What is the likely cause of this Mid-Air?

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name

Display name:
Jaybird180
Speculate please.

NTSB Identification: ERA11FA101A/B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, December 31, 2010 in Weyers Cave, VA
Aircraft: CESSNA 172H, registration: N2876L
Aircraft: EUROCOPTER DEUTSCHLAND GMBH EC 135 P2, registration: N312PH
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 3 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
History Of Flight
On December 31, 2010, about 1426 eastern standard time, an Eurocopter EC-135-P2 helicopter, N312PH, operated by Petroleum Helicopters Incorporated as AirCare 5, and a Cessna 172H, N2876L, collided in midair approximately 1/2 mile northwest of the Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport (SHD), Weyers Cave, Virginia. The Cessna airplane departed controlled flight after the right wing separated and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces at ground contact. The helicopter sustained minor damage and landed safely at SHD. The certificated commercial pilot and passenger on board the airplane were fatally injured. The certificated commercial pilot and two medical flight crewmembers on board the helicopter were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the airplane's local personal flight that originated from SHD, at 1402, and for the helicopters positioning flight that originated from the University of Virginia Medical Center (8VA5), Charlottesville, Virginia, about 1410. A company flight plan was filed for the helicopter positioning flight, and no flight plan was filed for the airplane flight, which were both conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
All three crewmembers aboard the helicopter were interviewed at the scene, and their statements were consistent throughout. They described departing 8VA5 after completing a patient drop-off, crossing "the ridgeline" at 4,500 feet, and approaching SHD from the east. They each described monitoring the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), and how the announced traffic, two aircraft established in a left-hand traffic pattern for runway 23, were acquired both visually and on the helicopter's Skywatch Traffic Collision Avoidance Device (TCAD) system. The two crewmembers in the front seats correlated the landing-pattern traffic's announced positions both visually and on the TCAD. The third, aft-seated crewmember visually acquired the landing traffic based on their announced positions. The accident airplane was operating in the airport traffic area, but not in the established traffic pattern.

File Photo
One flight nurse rode on the left side of the helicopter, behind the copilot's station, and faced aft. She stated that she was aware of two airplanes in the traffic pattern, one on "short final," the second airplane behind, and that the helicopter would be "the third aircraft to land." According to the flight nurse, "I was in the back under sterile cockpit procedures. Everyone was 'eyes-out' looking for traffic. I felt a bump and a shudder and the pilot said, 'What was that?'" She looked out and saw a white rectangle under the helicopter for "less than a millisecond."
A second flight nurse who rode in the copilot (left) seat gave a similar account, and stated that he had visual contact with the two airplanes that were also displayed on the helicopter's TCAD device. He added, "We were talking to all of them." The helicopter was in a gradual descent, and the nurse had visual contact with the airplanes on the base and final legs of the traffic pattern when he felt a bump. He reported that he never saw anything outside the helicopter at the time he felt the bump.
The pilot described routine radio communication as the helicopter approached SHD, as well as a radio call to request fuel upon landing. He described two airplanes in the traffic pattern; one on the downwind leg, and one on short final. The pilot followed behind and north of the second airplane and continued to the west side of the airport to complete a landing at the west side helipad. During the descent, about 500 feet above ground level, the pilot "saw about 2 feet of white wing right outside." He "pulled power" and then felt the contact.
All three crewmembers stated that the TCAD did not alert them to the accident airplane. They all described the crew coordination efforts to assess the damage to their aircraft, and the completion of a safe landing.
Witness interviews and written statements provided were largely consistent throughout. The witnesses were familiar with the airport, and with what they described as the usual traffic pattern of aircraft around the airport. Most of the witness described their vantage points as being 90 degrees from the direction of flight for both aircraft, and that the aircraft were traveling from roughly north to south. Most described the aircraft in level flight, with some differences as to whether the helicopter was on the airplane's left, or right. Both aircraft were described as being "lower than usual," "awfully close," "almost even…next to each other." Consistently, witnesses described the helicopter as it overtook the airplane from behind, "barely touching" the airplane, and then watching as the right wing departed the airplane, and the remainder of the airplane "nose-dived" to ground contact.
Preliminary radar data identified the accident helicopter by its assigned transponder code. The helicopter's ground track and altitudes were consistent with what the crewmembers described. The other radar targets were all depicted with the visual flight rules (VFR) "1200" transponder code. The number of airplanes that these "VFR targets" represented could not be immediately reconciled.
Personnel Information
A review of FAA airman records revealed that the pilot in the airplane held a commercial pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single-engine land, multiengine land, and instrument airplane. He held a flight instructor certificate with a rating for airplane single-engine, multiengine land, and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA first class medical certificate was issued June 23, 2010, when he reported 2,300 total hours of flight experience.
The passenger on board the airplane held no FAA certificates. However, a pilot logbook bearing his name was recovered and reflected 7 total hours of flight experience logged.
A review of FAA airman records revealed that the pilot in the helicopter held a commercial pilot certificate with a rating for helicopter and instrument helicopter. He held an air transport pilot certificate with a rating for airplane multiengine land. His most recent FAA second class medical certificate was issued October 5, 2010. During an interview, he reported 6,803 total hours of flight experience, of which, approximately 700 hours were in the same make and model as the accident helicopter.
 
"Failure to see and avoid" is pretty obvious, but the underlying question is why the neither of the pilots involved failed to see and avoid the other. Since "Consistently, witnesses described the helicopter as it overtook the airplane from behind," that suggests the helicopter may have been the burdened aircraft under 91.113(f) (there being no categorical right of way for helos vs airplanes), but much remains to be seen, including the altitude at which the collision occurred, the exact location of the collision with reference to SHD's pattern, and the accident airplane's flight path to the collision point.

I would point out that SHD is a nontowered airport with no requirement for radio comm or even a radio, and the airspace around it has no transponder requirement. That means eyes may be the only means of detecting another aircraft; transponder-based aids and radio comm are only supplementary aids.
 
But -- why is a helicopter "overtaking" a fixed wing airplane in a pattern?

Rotaries are to fly opposite patterns.

No.. Rotaries are supposed to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic. There is a difference.

Obviously that didn't happen in this case.
 
During the descent, about 500 feet above ground level, the pilot "saw about 2 feet of white wing right outside." He "pulled power" and then felt the contact.

Exactly. Not pipeline patrol; I missed the part at the end; CFI with less than 10 hour student.
 
That's true for a controlled (towered) field under ATC control.

At an uncontrolled field, helicopters should fly an opposite pattern.

See http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_G...7c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

Since when is "should" spelled M-A-Y?

(4) A helicopter operating in the traffic pattern
may .fly a pattern similar to the airplane pattern
at a lower altitude (500 AGL) and closer to
the airport. This pattern may be on the opposite
side of the runway with turns in the opposite
direction if local policy permits.
 
As drivers around here know, it's always the trailing deer you don't see that nails you, not the lead deer you see in your headlights. Likewise, fighter pilots sometimes spend so much time "checking six" for bogeys that they run into something (the other enemy fighter, a hill, whatever) dead ahead.

Without prejudice towards the actual case, one thing we need to remember is that the biggest threat at a nontowered airport is the airplane which isn't squawking or talking. It's real easy to focus on the ones we hear on the radio or see on the scope to the exclusion of the one that isn't detectable by anything except our eyes. That means we need to pay special visual attention to all the places where nobody's showing up on TIS/TCAD/etc or reporting as being via the radio, starting with straight in front of us (that being the next place where we will be ourselves).
 
As drivers around here know, it's always the trailing deer you don't see that nails you, not the lead deer you see in your headlights. Likewise, fighter pilots sometimes spend so much time "checking six" for bogeys that they run into something (the other enemy fighter, a hill, whatever) dead ahead.

Without prejudice towards the actual case, one thing we need to remember is that the biggest threat at a nontowered airport is the airplane which isn't squawking or talking. It's real easy to focus on the ones we hear on the radio or see on the scope to the exclusion of the one that isn't detectable by anything except our eyes. That means we need to pay special visual attention to all the places where nobody's showing up on TIS/TCAD/etc or reporting as being via the radio, starting with straight in front of us (that being the next place where we will be ourselves).

word.
 
That's true for a controlled (towered) field under ATC control.

At an uncontrolled field, helicopters should fly an opposite pattern.

See http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_G...7c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf


Did you not read the material thoroughly before choosing to use it as a citation... the pertinent passage reads:

"(4) A helicopter operating in the traffic pattern may fly a pattern similar to the airplane pattern at a lower altitude (500 AGL) and closer to the airport. This pattern may be on the opposite side of the runway with turns in the opposite direction if local policy permits"

Note the use of the word "may" as opposed to the use of the word "shall". You understand the distinction between those two qualifiers?

Also note that this is left up to LOCAL determination, as there are foreseeable instances where opposite patterns are inappropriate (such as parallel runways, congestion or obstructions).

Opposite pattern: optional and locally determined, not universal.
Avoiding flow of fixed wing traffic: Not optional.
 
As drivers around here know, it's always the trailing deer you don't see that nails you, not the lead deer you see in your headlights. Likewise, fighter pilots sometimes spend so much time "checking six" for bogeys that they run into something (the other enemy fighter, a hill, whatever) dead ahead.

Without prejudice towards the actual case, one thing we need to remember is that the biggest threat at a nontowered airport is the airplane which isn't squawking or talking. It's real easy to focus on the ones we hear on the radio or see on the scope to the exclusion of the one that isn't detectable by anything except our eyes. That means we need to pay special visual attention to all the places where nobody's showing up on TIS/TCAD/etc or reporting as being via the radio, starting with straight in front of us (that being the next place where we will be ourselves).

Absolutely!!!!!!!!

I've had one or two surprises with NORDO or non-transpondered airplanes that have really made me pay more attention in the pattern. Seems like the chopper crew was doing everything it could, although it also seems the pilots may have been relying too much on TCAD. Nobody really knows...
 
Which FAR requires helicopters to stay out of the flow of fixed wing traffic? While it may be a good operating practice, I can't find it as a regulatory requirement.

91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.

91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(f) Approaches. Except when conducting a circling approach under part 97 of this chapter or unless otherwise required by ATC, each pilot must—
(1) Circle the airport to the left, if operating an airplane; or
(2) Avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft, if operating a helicopter.
 
Last edited:
Well, 91.129 wouldn't apply in this case, but 91.126 would. Thanks for identifying that.

That said, the published pattern on 23 at SHD is (by default) left, and the collision occurred "1/2 mile northwest of the [airport]" (the side opposite the pattern of the runway in use) so the helo was outside the normal "flow of fixed-wing aircraft" when it happened. While it remains to be seen what that airplane was doing there at 500 feet and how it got there, if the helo was overtaking the airplane, as witnesses said, the 91.113 burden would still have been on the helo. Lots of data still to come...
 
The accident airplane was not in the 'normal-flow' pattern. If that is the case, that would put more of the cause on the airplane since he was in the area that the helicopter is supposed to be.
 
The accident airplane was not in the 'normal-flow' pattern. If that is the case, that would put more of the cause on the airplane since he was in the area that the helicopter is supposed to be.
Except that there is no requirement for the airplane to avoid the flow of helicopter traffic.
 
I can't figure out what the airplane would be doing at that location, altitude, with the transponder off and not on CTAF?
 
This is actually my biggest fear in-flight. I am constantly worried about not seeing some guy in another craft and causing trouble.
 
Back
Top