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
Perhaps only by the Grace of Klapmeiers are the Cirrus pilots still among the living.
The very definition of a "righteous pull"!
Here lies the body of Michael O'Day,
Who died defending his right-of-way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
Perhaps only by the Grace of Klapmeiers are the Cirrus pilots still among the living.
The very definition of a "righteous pull"!
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
"Overtaking" assumes both craft are traveling the same direction. I don't think there is any evidence that was the case here.
I used to absolutely hate your posts here.
Then I grew to appreciate some.
Now I'm back to simply hating them.
Goodbye!
Dav8or
Final Approach
Exactly the situation the chute was designed for. Once again, the chute proves it's value. Eventually, the chute will be excepted by all just like airbags are in cars.
Marauder
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,463
- Display Name
Display name:
Marauder
Interesting, this is what is on Garmin Pilot:
But you are correct, I see nothing in the AFD.
I'm surprised the industry hasn't looked at sales figures and figured it out yet.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Very timely post.
Tom-Flying
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 43
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
At our airport the choppers do right traffic and fixed wing does left. I always thought that was standard sop.
What advantage does FDK see in mixing the traffic and separating by altitude?
What advantage does FDK see in mixing the traffic and separating by altitude?
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
I agree - not sure why the "right of way" concept is being invoked at all. The concept of "right" pertains to decisions - and in the context of "right of way" it seems to pertain to decisions made when one is presented with conflicting traffic. Not seeing another aircraft at all pretty much negates the need for any decisions on whether one needs to alter course.
As to who failed at "see and avoid" could be neither - or both. Depends on what was physically or plausibly visible prior to the collision. Even with robot pilots with perfect vision in both the helicopter and the airplane, after you do the vector addition of velocities to find the family of relative closure vectors, you'll find collision vectors can come from all possible directions. But in virtually all aircraft you'll discover large of areas of the visibility sphere that surrounds the pilot are forever hidden from view.
avi8tor4fn
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 35
- Display Name
Display name:
avi8tor4fn-PA-28-140
It's the same at Frederick for RWs 05-23 Fixed wing stays to the east, or right downwind 05, left 23 and the helicopters do their operations on the grass and taxiways on the other side of the runway.
For runways 12-30, most all of the airport is located on the south side of the runway and again, the that's where the helicopters operate. In the grass or taxiways south of the runway, all the way to the south end of the field where Advanced is located and where there is a big helicopter pad south of all the tie-downs.
Before the tower, for noise abatement, aircraft also stayed south of 05-30 or left downwind 30. It's rare to have winds favoring 12 but that would be right downwind. Once the tower came in, they pretty much ignored the established traffic patterns and used either side of the runways, or sometimes both at the same time, for fixed wing.
In hindsight, I wish she had given the Cirrus right downwind for 30 but that is usually only given when inbound from the north and then it's usually a right base to 30 unless there is good reason to establish on downwind, like other traffic in the pattern.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've gotten right base entries to 30 from the east.....several times.:wink2:
So, they've done it every which way they've wanted.....to accomodate traffic.
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
Exactly. They've been very accommodating to help people get in and out quickly. In hindsight, that's probably not a good idea. That said, is it common for a tower anywhere to make an aircraft fly over/around the field and loop back into the opposite traffic pattern?
Interesting, this is what is on Garmin Pilot:
But you are correct, I see nothing in the AFD.
It is not in the FAA master record remarks either, that is where airnav and the like get their information.
Lindberg
Final Approach
You can't do it deliberately, but you can certainly do it. The ROW rules don't say you have to give ROW to "aircraft you see" that have the right of way. It's your responsibility to see them and to yield. Based on your description of the incident, I can only come up with two possibilities:
a) The helicopter was overtaking the plane from below and flew into it.
b) The plane was overtaking the helicopter from above and either descended into it or was hit from below.
b) seems to be more likely based on the known facts, assuming the helicopter pilot would see a plane above and ahead of him. IF that is the case, then the fact that the plane didn't see the helicopter does not seem to excuse the failure to honor the helicopter's ROW. See § 91.113(b).
Since eyewitness reports are rarely accurate, we won't know what actually happened for a while. It's possible that nothing that we've been told is true and the helicopter started out somewhere else entirely.
Dav8or
Final Approach
200' of separation IMO is ridiculous. Particularly where there are students involved. It should be more like 500' at least. Personally, I think "stacking" traffic is kind of dumb. I am certain there will be new pattern rules soon.
That is a no brainer.....
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,421
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
"Hard cases make bad law." - legal maxim.
It is standard. Unfortunately there are politically vocal nimbys living under the right hand pattern at FDK.
Last edited:
We do know where the helo started out, we dont know at what closing angle and what altitude they hit. From the various drawings, they may well have hit head on or at any closing angle from 180 to 0. We just dont know. There are plenty of configurations in which neither of the participants would have been able to see the other.
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
No we don't. Once again, the helicopter the tower was talking to on the LiveATC recording was NOT the accident helicopter.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
Turns out I still have a copy of the full audio (1930Z to 2000Z) on my computer from when I listened to it on LiveATC. Since your recollection conflicted with mine, I took the time to transcribe all the conversations that I could make out up until the collision (with the exception of the one clearance instruction and read back.) I inserted a [..?] at those points where they said something that I could not make out clearly. The occasional bits of unusual grammar are for the most part as best I could make out. I included the start and stop time of each transmission, measured from the hour. As you can see only 2 seconds elapsed between the end of the tower's last transmission to the Cirrus and the collision. So 8 seconds before the collision the tower had visually acquired the Cirrus and was watching it when the collision occurred (post-crash transcript would include tower saying she saw the collision.) What route and altitude did 18Q at? They seemed to be moving slow in the pattern given their departure time and final location.
2ES: The Cirrus that crashed. N122ES
18Q: The helicopter that crashed. N7518Q
- Twr 4:05 - 4:11: S122ES report 3 miles west for left downwind runway 30.
- Twr 4:15 - 4:20: 4PH is that you option in the grass at your own risk use caution you were stepped on.
- 4PH 4:20 - 4:23: Yes sorry about that 4PH option in the grass.
- 18Q 4:25 - 4:32: [..?] at advance would like to depart to for left closed traffic to the grass and we have the two helicopters in sight.
- Twr 4:34 - 4:37: 18Q you wanted to depart alpha you said?
- 18Q 4:33 - 4:39: That's affirmative and we have papa.
- Twr 4:40 - 4:51: 18Q ah departure from alpha at your own risk, correction, taxiway alpha cleared for takeoff, wind 330 at 13 gust 20 cleared for takeoff report turning left base.
- 18Q 4:51 - 4:54: Cleared for takeoff report left base 18Q.
- 144 4:55 - 4:58: [..?] 144 turning final for the grass.
- Twr 4:59 - 5:01: 144 for option at the grass at your own risk use caution.
- ??? 5:02 - 5:04: [..?] Option at the grass [..?]
- Twr 5:06 - 5:06: Roger
- Twr 5:12 - 5:20: 43T I don't know if I'll be able to complete this approach for you I have three helicopters in left traffic and a fixed wing inbound from the west.
- Twr 5:44 - 6:28: Citation 612JD your clearance is available. [Clearance instructions to Greensboro.]
- 2JD 6:31 - 6:48: Citation 612JD is cleared to Greensboro, [Clearance read back.]
- Twr 6:51 - 6:59: 4PH option at the grass use at your own risk use caution, and at the next go-around stay at a thousand feet I have traffic in the downwind.
- 4PH 7:00 - 7:03: Cleared for the option the grass stay at a thousand next go-around 4PH.
- Twr 7:03 - 7:10: 2ES report midfield left downwind for runway 30 have three helicopters below you in the ah traffic pattern.
- 2ES 7:11 - 7:15: I will report midfield downwind and I have two of them in sight [..?]
- Twr 7:16 - 7:22: Alright 2ES I have you in sight runway 30 maintain your altitude to until turning base, cleared to land.
- 7:24: [Open mike sounds of collision aftermath.]
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
I've been wanting to exactly what you just did. I actually never went back further and listened prior to the IFR clearance the took place just before the collision. Since the LiveATC feed scans tower and ground, we have no idea what was said during that one minute exchange on ground.
The accident helicopter was cleared for takeoff, and told to report left downwind jsut shy of three minutes before the crash. It is unknown if the helo made that left downwind report while the recording was locked up on ground. Based on the location, I'm guessing not yet. How long would it generally take an R44 to reach mid field downwind?
What we can generally establish is that there is no verbal specific altitude restriction given to the accident helicopter or the cirrus. There is a loosely established general practice for the helos to remain a few hundred below TPA, but doesn't appear to be anything official.
The accident helicopter was cleared for takeoff, and told to report left downwind jsut shy of three minutes before the crash. It is unknown if the helo made that left downwind report while the recording was locked up on ground. Based on the location, I'm guessing not yet. How long would it generally take an R44 to reach mid field downwind?
What we can generally establish is that there is no verbal specific altitude restriction given to the accident helicopter or the cirrus. There is a loosely established general practice for the helos to remain a few hundred below TPA, but doesn't appear to be anything official.
Marauder
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,463
- Display Name
Display name:
Marauder
And that indeed may be the problem. If the helicopter assumed the TPA for them was 1300 they could have climbed into the path of the Cirrus.
Or conversely, the Cirrus may have descended prematurely into the helicopter.
Hopefully the NTSB will be able to determine their altitudes. I suspect some clarity will be added to the KFDK pattern procedures.
Sad situation.
If the towers would QUIT using the phrase " at your own risk" it would free up ALOT of radio transmission time... They do it out here too and you would figure all RW pilots would have that phrase drilled into their heads and not need to be reminded of it EVERY damn time...... Geez...
Rant off..
Rant off..
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Just because there seems to be nothing official does not mean that the helicopter school just flew random altitude patterns. The school must have had a SOP for pattern altitude. Wondering if only having 200' as the diagram suggests was to lower noise signature on the ground?
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Seems that phrase should be "at your own risk and pattern traffic's risk".
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
Things continue to be much more strict and rigorous at FDK. The controllers and pilots are much more detailed with position requests and reports. And pilots seem to be on a better lookout. Things that would have been acceptable and relaxed this time last week are not.
I was on downwind for 30. Trooper 3 (helicopter) needed to depart for a medivac flight. This time last week, they would have been told I was on the downwind and cleared to takeoff from their ramp. Last night they had me make a right 360 in the downwind to allow the helo a clear path up and out.
I was on downwind for 30. Trooper 3 (helicopter) needed to depart for a medivac flight. This time last week, they would have been told I was on the downwind and cleared to takeoff from their ramp. Last night they had me make a right 360 in the downwind to allow the helo a clear path up and out.
Brad Z
Final Approach
I think the bolded statement above was a key factor in the collision. By telling 2ES the three helicopters were below him, his eyeballs are looking down, not laterally. Since we now know the two aircraft were at the same altitude, his eyes would likely be drawn away from looking for an aircraft at his altitude. Since the the controller had no altitude information on either if the aircraft, stating that the traffic for all three helicopters were below the Cirrus was an assumption in this case.
If they had 2ES in sight, why didn't they see the helicopter too?