Planes collide in Idaho

Wow 8 people believed to be on board both planes. That’s terrible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Low flying 800-900 feet over the water. Traffic avoidance always one of the challenges in that scenario.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Low flying 800-900 feet over the water. Traffic avoidance always one of the challenges in that scenario.
Click to expand...

Apparently at least one was a seaplane, so low overwater activity to be expected. Unknown if the other was also a seaplane. Whenever I'm in any area with seaplane traffic, such as Puget Sound, Lake Washington or the Georgia Strait, I like to stay well above them.
 
Both are reported to be seaplanes.
 
topgun260 said:
I wonder if they both belonged to the same company, https://brooks-seaplane.com/aircraft/.

They do/did rides on CDA Lake and have a 206 and a Beaver.
Click to expand...

Apparently only one belonged to Brooks https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lene-idaho-plane-crash-above-lake/5384060002/
Another report, for which I can’t seem to find the link, said it was the Beaver, the owner of the 206 wasn’t named

So sorry to hear of it. I remember ogling both their 206 and Beaver and chatting with one of the pilots when I was there 3 years ago
 
This happened about 10 miles south of where I live. It is simply a horrible tragedy. The loss of life is stunning and sobering. I’ve seen that Beaver fly daily for years since I am downwind of the runway for Brooks. I have to say the Lake is a magnet for airplane, like honey to ants, especially on days like yesterday which was clear, about 80F and little wind. Unfortunately many pilots do not keep good situational awareness and I have come close a number of times at low altitudes with other aircraft. My daughter was mentioning that fact on Saturday when an experimental was low over the Lake (less than 500 feet) and in front of our house several times. Consequently, I won’t fly less than 1000 AGL over the Lake anymore. Hopefully they will be able to recover all of the bodies in the next several days. They are down deep - over a 100’.
 
AKBill said:
Traffic avoidance is always a challenge...
Click to expand...
That is the wonderful thing about ads-b. It should be mandatory everywhere, not just for those under the mode c veil. See and be seen is difficult when you have the tablet in front of you telling you where traffic is not to mention without. Hasn't adsb coverage in the lower 48 been 100% for a few years? If both planes have it, you would hope one of them would hear or see the alert. I know a guy near me moved his plane to a different airport just outside the Ohare mode c veil for the sole purpose of not having to be adsb compliant. Not saying you don't need to look for traffic but it definitely makes things easier.

Side note, I just talked to a friend that teaches out that way. One of the pilots involved was the father of a kid at her school.

https://www.krem.com/amp/article/ne...tims/293-26cad0ee-f7ce-4a59-9bf8-bb8b90d9c3d8
 
Dammit. So many people are hurting over this, and the coming days will be even worse for them. I hope their suffering fades quickly, and the good memories of times spent together with those lost will sustain them as they grieve.

:(
 
topgun260 said:
I wonder if they both belonged to the same company, https://brooks-seaplane.com/aircraft/.

They do/did rides on CDA Lake and have a 206 and a Beaver.
Click to expand...
The beaver N number matches Brook's, but the 206 number is different. The affected aircraft are: N2106K and N6373U. N9752Z is Brooks's 206. 73U is registered to an outfit down in Lewiston.
 
I heard this on the national news. A terrible and horrible tragedy.

I can’t imagine the grief of the family that lost a husband and three children. May God grant all of them his greatest gift, that of Shalom, peace.
 
Rcmutz said:
I heard this on the national news. A terrible and horrible tragedy.

I can’t imagine the grief of the family that lost a husband and three children. May God grant all of them his greatest gift, that of Shalom, peace.
Click to expand...

From the wife and mother...
"Many of you know that I lost my husband and beautiful children in a plane wreck over Lake Coeur d ‘Alene yesterday. I am reeling from the loss, but take solace in the fact that they were on an adventure and so excited for their first sea plane ride."

That was a difficult paragraph to read. Godspeed
 
Ugh. I hadn't heard that. Heartbreaking
 
Reply to racerx about ADS-B:

Two points, and I'm not just trying to be contrary for the sake of it. Also, if I've got any of this wrong...some education would be welcome.

So, as I understand it, ADS-B is emitted from an aircraft only in response to being painted by ATC radar. If I've got this wrong, then what follows is wrong too.

I don't know about Coeur D'Alene, but in much of the inter-mountain west radar coverage is spotty or non-existent below some altitude (dependent on terrain)...12,000-14,000 feet is a typical altitude range below which ATC radar coverage is lost. I know this as I've done quite a bit of flying in these areas. So, if your A/C isn't being painted...there won't be any ADS-B transmissions from it and others won't see you on their ADS-B displays.

However, this may be somewhat mitigated by the fact that your ADS-B equipment might still detect the ATC radar beacon even though the ping is too weak for ATC to receive (radar equation). Prior to ADS-B, I would often see my Mode-C transponder replying to radar pings at lower altitudes, even though ATC could not pick me up on radar.

So anyway, I'm not sure if it is reasonable to assume that if both A/C had ADS-B in and out, then they would have seen each other.

Second point is that you are assuming that in addition to ADS-B equipment, everyone will also be equipped with ADS-B in, and will have some sort of display available for detected traffic. I don't think ADS-B in is required anywhere, is it? You'd have to add ADS-B in to the required list to achieve the outcome you're proposing.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound negative and in fact I do agree with you that ADS-B out/in is very desirable.
 
Turbo-Arrow-Driver said:
Reply to racerx about ADS-B:

Two points, and I'm not just trying to be contrary for the sake of it. Also, if I've got any of this wrong...some education would be welcome.

So, as I understand it, ADS-B is emitted from an aircraft only in response to being painted by ATC radar. If I've got this wrong, then what follows is wrong too.

I don't know about Coeur D'Alene, but in much of the inter-mountain west radar coverage is spotty or non-existent below some altitude (dependent on terrain)...12,000-14,000 feet is a typical altitude range below which ATC radar coverage is lost. I know this as I've done quite a bit of flying in these areas. So, if your A/C isn't being painted...there won't be any ADS-B transmissions from it and others won't see you on their ADS-B displays.

However, this may be somewhat mitigated by the fact that your ADS-B equipment might still detect the ATC radar beacon even though the ping is too weak for ATC to receive (radar equation). Prior to ADS-B, I would often see my Mode-C transponder replying to radar pings at lower altitudes, even though ATC could not pick me up on radar.

So anyway, I'm not sure if it is reasonable to assume that if both A/C had ADS-B in and out, then they would have seen each other.

Second point is that you are assuming that in addition to ADS-B equipment, everyone will also be equipped with ADS-B in, and will have some sort of display available for detected traffic. I don't think ADS-B in is required anywhere, is it? You'd have to add ADS-B in to the required list to achieve the outcome you're proposing.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound negative and in fact I do agree with you that ADS-B out/in is very desirable.
Click to expand...

I probably should have requested some information before I opened my mouth. I just know I had the foreflight on my tablet with adsb-in long before I had the ads-b out. I'm a flatlander so Im curious about the mountains but again opened my mouth before asking questions. I did look at the ads-b coverage map and saw complete coverage in the lower 48. I know there's ground stations and satellites involved and read it's more accurate than conventional radar for ATC. The blind spot mountain thing I'm really curious about.

When I hear mid air collision it brought me off on a tangent about the guy leaving mode c just so he wouldn't have to comply.

Per Garmin:

As a result, ADS-B works where radar often doesn’t — even in remote areas or mountainous terrain. And because it can function at low altitudes and on the ground, it can also be used to monitor traffic on airport taxiways and runways. Air traffic controllers aren’t the only ones who will see the benefits of ADS-B, though. Aircraft with certain equipment can also receive ADS-B traffic and subscription-free weather information while in flight over the U.S
 
Last edited:
Turbo-Arrow-Driver said:
ADS-B is emitted from an aircraft only in response to being painted by ATC radar. If I've got this wrong, then what follows is wrong too.

ADS-B out/in is very desirable.
Click to expand...

That's wrong. ADS-B broadcasts its position once a second.

To observe those ADS-B targets reliably, you'll need an ADS-B receiver that listens on BOTH frequencies... 938 MHz and 1090 MHz... you won't want to rely on the FAA's ADS-R ground stations rebroadcasting.

Paul
 
Not sure ADSB would have helped or even been a factor. Some witnesses claim the Beaver flew into the 206. Others say the opposite. 6 bodies have been recovered so far form the Lake. The relatively new owner of Brooks (purchased in 2018) appeared to be a high time pilot with lots of experience. Little is know about the 206 pilot at this point other than the aircraft was owned by a company in Lewiston, I’d about 130 miles south of Coeur d’Alene. As I said yesterday, there is a lot of traffic over the Lake, especially in the summer. Not unusually to see 6-10 planes out. Radio traffic is usually minimal and while I monitor the CTAF for Brooks (S-76; 122.9 when I am over the Lake, I have yet to hear anyone on that frequency. KCOE CTAF is 122.8 and it can be pretty lively but other than position report for inbound or outbound traffic, I have yet to hear anyone broadcast they are circling over a particular bay at some altitude or anything else that would alter a pilot in the area there is another aircraft. Before all of you jump on me and say the neither the AIM or the FARs don’t require any such broadcast, you would be right. But I am also aware that in other high traffic areas, pilots do communicate by providing some kind of position reports or fly in a certain pattern to avoid collisions like this one. I am going flying tomorrow and I think I will avoid the Lake.
 
Turbo-Arrow-Driver said:
Two points, and I'm not just trying to be contrary for the sake of it. Also, if I've got any of this wrong...some education would be welcome.

So, as I understand it, ADS-B is emitted from an aircraft only in response to being painted by ATC radar. If I've got this wrong, then what follows is wrong too.
Click to expand...

You've got that wrong... Though justifiably so. ;)

TIS-A required radar - That's the traffic we used to get before ADS-B if we didn't have an active traffic (TAS or TCAS) system, which most of us didn't. And not just radar, but radar sites specifically equipped for it. It was useful in one of those areas that had it, though.

TIS-B is the traffic portion of ADS-B and there are a few variables there:

1) Non-ADS-B aircraft that show up on radar within your "hockey puck" (±3500 feet and 15 miles of you) will show up if you have ADS-B In and Out, broadcast from the ground stations which you must also be in range of. Probably wouldn't have worked here.
2) There are two ADS-B frequencies: 1090 and 978. The airliners and a chunk of GA are on 1090, and the rest of the equipped GA fleet is on 978. Some have both. If you don't have a dual band receiver, you won't see traffic on the other frequency *unless* you're in range of a ground station. If you are within range of a ground station, and the other aircraft is in your hockey puck, and BOTH aircrafts' ADS-B Out is properly configured, the system will recognize that you can't see each other and ADS-R (R for Rebroadcast) will transmit the location of the other aircraft on your frequency and vice versa.

If both aircraft have dual band receivers, ADS-B In and Out, no radar is required and both would have the other aircraft on their traffic display.
 
Rcmutz said:
I heard this on the national news. A terrible and horrible tragedy.

I can’t imagine the grief of the family that lost a husband and three children. May God grant all of them his greatest gift, that of Shalom, peace.
Click to expand...

That poor woman lost her entire family all at once. Can you imagine going from being a family of five to being all alone? :(

I've heard of other instances of that, both in and out of aviation. What a punch to the gut.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You've got that wrong... Though justifiably so. ;)

TIS-A required radar - That's the traffic we used to get before ADS-B if we didn't have an active traffic (TAS or TCAS) system, which most of us didn't. And not just radar, but radar sites specifically equipped for it. It was useful in one of those areas that had it, though.
Click to expand...

Paul and Cheesehead -- thanks for the education! There's always something to learn. I'm going to check now to see if my new ADS-B in setup is dual band or not.

I ended up getting the 1090-ES solution as it's required for operation in Class A airspace, and although I don't get up there all that much, I didn't want to give up the option, as it has on occasion been quite useful.
 
So would or should have ads-b have helped if one or both pilots had it available? Would it have worked in the mountains? Everything I've read looks like yes.
 
It is not a big sky out there, eyes out the window, a traffic alert system or foreflight with traffic definitely helps.
 
Racerx said:
So would or should have ads-b have helped if one or both pilots had it available? Would it have worked in the mountains? Everything I've read looks like yes.
Click to expand...

If they both had ADS-B out and in, and their in was looking at the same band the other aircraft was transmitting (dumb design), then yes, they could have seen each other.
 
Careful!! ADS-B in mountainous areas still has huge gaps in coverage. If the planes were low over the water of Lake C'oeur d'Alene with the mountains around there is the strong possibility that ADS-B was not accessible. Check out the coverage maps for ADS-B, particularly the required altitude AGL.
 
Racerx said:
So would or should have ads-b have helped if one or both pilots had it available? Would it have worked in the mountains? Everything I've read looks like yes.
Click to expand...

I don't trust ADS-B in that kind of scenario. I've seen ADS-B "in" targets suddenly appear out of nowhere in the blink of an eye. When the target turns yellow I either already have eyes on 'em "for realz", or I'm changing my vector!
 
All of the bodies have now been recovered and most of the 206’s fuselage. The unsettling thing is how experienced both pilots were. Each had been flying for a very long time with 1000’s of hours. Just sad.
 
Turbo-Arrow-Driver said:
Paul and Cheesehead -- thanks for the education! There's always something to learn. I'm going to check now to see if my new ADS-B in setup is dual band or not.
Click to expand...

You're welcome! What did you get for ADS-B?

I ended up getting the 1090-ES solution as it's required for operation in Class A airspace, and although I don't get up there all that much, I didn't want to give up the option, as it has on occasion been quite useful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 99% of the time I wouldn't need it... But my plane's ceiling is 20,000 and I have had it to FL190 once. I've also been outside the US once, and hopefully will be again. So, GTX 345 did the trick nicely for us.

Racerx said:
So would or should have ads-b have helped if one or both pilots had it available? Would it have worked in the mountains? Everything I've read looks like yes.
Click to expand...

Yes, provided both airplanes had ADS-B Out *and* In, and their In was either dual band or on the same band as the other's Out. Kind of a lot of ifs.

Arrow76R said:
Careful!! ADS-B in mountainous areas still has huge gaps in coverage. If the planes were low over the water of Lake C'oeur d'Alene with the mountains around there is the strong possibility that ADS-B was not accessible. Check out the coverage maps for ADS-B, particularly the required altitude AGL.
Click to expand...

ADS-B traffic, if both airplanes are In and Out equipped and on the same band (or have dual band receivers), does not require any ground infrastructure whatsoever. It'd work in Antarctica.

If only one plane is equipped or one is on 1090 while the other is on 978 and neither has a dual-band receiver, then the ground infrastructure would be necessary for them to see each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top