Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:29 AM - Re: SNF Near Misses (Craig Payne)
2. 05:50 AM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (Michael Bolton)
3. 06:31 AM - Re: SNF Near Misses (cjpilot710@aol.com)
4. 07:34 AM - Re: SunnFun near misses (Drew Blahnick)
5. 11:37 AM - Re: SNF Near Misses (Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 12:09 PM - Re: SNF Near Misses (steve and donna hanshew)
7. 12:31 PM - Re: Extra Fuel (Tim Gagnon)
8. 03:07 PM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
9. 04:16 PM - Re: SNF Near Misses (Scooter)
10. 04:39 PM - Emailing: FAA Doc-Overhead patterns.doc (Roger Kemp M.D.)
11. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (david stroud)
12. 04:51 PM - Re: Re: SNF Near Misses (Roger Kemp M.D.)
13. 06:02 PM - Forms and patterns (Craig Payne)
14. 06:55 PM - Re: SNF Near Misses (cjpilot710@aol.com)
15. 10:42 PM - Fw: Fw: Blue Angle Accident (ByronMFox@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: SNF Near Misses |
Doc,
Those are pretty much the same conclusions that I have come to. I also believe
that a formation can be a safer way to enter 4 airplanes into the pattern than
4 solos. All 4 briefed together, all 4 are looking for the unexpected and understand
how to sequence and space in the pattern & runway. Perhaps popping smoke
in the pattern could help mark locations as well.
Some eons ago, CFI's and flight schools taught tight close-in patterns in case
of carb icing, etc. Always stay in glide range of the runway. Then came the 70's
and a booming business in pilot starts. Instruction changed to "stabilized"
approaches as ALL students were surely going to be Big Bus Drivers when those
old WW-II farts retired. CFI's also needed to run up the hobbs to get paid. The
result: 5 mile patterns with no hope of making the runway. CFI's started sim'ing
engine out in the pattern only when abeam the numbers.
Perhaps the new generation of Light Sport trainers will bring back old behaviors
as these low-inertia A/C need to flown to the runway. Meanwhile, our training
flight briefs need to include formation recovery procedures in more detail and
pattern emergency procedures.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: SNF Near Misses |
Craig, This might not be the best place, but I wanted to drop you a big
THANK YOU for all of your help last week at Sun-n-Fun. The mount turned
out perfect, I believe it might be better than new. Also thanks to
Shane and Pappi for putting me in touch with you. Hope to see all of
you soon for some formation training.
Michael Bolton"Mighty"
N595JF"Nanchang Nancy"
803.427.0604
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: yak-list
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: Yak-List: RE: SNF Near Misses
Doc,
Those are pretty much the same conclusions that I have come to. I also
believe that a formation can be a safer way to enter 4 airplanes into
the pattern than 4 solos. All 4 briefed together, all 4 are looking for
the unexpected and understand how to sequence and space in the pattern &
runway. Perhaps popping smoke in the pattern could help mark locations
as well.
Some eons ago, CFI's and flight schools taught tight close-in patterns
in case of carb icing, etc. Always stay in glide range of the runway.
Then came the 70's and a booming business in pilot starts. Instruction
changed to "stabilized" approaches as ALL students were surely going to
be Big Bus Drivers when those old WW-II farts retired. CFI's also needed
to run up the hobbs to get paid. The result: 5 mile patterns with no
hope of making the runway. CFI's started sim'ing engine out in the
pattern only when abeam the numbers.
Perhaps the new generation of Light Sport trainers will bring back old
behaviors as these low-inertia A/C need to flown to the runway.
Meanwhile, our training flight briefs need to include formation recovery
procedures in more detail and pattern emergency procedures.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SNF Near Misses |
In a message dated 4/25/2007 9:32:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mark.bitterlich@navy.mil writes:
I was there.
This is what happened.
I was number 3 in a three ship.
After briefing we departed LAL in a 3 ship takeoff from rwy 27L. (link #1
we forgot to brief the ZPH unicom frequency)
After 3 miles we turned north to ZPH.
Lead switched us to 123.075
#2 miss heard and dialed to 123.70 (link #2)
At check in, lead and I could only hear a static reply from #2. What we
heard was frequency bleed over because we were in formation. We both figured
#2
was having a mike problem. (link #3)
ZPH unicom confirmed that runway 36 was in use which matched the slight wind
of about 5 kts.
Lead set us up for an 3 or 4 mile initial runway 36, making all the calls
and stating intentions.
A Cessna 172 called in bound also. At that point he was the only known
traffic in the area. (link #4)
The Cessna entered the left down wind for rwy 36.
Lead set us up for a left 4 second break.
The flight broke and lead fell in line behind the Cessna on the down wind.
The Cessna proceeds to fly what can only be called a 747 approach pattern.
Lead and the rest of the flight have normal spacing on the Cessna. Plenty
of room.
On landing the Cessna goes into a slow taxi mood right in the middle of the
runway. (link #5)
The Cessna does not reply to a plea (from me) to clear the runway.
Lead press on until he has no option but execute a missed approach.
#2 (NORDO) seeing the lead miss does the same for the same reason.
I, #3 do the same. At this point I am about 200 yds to the rear of #2.
Lead starts a left turn at the departure end of the runway to reenter the
pattern.
#2 (NORDO) starts a left turn to rejoin on lead.
At this point I notice a Moony lifting off on rwy 4, to our left. This
aircraft made no calls over unicom frequency what so ever. (link #6)
I made a radio call to #2 to watch for the traffic coming from the left. I,
like lead, still assumed he could receive us.
Soon after that call, I can see the projected flight paths of both aircraft
are going to merge. I make a "frantic" call for #2 to "go down! go down! go
down!"
I see his aircraft "respond" by diving under the Moony, not knowing he never
heard my call but he saw the Moony in time to clear.
The rest of the flight was uneventful.
Detailed debriefing ensued.
If this had indeed lead to an accident, you can see braking any of the links
above would have prevented it. The one thing that did was SA on the part of
#2.
Being NORDO in a formation while damn inconvenient need not be dangerous.
That is part of what FAST is about. The poor piloting skills of the Cessna
pilot and the total disregard of the Moony pilot (no radio calls and not
checking for traffic on runway 36 which is in plain sight.) are links that could
have not been changed on our part.
I agree with Mark that at times forgoing formation 360 overhead arrivals
maybe wise, but in this particular case the situation didn't seem to warrant it.
And given with what we knew at the time, I'd most likely do it again.
Knowledge of procedures, practiced handling skills, attention to equipment, SA,
and experience (only gained at making mistakes) is what makes for safe flight.
But than again, I'll take all the luck I can get.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I was not there, (WHICH IS A BIG DEAL AND I ADMIT IT) but I have a
question and comment based on the account of this event.
1. At an untowered airport that is selling cheap gas in very close
proximity to a major event such as Sun & Fun (and yes, I have been to
and landed at just about every strip within 50 miles of Lakeland), why
is it necessary to enter any kind of break at all?
2. To Wit and more importantly: Why is it necessary to bring a 4 ship
OR a 3 ship formation into a pattern populated by the totally
uninitiated, combined with possible sky-divers at a field with two
runways that just scream for conflict?
I stand ready to take the heat and flames from any and all involved, but
I am going to stick my big NON-FAST-CARD-QUALIFIED rear end out and say
this: "Mr. Aviator that drives big people haulers for a living and has
great SA" should not have had to exercise it in the first place.
Second, my answer to your: "Failing THAT" statement would have been:
KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION and fly every single person in as a standard
single ship, flying into a standard airport, following standard airport
procedures so as to have a standard outcome that didn't involve the use
of OUTSTANDING SA to avoid a freaking MID-AIR COLLISION.
One of the things any formation lead should know is not only how not to
lead his flight into a dangerous situation, but also when to kiss his
wingman off and KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION FLIGHT COMPLETELY.
If such a situation as you just described does not meet the call to do
that, even with 20/20 hindsight, then my retired military ass does not
know what does.
Sorry to not agree with your assessment Craig, but also respecting your
willingness to tell the story.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 14:47
Subject: Yak-List: SNF Near Misses
I was waiting for others to post this, but .... During the staging
flight up to ZPH from LAL There were 2 serious near misses encountered
by our formations. Zephyrhills is an uncontrolled field just NNW of
Lakeland with cheap gas, plenty of parking, and a CTAF of 123.075. Being
a local it common to hear folks broadcasting on Plant City 123.0 for
ZPH. Not sure that happened during incident #1 but perhaps.
There are 2 runways, 4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left
traffic on both due to skydiving ops on the SE side. GA traffic often
uses 4-22 as the skydivers claim to "own" 18-36. No problems with
skydive ops this year though. Wind was 340 degrees.
#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At the
same time a Mooney departs NORAD on 4; you guessed it, one of our guys
just about hooked left into Mooney but happened to spot the developing
mid-air about 50 feet short of disaster. Said aviator drives big people
haulers for a living and has great SA.
#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead (me)
makes a precautionary landing on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho inbound
traffic to the airport. I taxi in and monitor the airborne arguement
over which runway is in use. As the 3-ship breaks for 04 and I hear and
see a Cherokee turn final, he has no traffic callouts. At the same time
I see my Deputy lead arc in on final on a vector that would neatly place
the CJ-6 directly on the Cherokee. I call for the go-around and the
Cherokee never sees (or understands) what just happened.
Prevention:
1) Stay away from busy, uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins. Use
towered fields if possible.
2) Failing that, do NOT use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA folks
don't know what that is. My thought is to break 90 degrees onto downwind
from over the top and take interval on base-final. Another technique
could be to break downfield, rather than on the Numbers so that a
downwind entry is acomplished and interval set.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SunnFun near misses |
Folks,
Certainly those who went to Zeph can take from that experience to avoid this
uncont. field during sunnfun with the intent of such formation ops.
On that day I wanted to get a four ship some exposure to the diamond drop landing
and seperated from the mass / had them fly to KBOW instead for the training
- glad we did - Zeph uncont. GA activity coupled with the runway layout is
"less than desirable" as a future location during this event.
My feeling is in agreement with someone elses post in this specific situation
at SunnFun; on benefiting from some level of oversight and assistance provided
for by a tower controller - or the arrival mass will have to stage further out
from KLAL where the activity may be lower...
Drew
Drew A. Blahnick
RPA President
www.flyredstar.org
V.954.636.7560
F.305.675.3940
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Dave,
That was the extact quote given at one meeting. I have since found and
provided the FAA advisor letter on overhead patterns and low approaches from
intial. I will have to scan it and I will post it for those that have never
seen it.
Doc
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KingCJ6@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: SNF Near Misses
Doc - some very good points. I assume you were joking though, about the
legality of overheads or non-standard patterns at GA airports -- I can't
find any FAR's addressing the issue.
Dave
#########
"Those are illegal patterns did you not know?! Only square patterns can be
flown at civilian airfields. Have you not had that lecture yet! "
#########
In a message dated 4/25/2007 2:15:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
viperdoc@mindspring.com writes:
Craig,
You have broached a point that has been a hot topic debate at our 08A EAA
meetings for the last 6-7 months. We have opted for the 500 ft above GA
pattern altitude and a mid field or departure end break into an uncontrolled
field. That is what Wetumpka has. We have had a real experience trying to
educate the uneducatable spam canners at 08A on overhead breaks. Not to say
that some of our do not have trouble understanding what 2 g 60 deg. Of bank
for 180 degrees means too but the Spammers really are out in left field on
the topic. Do not try to educate them on what those neat military sounding
radio calls really mean either. Like "YAK lead left Base, Gear, Pressure,
Full Stop __Runway!" Abeam the numbers and on the Perch causes their eyes to
glaze over when having discussions on overhead patterns at the EAA meetings.
Those are illegal patterns did you not know?! Only square patterns can be
flown at civilian airfields. Have you not had that lecture yet!
The midfield or departure end break gives lead a little longer to scan the
airspace for the spammer on 3 mile downwind, final or the infamous 45 degree
downwind entry at 5 miles out. True we could stop operating out of
uncontrolled airfields, but that is not practical. We could stop doing
overheads. That would thrill the Spam Canners to no end.
While on this subject of potential mid airs, climbing rejoins over the
airfield should probably be avoided if at all possible too. Our experience
at 08A has been the no matter how hard you try to educate the local populus
of spammers, they are continuing to pull on the runway and departing as soon
as you start to roll. So by the time you are turning back to 270 deg they
are at or just below your altitude over the departure end of the field. This
has happened on a couple of occassions.
The infamous base turn final runway incursion is another point of contention
for the YAKs vs Spammers. Should we use 3 mile base turns as they do with
what they call "final" really being a 3 mile straight in?
My point is Mil type Ops and Civilian square corner ops are going to be a
point of contention where ever we operate. Even at a towered airport. We
just have to us our heads. Keep them on a swivle, spend most of our
transient time from TO to the Area, and on RTB in Route or Tactical for
maximum flight SA. Consider closing it up on 2-3 mile final or do a tactical
entry into a busy airfield so all in the flight can use their eyeballs to
scan the sky and clear flight paths. I know that tactical entry stuff does
not look as neat as the 4 ship fingertip but it could keep us from being
famous in the wrong FAA way.
Bottomline is it is lead's responsibility to clear the flight path for the
entire flight. That is a daunting job for some of the neophyte flight leads.
SA comes with time and experience. It never comes to some though. After all,
we must remember our hobby is the only hobby with a self cleaning oven.
Doc
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Yak-List: SNF Near Misses
I was waiting for others to post this, but .... During the staging flight up
to ZPH from LAL There were 2 serious near misses encountered by our
formations. Zephyrhills is an uncontrolled field just NNW of Lakeland with
cheap gas, plenty of parking, and a CTAF of 123.075. Being a local it common
to hear folks broadcasting on Plant City 123.0 for ZPH. Not sure that
happened during incident #1 but perhaps.
There are 2 runways, 4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left traffic on
both due to skydiving ops on the SE side. GA traffic often uses 4-22 as the
skydivers claim to "own" 18-36. No problems with skydive ops this year
though. Wind was 340 degrees.
#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At the same
time a Mooney departs NORAD on 4; you guessed it, one of our guys just about
hooked left into Mooney but happened to spot the developing mid-air about 50
feet short of disaster. Said aviator drives big people haulers for a living
and has great SA.
#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead (me) makes
a precautionary landing on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho inbound traffic to
the airport. I taxi in and monitor the airborne arguement over which runway
is in use. As the 3-ship breaks for 04 and I hear and see a Cherokee turn
final, he has no traffic callouts. At the same time I see my Deputy lead arc
in on final on a vector that would neatly place the CJ-6 directly on the
Cherokee. I call for the go-around and the Cherokee never sees (or
understands) what just happened.
Prevention:
1) Stay away from busy, uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins. Use
towered fields if possible.
2) Failing that, do NOT use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA folks
don't know what that is. My thought is to break 90 degrees onto downwind
from over the top and take interval on base-final. Another technique could
be to break downfield, rather than on the Numbers so that a downwind entry
is acomplished and interval set.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SNF Near Misses |
Pappy,
Guess who is quoted in a Forbes article on China's endeavor to build the
BIG plane. Check it out
China's Large Aircraft Readying For Take-Off
http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/25/boeing-airbus-china-ent-manage-cx_kw_042
5whartonaircraft.html?partner=yahootix
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: SNF Near Misses
In a message dated 4/25/2007 9:32:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mark.bitterlich@navy.mil writes:
I was there.
This is what happened.
I was number 3 in a three ship.
After briefing we departed LAL in a 3 ship takeoff from rwy 27L.
(link #1 we forgot to brief the ZPH unicom frequency)
After 3 miles we turned north to ZPH.
Lead switched us to 123.075
#2 miss heard and dialed to 123.70 (link #2)
At check in, lead and I could only hear a static reply from #2. What
we heard was frequency bleed over because we were in formation. We both
figured #2 was having a mike problem. (link #3)
ZPH unicom confirmed that runway 36 was in use which matched the
slight wind of about 5 kts.
Lead set us up for an 3 or 4 mile initial runway 36, making all the
calls and stating intentions.
A Cessna 172 called in bound also. At that point he was the only
known traffic in the area. (link #4)
The Cessna entered the left down wind for rwy 36.
Lead set us up for a left 4 second break.
The flight broke and lead fell in line behind the Cessna on the down
wind.
The Cessna proceeds to fly what can only be called a 747 approach
pattern.
Lead and the rest of the flight have normal spacing on the Cessna.
Plenty of room.
On landing the Cessna goes into a slow taxi mood right in the middle
of the runway. (link #5)
The Cessna does not reply to a plea (from me) to clear the runway.
Lead press on until he has no option but execute a missed approach.
#2 (NORDO) seeing the lead miss does the same for the same reason.
I, #3 do the same. At this point I am about 200 yds to the rear of
#2.
Lead starts a left turn at the departure end of the runway to reenter
the pattern.
#2 (NORDO) starts a left turn to rejoin on lead.
At this point I notice a Moony lifting off on rwy 4, to our left. This
aircraft made no calls over unicom frequency what so ever. (link #6)
I made a radio call to #2 to watch for the traffic coming from the
left. I, like lead, still assumed he could receive us.
Soon after that call, I can see the projected flight paths of both
aircraft are going to merge. I make a "frantic" call for #2 to "go
down! go down! go down!"
I see his aircraft "respond" by diving under the Moony, not knowing he
never heard my call but he saw the Moony in time to clear.
The rest of the flight was uneventful.
Detailed debriefing ensued.
If this had indeed lead to an accident, you can see braking any of the
links above would have prevented it. The one thing that did was SA on
the part of #2.
Being NORDO in a formation while damn inconvenient need not be
dangerous. That is part of what FAST is about. The poor piloting
skills of the Cessna pilot and the total disregard of the Moony pilot
(no radio calls and not checking for traffic on runway 36 which is in
plain sight.) are links that could have not been changed on our part.
I agree with Mark that at times forgoing formation 360 overhead
arrivals maybe wise, but in this particular case the situation didn't
seem to warrant it. And given with what we knew at the time, I'd most
likely do it again. Knowledge of procedures, practiced handling skills,
attention to equipment, SA, and experience (only gained at making
mistakes) is what makes for safe flight. But than again, I'll take all
the luck I can get.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I was not there, (WHICH IS A BIG DEAL AND I ADMIT IT) but I have a
question and comment based on the account of this event.
1. At an untowered airport that is selling cheap gas in very close
proximity to a major event such as Sun & Fun (and yes, I have been
to
and landed at just about every strip within 50 miles of Lakeland),
why
is it necessary to enter any kind of break at all?
2. To Wit and more importantly: Why is it necessary to bring a 4
ship
OR a 3 ship formation into a pattern populated by the totally
uninitiated, combined with possible sky-divers at a field with two
runways that just scream for conflict?
I stand ready to take the heat and flames from any and all involved,
but
I am going to stick my big NON-FAST-CARD-QUALIFIED rear end out and
say
this: "Mr. Aviator that drives big people haulers for a living and
has
great SA" should not have had to exercise it in the first place.
Second, my answer to your: "Failing THAT" statement would have been:
KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION and fly every single person in as a standard
single ship, flying into a standard airport, following standard
airport
procedures so as to have a standard outcome that didn't involve the
use
of OUTSTANDING SA to avoid a freaking MID-AIR COLLISION.
One of the things any formation lead should know is not only how not
to
lead his flight into a dangerous situation, but also when to kiss
his
wingman off and KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION FLIGHT COMPLETELY.
If such a situation as you just described does not meet the call to
do
that, even with 20/20 hindsight, then my retired military ass does
not
know what does.
Sorry to not agree with your assessment Craig, but also respecting
your
willingness to tell the story.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 14:47
To: yak-list
Subject: Yak-List: SNF Near Misses
I was waiting for others to post this, but .... During the staging
flight up to ZPH from LAL There were 2 serious near misses
encountered
by our formations. Zephyrhills is an uncontrolled field just NNW of
Lakeland with cheap gas, plenty of parking, and a CTAF of 123.075.
Being
a local it common to hear folks broadcasting on Plant City 123.0 for
ZPH. Not sure that happened during incident #1 but perhaps.
There are 2 runways, 4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left
traffic on both due to skydiving ops on the SE side. GA traffic
often
uses 4-22 as the skydivers claim to "own" 18-36. No problems with
skydive ops this year though. Wind was 340 degrees.
#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At
the
same time a Mooney departs NORAD on 4; you guessed it, one of our
guys
just about hooked left into Mooney but happened to spot the
developing
mid-air about 50 feet short of disaster. Said aviator drives big
people
haulers for a living and has great SA.
#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead
(me)
makes a precautionary landing on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho
inbound
traffic to the airport. I taxi in and monitor the airborne arguement
over which runway is in use. As the 3-ship breaks for 04 and I hear
and
see a Cherokee turn final, he has no traffic callouts. At the same
time
I see my Deputy lead arc in on final on a vector that would neatly
place
the CJ-6 directly on the Cherokee. I call for the go-around and the
Cherokee never sees (or understands) what just happened.
Prevention:
1) Stay away from busy, uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins.
Use
towered fields if possible.
2) Failing that, do NOT use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA
folks
don't know what that is. My thought is to break 90 degrees onto
downwind
from over the top and take interval on base-final. Another technique
could be to break downfield, rather than on the Numbers so that a
downwind entry is acomplished and interval set.
Craig es Day --> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
bsp; -->
=====================
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I think the current owner of TJ's mount might part with his....
I will ask him and tell him to respond here.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=109411#109411
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: SNF Near Misses |
My advance apologies for this epistle,
Sorry Craig, but......
I truly do enjoy formation flight myself, and exercise that privilege
quite a bit. But, I submit that saying that a formation flight can be a
SAFER way to enter 4 aircraft into the pattern versus 4 solo's is a bit
of a stretch, don't you think? You apparently disagree. Why then do
you mandate that all members flying formation wear parachutes?
Very clearly Craig, even though everyone on this list supports formation
flight, including myself, it is really hard to keep a straight face and
say flying in very close proximity to another aircraft is safer than
flying with much more physical separation NO MATTER HOW TALENTED THE
CREWS ARE.
Be that as it may, I will grant you that any formation can be flown
successfully. The problem I am trying to emphasize here is not that we
train four formation pilots to better expect the unexpected. The
problem is that at a busy uncontrolled field you can't train everyone
else to expect anything like what you are planning to do! You can't
train them, and you can't predict the way they will react. Those facts
MUST be kept in mind when attempting a formation flight into an airport
where every single member sitting in an airplane, either in the air or
on the ground is not pre-briefed and ready for what is about to happen.
When doing so results in a near mid-air, it is OK to think of how to do
it better in the future, as long as that discussion also includes the
topic of whether it should have even been attempted at all.
This is not a debate about anyone being right, or being wrong. It is
not a discussion of what is legal or not. It is intended to be an open
forum on what is safe and what is not and inspect ways to look at issues
to keep them from being unsafe in the same way down the road with the
advantage of having 20/20 hindsight.
Let me be perfectly candid with you and everyone else. The fact that
you as a lead pilot continue to say words like this: "Meanwhile, our
training flight briefs need to include formation recovery procedures in
more detail and pattern emergency procedures" and don't even address one
facet of what I have written bothers me to no small extent. Not as a
personal issue mind you, but as a professional one. The continual
"looking down the nose" attitude towards those humble spam-canners also
tends to ring alert bells in my head.
I have read Pappy's report on what happened, and I can clearly visualize
the events. Pappy, I don't like pilots who fly cross country downwinds
either. In fact they tend to make me FURIOUS. BUT.... I hold short of
referring to their actions as "Poor Piloting Skills". That may be our
PERSONAL opinion, but it has no legal ground to stand on. They were
taught that way, the FAA doesn't say they are wrong, and unless a tower
says otherwise (which I rarely see them ever do) what they are doing is
LEGAL and it is incumbent upon ALL of us to make allowances for their
type of flying, and not blame them when their type of flying doesn't
merge too well with what WE might happen to want to do today as a HOBBY.
A pilot can use every bit of the airspace reserved for an airport with
the FAA's blessing and that better be kept in mind. Further, we KNOW
these guys do this, so we should EXPECT IT. In addition Pappy, the fact
that the Mooney made no radio calls is partially overcome by the fact
that #2 would not have heard him even if he had, don't you think? And
Pappy, you were there, so when you say that given what you knew then,
you'd do it again given the same amount of knowledge, I will not argue
with you. My question is: "Given what you know TODAY, would you do the
same exact thing again?" I would hope that your answer would be "no".
On another note: What military agency can you point out that has EVER
taken a four ship formation into the break at an uncontrolled airfield?
And folks, I am not talking about 1940 here. The answer is: THEY
DON'T. Heck, I have even seen confusion between Air Force and
Navy/Marine types on just what "THE BREAK" really is!
It's a simple fact. Taking a formation flight (let alone a 4 ship with
one member NORDO no less) into an uncontrolled field that has
simultaneous use by unbriefed and untrained pilots should be viewed as
an event that is fraught with danger. If anyone didn't think so before,
they should darn well think so now. No one broke any laws. There is no
requirement to talk on the radio at an uncontrolled field. There is no
requirement to get off the runway fast after landing. There is no
requirement to fly a tight pattern. Formation flights are legal as
well, but like everything else that day...the formation flight was
OPTIONAL.
Just curious here, but did anyone think of calling ahead to Zephyrhills
and tell them that what was being planned? You know, give them a chance
to get ready, etc., etc.? No, no one is REQUIRED to do that... But, it
might have prevented this event from happening don't you think?
#2 HAD GOOD SA? Yep... #2 was also lucky. Not as lucky as the poor
idiot in the Mooney though. He never expected to be #5 in a four ship
formation.
As for everyone thinking that #2 could receive? Where were the hand and
arms signals?
In the military folks, when any in-flight accident is just barely
averted there is a meeting where every event that led to the situation
is discussed and reviewed. One of the common questions always asked is:
"Should such and such ever have been attempted to begin with, and given
what you know now, would you attempt the same thing again?"
I don't have a FAST card, and my answer to the above is: MAYBE and NO!
(GIVEN WHAT WE ALL KNOW NOW)
To those with the FAST cards, my question is if you don't feel the same
way, then WHY NOT?
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:29
Subject: Yak-List: RE: SNF Near Misses
Doc,
Those are pretty much the same conclusions that I have come to. I also
believe that a formation can be a safer way to enter 4 airplanes into
the pattern than 4 solos. All 4 briefed together, all 4 are looking for
the unexpected and understand how to sequence and space in the pattern &
runway. Perhaps popping smoke in the pattern could help mark locations
as well.
Some eons ago, CFI's and flight schools taught tight close-in patterns
in case of carb icing, etc. Always stay in glide range of the runway.
Then came the 70's and a booming business in pilot starts. Instruction
changed to "stabilized" approaches as ALL students were surely going to
be Big Bus Drivers when those old WW-II farts retired. CFI's also needed
to run up the hobbs to get paid. The result: 5 mile patterns with no
hope of making the runway. CFI's started sim'ing engine out in the
pattern only when abeam the numbers.
Perhaps the new generation of Light Sport trainers will bring back old
behaviors as these low-inertia A/C need to flown to the runway.
Meanwhile, our training flight briefs need to include formation recovery
procedures in more detail and pattern emergency procedures.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SNF Near Misses |
I've got a question and a comment: Is it possible to make radio calls that a typical
GA pilot will recognize while flying formation into an airport and performing
an overhead break? I think 95% of GA pilots have no idea what an overhead
break is.
And someone said the following: "I also believe that a formation can be a safer
way to enter 4 airplanes into the pattern than 4 solos. All 4 briefed together,
all 4 are looking for the unexpected and understand how to sequence and space
in the pattern & runway". In this case it would seem that only one pilot
is "looking for the unexpected" and the other three are looking at another aircraft
in the formation. Or maybe I'm missing something?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=109439#109439
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Emailing: FAA Doc-Overhead patterns.doc |
Well while we are fueling the overhead pattern debate. Here is the
discription from the FAR's on overhead patterns. Now, should we even be
doing overhead patterns if we are not terminating an IFR flight plan?
Remember the military operates on a combined flight plan when departing and
returning on a training sortie(or mission). That combined flight plan is for
both IFR and VFR operations. You depart the base on a IFR plan (formating)
utilizing a block altitude, train in the area (on the bombing range, VR low
level, or MOA) on the VFR portion of the flight plan and RTB on the second
half of the IFR flight plan that is picked up before departing the MOA or
the Range. So are we really correct in our formation overheads being flown
in a VFR setting the entire time?
If we interpet the wording of the FAR literally, the answer may come back as
one we do not like.
HMMMMmmm...but there are FAA advisory circulars out there that address this
for VFR too.
Doc
FAA Doc-Overhead patterns.doc
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: SNF Near Misses |
Nicely said, Mark. I'm sure with you on this one. Please, Yak/Nanchang formation
types, understand...please read UNDERSTAND....that ALL AVIATORS may not know
that you EXIST, let alone that you may appear unannounced at ANY airfield. I say
this
with all respect to your endeavours and skills. Your aim is a good one, yet some
consideration to more foresight might be in order. If you want to DO YOUR STUFF
for
your own pleasure, kindly don't lose sight of the rights of others and especially
the
potential misgivings of others or their equipment that might impede or even collide
with
your goals. More thought maybe...for outside your own box....? I've only got about
600 hrs of private flight, but never get amazed at the stupidity and/or stubbornness
of
some jerks in the pattern and will admit to a couple of dumb moves myself over
the
years. You guys want to be special.... ? Well ...deal with it, but safely, eh Dood?
Some people are counting on you.
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 under construction
and on the gear...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:06 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: RE: SNF Near Misses
>
> My advance apologies for this epistle,
>
> Sorry Craig, but......
>
> I truly do enjoy formation flight myself, and exercise that privilege
> quite a bit. But, I submit that saying that a formation flight can be a
> SAFER way to enter 4 aircraft into the pattern versus 4 solo's is a bit
> of a stretch, don't you think? You apparently disagree. Why then do
> you mandate that all members flying formation wear parachutes?
>
> Very clearly Craig, even though everyone on this list supports formation
> flight, including myself, it is really hard to keep a straight face and
> say flying in very close proximity to another aircraft is safer than
> flying with much more physical separation NO MATTER HOW TALENTED THE
> CREWS ARE.
>
> Be that as it may, I will grant you that any formation can be flown
> successfully. The problem I am trying to emphasize here is not that we
> train four formation pilots to better expect the unexpected. The
> problem is that at a busy uncontrolled field you can't train everyone
> else to expect anything like what you are planning to do! You can't
> train them, and you can't predict the way they will react. Those facts
> MUST be kept in mind when attempting a formation flight into an airport
> where every single member sitting in an airplane, either in the air or
> on the ground is not pre-briefed and ready for what is about to happen.
> When doing so results in a near mid-air, it is OK to think of how to do
> it better in the future, as long as that discussion also includes the
> topic of whether it should have even been attempted at all.
>
> This is not a debate about anyone being right, or being wrong. It is
> not a discussion of what is legal or not. It is intended to be an open
> forum on what is safe and what is not and inspect ways to look at issues
> to keep them from being unsafe in the same way down the road with the
> advantage of having 20/20 hindsight.
>
> Let me be perfectly candid with you and everyone else. The fact that
> you as a lead pilot continue to say words like this: "Meanwhile, our
> training flight briefs need to include formation recovery procedures in
> more detail and pattern emergency procedures" and don't even address one
> facet of what I have written bothers me to no small extent. Not as a
> personal issue mind you, but as a professional one. The continual
> "looking down the nose" attitude towards those humble spam-canners also
> tends to ring alert bells in my head.
>
> I have read Pappy's report on what happened, and I can clearly visualize
> the events. Pappy, I don't like pilots who fly cross country downwinds
> either. In fact they tend to make me FURIOUS. BUT.... I hold short of
> referring to their actions as "Poor Piloting Skills". That may be our
> PERSONAL opinion, but it has no legal ground to stand on. They were
> taught that way, the FAA doesn't say they are wrong, and unless a tower
> says otherwise (which I rarely see them ever do) what they are doing is
> LEGAL and it is incumbent upon ALL of us to make allowances for their
> type of flying, and not blame them when their type of flying doesn't
> merge too well with what WE might happen to want to do today as a HOBBY.
> A pilot can use every bit of the airspace reserved for an airport with
> the FAA's blessing and that better be kept in mind. Further, we KNOW
> these guys do this, so we should EXPECT IT. In addition Pappy, the fact
> that the Mooney made no radio calls is partially overcome by the fact
> that #2 would not have heard him even if he had, don't you think? And
> Pappy, you were there, so when you say that given what you knew then,
> you'd do it again given the same amount of knowledge, I will not argue
> with you. My question is: "Given what you know TODAY, would you do the
> same exact thing again?" I would hope that your answer would be "no".
>
> On another note: What military agency can you point out that has EVER
> taken a four ship formation into the break at an uncontrolled airfield?
> And folks, I am not talking about 1940 here. The answer is: THEY
> DON'T. Heck, I have even seen confusion between Air Force and
> Navy/Marine types on just what "THE BREAK" really is!
>
> It's a simple fact. Taking a formation flight (let alone a 4 ship with
> one member NORDO no less) into an uncontrolled field that has
> simultaneous use by unbriefed and untrained pilots should be viewed as
> an event that is fraught with danger. If anyone didn't think so before,
> they should darn well think so now. No one broke any laws. There is no
> requirement to talk on the radio at an uncontrolled field. There is no
> requirement to get off the runway fast after landing. There is no
> requirement to fly a tight pattern. Formation flights are legal as
> well, but like everything else that day...the formation flight was
> OPTIONAL.
>
> Just curious here, but did anyone think of calling ahead to Zephyrhills
> and tell them that what was being planned? You know, give them a chance
> to get ready, etc., etc.? No, no one is REQUIRED to do that... But, it
> might have prevented this event from happening don't you think?
>
> #2 HAD GOOD SA? Yep... #2 was also lucky. Not as lucky as the poor
> idiot in the Mooney though. He never expected to be #5 in a four ship
> formation.
>
> As for everyone thinking that #2 could receive? Where were the hand and
> arms signals?
>
> In the military folks, when any in-flight accident is just barely
> averted there is a meeting where every event that led to the situation
> is discussed and reviewed. One of the common questions always asked is:
> "Should such and such ever have been attempted to begin with, and given
> what you know now, would you attempt the same thing again?"
>
> I don't have a FAST card, and my answer to the above is: MAYBE and NO!
> (GIVEN WHAT WE ALL KNOW NOW)
>
> To those with the FAST cards, my question is if you don't feel the same
> way, then WHY NOT?
>
>
> Mark Bitterlich
> N50YK
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:29
> To: yak-list
> Subject: Yak-List: RE: SNF Near Misses
>
> Doc,
>
> Those are pretty much the same conclusions that I have come to. I also
> believe that a formation can be a safer way to enter 4 airplanes into
> the pattern than 4 solos. All 4 briefed together, all 4 are looking for
> the unexpected and understand how to sequence and space in the pattern &
> runway. Perhaps popping smoke in the pattern could help mark locations
> as well.
>
> Some eons ago, CFI's and flight schools taught tight close-in patterns
> in case of carb icing, etc. Always stay in glide range of the runway.
> Then came the 70's and a booming business in pilot starts. Instruction
> changed to "stabilized" approaches as ALL students were surely going to
> be Big Bus Drivers when those old WW-II farts retired. CFI's also needed
> to run up the hobbs to get paid. The result: 5 mile patterns with no
> hope of making the runway. CFI's started sim'ing engine out in the
> pattern only when abeam the numbers.
>
> Perhaps the new generation of Light Sport trainers will bring back old
> behaviors as these low-inertia A/C need to flown to the runway.
> Meanwhile, our training flight briefs need to include formation recovery
> procedures in more detail and pattern emergency procedures.
>
>
> Craig Payne
> cpayne@joimail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SNF Near Misses |
Dead on Scotter. A TAC approach means 8 eyeballs are scanning the sky for
the flight of 4 not 2 eyeballs scanning for the 4 ship.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scooter
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:16 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: SNF Near Misses
I've got a question and a comment: Is it possible to make radio calls that
a typical GA pilot will recognize while flying formation into an airport and
performing an overhead break? I think 95% of GA pilots have no idea what an
overhead break is.
And someone said the following: "I also believe that a formation can be a
safer way to enter 4 airplanes into the pattern than 4 solos. All 4 briefed
together, all 4 are looking for the unexpected and understand how to
sequence and space in the pattern & runway". In this case it would seem
that only one pilot is "looking for the unexpected" and the other three are
looking at another aircraft in the formation. Or maybe I'm missing
something?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=109439#109439
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Forms and patterns |
Thanks all for your input but the point on formations could be extended to the
extreme that aviation is strictly for the birds and for us to watch them from
the ground. My post was intended as a heads-up on modifying current technique
for these situations. When flying with NATA dudes many years ago, popping smoke
in the pattern was a good way to mark a position and configuring T-6's into
extended trail for pattern entry seemed to work well.
>In this case it would seem that only one pilot
>is "looking for the unexpected" and the other three are looking at another aircraft
>in the formation. Or maybe I'm missing something?
What's missing here is understanding that when the flight is configured into extended
trail, 4 sets of eyes are looking and scanning. That was my suggestion
for entering busy airspace. It is the NEXT situation I worry about, the last was
a learning experience to carry forward.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SNF Near Misses |
In a message dated 4/26/2007 3:11:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dhanshew@cinci.rr.com writes:
How about that!. The old guy is still in there kicking! He showed me a
picture of the Y-10. Because it had JT-8 engines, it reminded me of an early
707.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Pappy,
Guess who is quoted in a Forbes article on China's endeavor to build the BIG
plane. Check it out
China's Large Aircraft Readying For Take-Off
_http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/25/boeing-airbus-china-ent-manage-cx_kw_0425wha
rtonaircraft.html?partner=yahootix_
(http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/25/boeing-airbus-china-ent-manage-cx_kw_0425whartonaircraft.html?partner=yahootix)
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: _cjpilot710@aol.com_ (mailto:cjpilot710@aol.com)
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: SNF Near Misses
In a message dated 4/25/2007 9:32:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_mark.bitterlich@navy.mil_ (mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil) writes:
I was there.
This is what happened.
I was number 3 in a three ship.
After briefing we departed LAL in a 3 ship takeoff from rwy 27L. (link #1
we forgot to brief the ZPH unicom frequency)
After 3 miles we turned north to ZPH.
Lead switched us to 123.075
#2 miss heard and dialed to 123.70 (link #2)
At check in, lead and I could only hear a static reply from #2. What we
heard was frequency bleed over because we were in formation. We both figured
#2
was having a mike problem. (link #3)
ZPH unicom confirmed that runway 36 was in use which matched the slight wind
of about 5 kts.
Lead set us up for an 3 or 4 mile initial runway 36, making all the calls
and stating intentions.
A Cessna 172 called in bound also. At that point he was the only known
traffic in the area. (link #4)
The Cessna entered the left down wind for rwy 36.
Lead set us up for a left 4 second break.
The flight broke and lead fell in line behind the Cessna on the down wind.
The Cessna proceeds to fly what can only be called a 747 approach pattern.
Lead and the rest of the flight have normal spacing on the Cessna. Plenty
of room.
On landing the Cessna goes into a slow taxi mood right in the middle of the
runway. (link #5)
The Cessna does not reply to a plea (from me) to clear the runway.
Lead press on until he has no option but execute a missed approach.
#2 (NORDO) seeing the lead miss does the same for the same reason.
I, #3 do the same. At this point I am about 200 yds to the rear of #2.
Lead starts a left turn at the departure end of the runway to reenter the
pattern.
#2 (NORDO) starts a left turn to rejoin on lead.
At this point I notice a Moony lifting off on rwy 4, to our left. This
aircraft made no calls over unicom frequency what so ever. (link #6)
I made a radio call to #2 to watch for the traffic coming from the left. I,
like lead, still assumed he could receive us.
Soon after that call, I can see the projected flight paths of both aircraft
are going to merge. I make a "frantic" call for #2 to "go down! go down! go
down!"
I see his aircraft "respond" by diving under the Moony, not knowing he never
heard my call but he saw the Moony in time to clear.
The rest of the flight was uneventful.
Detailed debriefing ensued.
If this had indeed lead to an accident, you can see braking any of the links
above would have prevented it. The one thing that did was SA on the part of
#2.
Being NORDO in a formation while damn inconvenient need not be dangerous.
That is part of what FAST is about. The poor piloting skills of the Cessna
pilot and the total disregard of the Moony pilot (no radio calls and not
checking for traffic on runway 36 which is in plain sight.) are links that could
have not been changed on our part.
I agree with Mark that at times forgoing formation 360 overhead arrivals
maybe wise, but in this particular case the situation didn't seem to warrant it.
And given with what we knew at the time, I'd most likely do it again.
Knowledge of procedures, practiced handling skills, attention to equipment, SA,
and experience (only gained at making mistakes) is what makes for safe flight.
But than again, I'll take all the luck I can get.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I was not there, (WHICH IS A BIG DEAL AND I ADMIT IT) but I have a
question and comment based on the account of this event.
1. At an untowered airport that is selling cheap gas in very close
proximity to a major event such as Sun & Fun (and yes, I have been to
and landed at just about every strip within 50 miles of Lakeland), why
is it necessary to enter any kind of break at all?
2. To Wit and more importantly: Why is it necessary to bring a 4 ship
OR a 3 ship formation into a pattern populated by the totally
uninitiated, combined with possible sky-divers at a field with two
runways that just scream for conflict?
I stand ready to take the heat and flames from any and all involved, but
I am going to stick my big NON-FAST-CARD-QUALIFIED rear end out and say
this: "Mr. Aviator that drives big people haulers for a living and has
great SA" should not have had to exercise it in the first place.
Second, my answer to your: "Failing THAT" statement would have been:
KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION and fly every single person in as a standard
single ship, flying into a standard airport, following standard airport
procedures so as to have a standard outcome that didn't involve the use
of OUTSTANDING SA to avoid a freaking MID-AIR COLLISION.
One of the things any formation lead should know is not only how not to
lead his flight into a dangerous situation, but also when to kiss his
wingman off and KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION FLIGHT COMPLETELY.
If such a situation as you just described does not meet the call to do
that, even with 20/20 hindsight, then my retired military ass does not
know what does.
Sorry to not agree with your assessment Craig, but also respecting your
willingness to tell the story.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 14:47
Subject: Yak-List: SNF Near Misses
I was waiting for others to post this, but .... During the staging
flight up to ZPH from LAL There were 2 serious near misses encountered
by our formations. Zephyrhills is an uncontrolled field just NNW of
Lakeland with cheap gas, plenty of parking, and a CTAF of 123.075. Being
a local it common to hear folks broadcasting on Plant City 123.0 for
ZPH. Not sure that happened during incident #1 but perhaps.
There are 2 runways, 4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left
traffic on both due to skydiving ops on the SE side. GA traffic often
uses 4-22 as the skydivers claim to "own" 18-36. No problems with
skydive ops this year though. Wind was 340 degrees.
#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At the
same time a Mooney departs NORAD on 4; you guessed it, one of our guys
just about hooked left into Mooney but happened to spot the developing
mid-air about 50 feet short of disaster. Said aviator drives big people
haulers for a living and has great SA.
#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead (me)
makes a precautionary landing on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho inbound
traffic to the airport. I taxi in and monitor the airborne arguement
over which runway is in use. As the 3-ship breaks for 04 and I hear and
see a Cherokee turn final, he has no traffic callouts. At the same time
I see my Deputy lead arc in on final on a vector that would neatly place
the CJ-6 directly on the Cherokee. I call for the go-around and the
Cherokee never sees (or understands) what just happened.
Prevention:
1) Stay away from busy, uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins. Use
towered fields if possible.
2) Failing that, do NOT use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA folks
don't know what that is. My thought is to break 90 degrees onto downwind
from over the top and take interval on base-final. Another technique
could be to break downfield, rather than on the Numbers so that a
downwind entry is acomplished and interval set.
Craig es Day --> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
bsp; --> =====================
____________________________________
See what's free at _AOL.com_ (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503)
.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fwd: Fw: Blue Angle Accident |
----=_NextPart_000_003C_01C78853.50FF7310--
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|