Midair at IAC contest?

Ryanshort1, both of those pilots were repeat offenders, and not well liked at the respective airports. They were each the most important pilots...

I was based at one airport, frequented the other.
 
RyanShort1 said:
If there was an instructor in the right seat of the 172 on a simulated instrument approach, the instructor would've had the best shot of spotting the other aircraft of any of the 4 occupants involved.
Click to expand...

Both aircraft should have seen the other. This kind of merge happens thousands of times a day at uncontrolled airfields all over the country. It took complacency on the part of both pilots for this to happen.

I will say this as an aerobatic pilot. There can be excess adrenaline immediately after a contest flight. I like to do a teardrop entry into the pattern after I leave the box. I am above 1500 AGL so a descent is necessary anyways. Going outbound 2 miles gives me a minute to settle down, listen to traffic calls, and set up for a nice clean 45 entry.

Some guys like to get down as quick as possible. Out of the box, direct entry into downwind, and tight 180 to the numbers. Pitts drivers are taught a slipping 180 as the preferred approach for that aircraft. Plenty of Extra pilots are former Pitts guys and still have the habit.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Hmmm... Seems like that sets up a scenario where a pilot misses a CTAF call while in the pattern and is unaware of a plane on final.
Click to expand...

It does, and that may turn out to be a factor here.

The chief judge is not in a position to be an ersatz tower. He is looking at the box, which usually means he has his back to the pattern. He is responsible for actions of aircraft IN the box, and that is his 100% focus.

The spotter is scanning the horizon for aircraft about to enter the box. Sometimes the spotter will monitor ADS-B. The nightmare scenario is an aircraft on low XC blowing through the box blissfully unaware. A maneuvering aerobatic pilot cannot see and avoid to protect himself, so the spotter does it for him.

It may sound like pattern traffic is not taken seriously, but that is not the case. Pattern procedures are briefed during the mandatory pilot briefing at the opening of the contest. Usually a large poster of the airfield diagram is used to brief pattern and box deconfliction, and preferred methods of transition between box and pattern are described.

Once the pilot is in the pattern, he is assumed competent enough to handle his own deconfliction.

In this case, I think he was sloppy, and possibly distracted by having a pax on board. The other aircraft was also sloppy or distracted, possibly by flying the RNAV under the hood.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
I almost busted something similar to this after diverting due to weather and not hearing anything on atis/awos about staying away one side of the field. Luckily the spotter kept me from getting into the box well before it became an issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly how it is supposed to happen. Most low level box waivers require a spotter.
 
Crashnburn said:
Just conjecture here, but maybe the Extra had ADS-B and the Cessna didn't. (KFMM is well away from DIA) and didn't see the Cessna on the screen so assumed there was no conflicting traffic, wasn't keeping an eye out, and was on the wrong frequency. There's your accident chain.
Click to expand...
DIA ??
 
geezer said:
I flew a tight pattern, throttle to idle at the numbers, and turns at proper altitudes, flare at the numbers. The Stearman behind me made a round turn, strong slip, and landed in front of me. His speed was fast, he landed well down the runway, and missed the midfield turnoff. He was still on the runway when I crossed the numbers, and did a go around.
Click to expand...

As already noted two planes can share a runway. Towered fields (for light planes) use 3k' but un-towered is pilot's discretion (3k would be a wise choice).

But with the Stearman pilot you could have used your best Roy D Mercer voice on the radio and asked him, "just how big an old boy are ya?" :biggrin:
 
RyanShort1 said:
One could argue that the Extra probably should've been visible... especially if the 172 was straight-in.
Click to expand...

Sun might have been a factor. Accident time was 1040. Sun would be ENE and high, but not yet directly overhead. Right about where the Extra would be if he was flying a steep base.

Student under the hood, CFI watching the altimeter for MDA, sun in his eyes. Colorado sun is no joke.
 
luvflyin said:
DIA ??
Click to expand...
DIA Denver International Airport, aka KDEN for the FAA. Or, as many refer to it - DOA - due to the multiple massive financial disasters and the non-usable luggage system that was the laughingstock of late night tv when it first opened. However, Ft Morgan is 20 nm, to the edge of the 30 nm circle around DIA.
 
geezer said:
I have had issues with two different aerobatic pilots at two different airports.

Steep descending round turns from pattern altitude, are simply dangerous.

I flew a tight pattern, throttle to idle at the numbers, and turns at proper altitudes, flare at the numbers. The Stearman behind me made a round turn, strong slip, and landed in front of me. His speed was fast, he landed well down the runway, and missed the midfield turnoff. He was still on the runway when I crossed the numbers, and did a go around.

On the ground, he simply stated that I should have landed, since he was well down the runway, and would soon have been off at the end taxiway. That is neither legal nor reasonable.


A an airport with view to the right restricted by a row of trees, the only traffic to check is straight out. If none in sight, taxi to the runway, and take off immediately. As I opened the throttle, a biplane came over me, and landed. With a round turn, he was not visible until a relatively few seconds before he was at the runway. His opinion was that I should have taxied to the runway, turned 90 to the right for a last traffic check, then 180 and departed. On a 35 foot wide runway such maneuvering is hard, and can result in going off the edge, with difficulty getting back on.

Again, Steep descending round turns from pattern altitude, are simply dangerous. Normal pilots and technique do not mix well with them.
Click to expand...
It would have been a perfectly legal landing, should you have desired. I've a picture of me on short final, another crossing the numbers, one rolling out, and one turning off, at WPAFB. Civilian planes, FAA event.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Sun might have been a factor. Accident time was 1040. Sun would be ENE and high, but not yet directly overhead. Right about where the Extra would be if he was flying a steep base.

Student under the hood, CFI watching the altimeter for MDA, sun in his eyes. Colorado sun is no joke.
Click to expand...
The sun was about 45° above the horizon on a magnetic azimuth of 120° (~20° left of the runway). To replicate being near the sun, worst-case (low Cessna and high Extra), with 0.2nm between them (roughly the distance at the Extra’s last ping) the Extra would have had to be 1000’ above the Cessna (~1200’ AGL) on a tight base. But the last ping showed them at 5000’ MSL (400’ AGL), so they were likely less than half the elevation and 60° to the left of (counter clockwise from) the sun.

If the extra had been on a high downwind and the Cessna lost it in the sun, that might be more plausible, but now we’re increasing the distance between aircraft, so the height must also increase. At one nautical mile between aircraft, the Extra would have had to have been 6000’ above the Cessna, for which there’s no evidence.

However, the Extra had been maneuvering up to 8000’ over the airport prior to diving and entering an upwind, crosswind, and the downwind. During that sequence, the Cessna would have been about 9nm away, so again, the sun angle doesn’t play in to that scenario, either.
 
Flying Keys said:
The sun was about 45° above the horizon on a magnetic azimuth of 120° (~20° left of the runway). To replicate being near the sun, worst-case (low Cessna and high Extra), with 0.2nm between them (roughly the distance at the Extra’s last ping) the Extra would have had to be 1000’ above the Cessna (~1200’ AGL) on a tight base. But the last ping showed them at 5000’ MSL (400’ AGL), so they were likely less than half the elevation and 60° to the left of (counter clockwise from) the sun.

If the extra had been on a high downwind and the Cessna lost it in the sun, that might be more plausible, but now we’re increasing the distance between aircraft, so the height must also increase. At one nautical mile between aircraft, the Extra would have had to have been 6000’ above the Cessna, for which there’s no evidence.

However, the Extra had been maneuvering up to 8000’ over the airport prior to diving and entering an upwind, crosswind, and the downwind. During that sequence, the Cessna would have been about 9nm away, so again, the sun angle doesn’t play in to that scenario, either.
Click to expand...

Impressive calculations, but I think you are attributing an unjustified level of precision to ADS-B data. GIGO.

Besides, the Extra does not have to be IN the sun to affect the Cessna's ability to see it, just enough in the general direction to deter the safety pilot from looking closely that way.
 
geezer said:
That is neither legal nor reasonable.
Click to expand...

We can discuss reasonable, but there's nothing illegal here. Controllers have restrictions on multiple aircraft on the runway at a time, but at an uncontrolled field (no we're not talking about Newark), it's up to the pilots to determine what they think is safe.

Turning inside someone in the pattern is also not illegal (and they get the right of way) even though it's rather rude.
 
The FAA has a handful of Mobile Airport Traffic Control Towers (MATCT) available for aerial demonstrations and there is regulation concerning flight into Class G airports with these towers.

This event was well promoted and included parachute jumping, the competition, a flag jump…

So why wasn’t a temp tower at an acrobatics competition? Someone didn’t want to spend the time and money.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The FAA has a handful of Mobile Airport Traffic Control Towers (MATCT) available for aerial demonstrations and there is regulation concerning flight into Class G airports with these towers.

This event was well promoted and included parachute jumping, the competition, a flag jump…

So why wasn’t a temp tower at an acrobatics competition? Someone didn’t want to spend the time and money.
Click to expand...
The regulation is 91.126 (d) for anyone interested. There are some permanent Towers at airports in Class G airspace.
 
flyingron said:
Turning inside someone in the pattern is also not illegal (and they get the right of way) even though it's rather rude.
Click to expand...

Ed Haywood said:
I prefer making a position call like "downwind following the B52".
Click to expand...
I confess, I've turned inside a guy flying a bomber pattern. He was so far out I figured he was departing but he turned base around the same time I did... I not only exited the runway but had taxied almost back to the threshold by the time he got there.
 
Dana said:
I confess, I've turned inside a guy flying a bomber pattern. He was so far out I figured he was departing but he turned base around the same time I did... I not only exited the runway but had taxied almost back to the threshold by the time he got there.
Click to expand...
Had something similar a few months back. Guy was ~2 miles past the airport on downwind, and announced he was making a 360 for spacing. The helicopter he was "spacing" on was less than a quarter mile from touchdown. I turned base, final, and landed, with the 360 guy bitching. Yet I landed so close behind the helicopter that I was buffeted by its downwash.

Didn't occur to me at the time, of course, but the guy's right 360 violated 91.126....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ed Haywood said:
I never got the logic of doing donuts in the middle of the pattern.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just slow down, follow the traffic, and widen or extend a bit to create space.
 
luvflyin said:
The regulation is 91.126 (d) for anyone interested. There are some permanent Towers at airports in Class G airspace.
Click to expand...
Yes, there a few permanent towers in Class G, but most seem to upgraded to Class D airspace in a short period of time. The last one I ran into was in FL. There is one in Leesburg filling a requirement for the Washington SFRA and a AZ national guard heliport.
 
Last edited:
I fly a plane that with the exception of takeoff and crossing numbers on landing is never under 100 kts. As a result I fly patterns that some might complain is a b52 pattern. When I fly straight in some complain that I should join the pattern. When I say I cannot stay behind slow traffic in a close pattern I've even had some on this forum say that I should go elsewhere. Can't we all get along?
 
FORANE said:
I fly a plane that with the exception of takeoff and crossing numbers on landing is never under 100 kts. As a result I fly patterns that some might complain is a b52 pattern. When I fly straight in some complain that I should join the pattern. When I say I cannot stay behind slow traffic in a close pattern I've even had some on this forum say that I should go elsewhere. Can't we all get along?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with airplanes that need to be flown that way. But fly a 3 mile downwind in a 172 or a Warrior and you're gonna get your manhood mocked.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I never got the logic of doing donuts in the middle of the pattern.
Click to expand...
You and me both. When he complained, I responded, "Three-Sixties in the pattern may be in your standards, but not in mine."

Back when I was flying the prototype Fly Baby (NORDO) I was on final following a Cessna that decided he needed to do a 360. On final. I just waved at him as he went by in the opposite direction.

I *know* crowd-killers can't fly patterns as tightly as my little single-seater. And I know students need to fly the wide patterns before they learn to tighten them up. Got no problem playing follow-the-leader (though I might grumble a bit). What gripes my wagger is the people who think that because they ANNOUNCED the stupid maneuvering they were going to do, that somehow makes it OK.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Had to deal with students dragging 152's and 172's in on 2+ mile finals. They would fly so slow you could hear them bouncing off the stall horn while making radio calls. A-26, B-25, P-51,T-6's don't tolerate low and slow.
 
wanttaja said:
Back when I was flying the prototype Fly Baby (NORDO) I was on final following a Cessna that decided he needed to do a 360. On final. I just waved at him as he went by in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
At least when a former jet captain (and I mean that in multiple senses of the term) decided a 360 at 200 feet on final was an appropriate maneuver, no one was behind us.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I have no problem with airplanes that need to be flown that way. But fly a 3 mile downwind in a 172 or a Warrior and you're gonna get your manhood mocked.
Click to expand...
I had a guy yell at me for taking off when he was still on base in a 172. He still had a 1 mile final. I thought he was yelling at someone else first.
 
Racerx said:
I had a guy yell at me for taking off when he was still on base in a 172
Click to expand...
I was #5 for take-off at SUA a year or so ago. The delay was a few aircraft in the pattern, the closest of which was probably on a 3 mile final and the next one was being told to extend its downwind, while already past the #1 traffic.
Meanwhile, I'm sweating profusely and thinking all 5 of us would be gone before the first traffic would cross the numbers.

No clue who was in the tower at SUA that day, but they were definitely not helping.
 
The conga line at Aero Valley has been so bad some days in the past, that someone had to taxi onto the runway for the guy that was landing, to turn off at the far end taxiway. Not going to be a good day when you are number 38 to takeoff.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I have no problem with airplanes that need to be flown that way. But fly a 3 mile downwind in a 172 or a Warrior and you're gonna get your manhood mocked.
Click to expand...
In our 175 and in the RV-8 that I had before, I’m shooting for a quarter-mile final or a bit tighter, which gives me 10-15 seconds from wings level to touchdown. I get on downwind all set up for that, and then get stuck behind another Cessna waiting until the crossing the county line to turn base, and then landing with 2500 feet of runway behind before touchdown. Ugh.
AV8R_87 said:
I was #5 for take-off at SUA a year or so ago. The delay was a few aircraft in the pattern, the closest of which was probably on a 3 mile final and the next one was being told to extend its downwind, while already past the #1 traffic.
Meanwhile, I'm sweating profusely and thinking all 5 of us would be gone before the first traffic would cross the numbers.

No clue who was in the tower at SUA that day, but they were definitely not helping.
Click to expand...
I’ve had the same at Ft. Pierce and Vero Beach. Not only do the fright schools fly gigantic patterns, but once departure, once they’re cleared for takeoff they take forever to get moving, and then sit on the runway doing who knows what before rolling. Last time I was at Vero, I asked for an intersection departure and tower declined because it would put me ahead of the planes (light singles) that we were waiting in line. So I had to taxi, sit, wait, and wait for more than a mile of runway amd then be wheels up in 400’.
 
ateamer said:
I’ve had the same at Ft. Pierce and Vero Beach. Not only do the fright schools fly gigantic patterns, but once departure, once they’re cleared for takeoff they take forever to get moving, and then sit on the runway doing who knows what before rolling. Last time I was at Vero, I asked for an intersection departure and tower declined because it would put me ahead of the planes (light singles) that we were waiting in line. So I had to taxi, sit, wait, and wait for more than a mile of runway amd then be wheels up in 400’.
Click to expand...

I have forgiveness in my heart for student pilots. Most are kids, and are totally at the mercy of what their instructor teaches them. But when you see a seasoned pilot flying B52 patterns, I admit to grinding my teeth a bit. Fortunately, I avoid pavement and most of that crowd avoids grass, so we rarely meet.
 
Last edited:
IAC did publicly confirm it was a contest flight. The pilot killed was flying Primary category, which explains two people on board.

IAC Competitor Kristen Morris Perishes in Mid-Air Accident | International Aerobatic Club

The IAC is deeply saddened at the news of a mid-air collision between an Extra aircraft and a Cessna on August 31st at the 2025 Kyle Scott Aerobatic Dust-up (formerly named the High Plains Hotpoxia) aerobatic contest in Fort Morgan, Col
www.iac.org www.iac.org
 
geezer said:
I have had issues with two different aerobatic pilots at two different airports.

Steep descending round turns from pattern altitude, are simply dangerous.

I flew a tight pattern, throttle to idle at the numbers, and turns at proper altitudes, flare at the numbers. The Stearman behind me made a round turn, strong slip, and landed in front of me. His speed was fast, he landed well down the runway, and missed the midfield turnoff. He was still on the runway when I crossed the numbers, and did a go around.

On the ground, he simply stated that I should have landed, since he was well down the runway, and would soon have been off at the end taxiway. That is neither legal nor reasonable.


A an airport with view to the right restricted by a row of trees, the only traffic to check is straight out. If none in sight, taxi to the runway, and take off immediately. As I opened the throttle, a biplane came over me, and landed. With a round turn, he was not visible until a relatively few seconds before he was at the runway. His opinion was that I should have taxied to the runway, turned 90 to the right for a last traffic check, then 180 and departed. On a 35 foot wide runway such maneuvering is hard, and can result in going off the edge, with difficulty getting back on.

Again, Steep descending round turns from pattern altitude, are simply dangerous. Normal pilots and technique do not mix well with them.
Click to expand...
he should not have cut in front of you, but i call BS on calling a steep descending turn approach being dangerous.
they are the best way to land an aircraft that has a glide ratio of a brick. that's the best way to land a T-6. not to mention a pitts, where a constant turning descent is to only way to see the runway. what is dangerous is people dragging it in with power for a 747 pattern. the point is, there are a lot of ways to fly the pattern and they all work as long as everbody works together. CFI's today are teaching a lot of bad habits to pilots and its getting worse every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top