ATP Seminole Crash
- Thread starter stillageek
- Start date
GlenA
Senior Chicken Counter
You can't be sure of that. I've been out teaching in practice areas or on x-countries where I get a traffic alert, I look and look and sometimes you just never see them. I remember on a few x-countries while training we would get a traffic alert from ATC of aircraft that are within a mile and only a 500 foot difference in altitude and never once see them. Looking outside is definitely something we all need to be doing, but sometimes, you just can't see them.
DL31082
Well-Known Member
I completely agree with this post. There are times that you just don't see the other airplane no matter how much you look. TIS systems are great but they only work under class B airspace. You get much outside of those limits and you get to hear the system say "Traffic unavailable." Oh yeah not to mention the fact that the FAA has decided to get rid of the TIS system. Could this have been prevented, maybe. Unfortunately there have been lots of times that I have never seen traffic and without the TIS systems in our DA20's I might have been in the same situation. All we can say for sure is that 4 fellow aviators are no longer out there flying the skies with us. Hopefully it will give all of us a little remainder to keep our heads on a swivel and never stop looking for traffic.
BillH
New Member
All I can say is, ADS-B.
UndauntedFlyer
Well-Known Member
When two planes collide in good VFR conditions that is largely the fault of at least one of the pilots for not doing a good enough job of maintaining vigilance and looking for traffic. As I understand, one of the pilots was an instrument student taking training and therefore probably under the hood, while the PA-44 student was receiving M/E training and possibly under the hood too. Or even if not under the hood, the multi student may likely have been working on procedures to use following an engine failure. Both of these instructional situations, as I think all of us know, lend themselves to not looking out the window for traffic. While FAA radar traffic services were available but probably not used, and a relatively inexpensive form of various collision avoidance systems were available but not installed in either aircraft, we have a completely avoidable accident. These four victims all died because of the negligence of one or more of the four and the negligence of the business (flight schools) that owned those airplanes for not doing everything it could to try to prevent such accidents, such as installing TIS or something similar. Plus, I would guess that the schools have not encouraged the CFI's that work for them to use approach/departure radar services when enroute to/from and within the practice area. If any of these procedures and/or safety enhancements were used, even just extra vigilance in looking for traffic, chances are this accident would not have happened. No, I do not accept that this accident is just one of those tragic accidents. This accident was 100% preventable and people were responsible, as well as the school’s recommended safety procedures were at fault. Unfortunately, this accident was the result of negligence; and as is the most tragic result, innocent lives were lost.
DL31082
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that VFR flight following is even available in the practice areas, because they are alert areas, but we'll have to have someone that instructs there to fill us in on that. The TIS systems are great when they work, get outside of a class B or C service area and you get a voice saying "Traffic unavailable." Also in an area like what they were in you would probably get so many traffic advisorys that you would start to ignore them. Some of ATPs seminoles do have the TIS system, but some have not been upgraded with the mode S transpoders that are needed. I love having the TIS system in our DA20's and DA40's. Also last I heard the FAA has actually decided to shut the TIS system down soon. Could this have been avoided, probably.
TheAviator737
Well-Known Member
RIP to all of them...looked in my logbook and flew that Seminole 5 times, passed my Private Multi-add on in it. Weird seeing it in pieces now 
GlenA
Senior Chicken Counter
You don't know these things. You are guessing at a lot of possibilities. VFR doesn't always mean crystal clear skies. Planes may be nearby and not easy to see due to some haze, shadows, etc. The "not doing a good enough job" comment doesn't hold here. Things move fast in the air, and maybe the instructors happened to look down at the same moment, who knows? Things like TIS may have helped but TIS only works in certain areas, in other places it just becomes an annoying "Traffic Not Available" announcement. If ATC has an large load of traffic in the area they are NOT going to provide seperation services (which I understand is a common occurance in that area due to the heavy volume of air traffic). Just use this incident as a reminder that we always need to keep on looking and let them rest in peace.
i have to agree with you on this one glen, very strongly as a matter of fact. in a previous post, and in statements read about these two flights, both airplanes were practicing inst. procedures to my understanding. now lets say that they were both in the same hold, cessna on the bottom, seminole on the top, neither one of them would have ever had a chance to see one another, as both planes would have been in serious blind spots. have a heart undaunted, don't badger somthing like this. you have no clue what happened, YOU WERE NOT THERE! hear-say dosent hold up in court, so who should it here. i vote for removal of his post!
UndauntedFlyer
Well-Known Member
10 miles visibility is good VFR and that was the case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=ERA09FA080A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=ERA09FA080B&rpt=p
While it is not always easy to see traffic, mid-air collisions are 100% preventable if constant vigilance is maintained. While TIS is not available in some areas, I assume it was available in that area. If either one of these aircraft were TIS equipped, the accident would probably not have happened. While ATC may not provide radar assistance sometimes, it seems from the NTSB report that neither pilot attempted to request radar assistance for traffic. Since the two accident aircraft were operating in an designated Alert Area (A-291B), shouldn't they have sought traffic assistance as a good practice? Also, it seems that one pilot used 123.45 for a sort of CTAF. Where did that come from? 123.45 is not an authorized frequency for such service. Using it is illegal for GA (except in international over-water operations) and may only have provided a false sense of security that may have played a part in the cause of this accident. This is a tragedy and I'm sorry to say: It was so preventable.
Also, if they were practicing instrument approaches certainly that is asking for trouble if doing so without radar assistance. The Preliminary Report makes no mention of any radar services being used.
UndauntedFlyer
Well-Known Member
Can any local pilots from the FLL area explain why there is an Alert Area (A-291A&B) in that location? Is it military related or what? Is there a procedrue of any kind for aircraft operating in that area? This is something we can all learn from.
DL31082
Well-Known Member
Both of these instructors are familiar with the procedures for that area. If they know that they can not get flight following in an alert area why would they ask for it? It's probably on the report because it is just a question they have to ask. Also assuming that they have TIS in that area is just that an assumption. That doesn't mean anything. Stop trying to analyze this and say RIP to the pilots and let it go.
wrxpilot
New Member
The alert area is for the large density of flight training in the area.
GlenA
Senior Chicken Counter
As someone else has already mentioned, the Alert area is because of high training traffic volume in the area. 10 mile vis still does not mean crystal clear, and even if it was it doesn't mean you will definitely see all traffic in the area, neither of these aircraft are a bubble canopy (being able to see in almost all directions) and even so it does not mean you will see other people 100% of the time. 123.45 has been used in lots of areas for aircraft to aircraft comm when there aren't other freqs available. Is it the best practice? No. But if it is one that all aircraft in the area are using then that's what will be used. They probably would not request ATC seperation if it is a request that gets routinely turned down in the area. As far as one school saying they heard their pilot making position reports, they probably did. But I bet you they weren't specifically listening for the Piper making position reports so they would not have remembered it. It is always easy to armchair quarterback the situation after it has happened. And if you are an instructor, you know there are times when you have to direct your vision inside the cockpit to watch what your student is doing. Yes, look outside as much as you can but sometimes you have to look inside. Do us all a favor and stop playing NTSB investigator because you are obviously not one. Let the dead rest in peace and take what lessons you can from this unfortunate situation.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U0AxIwJpYs this video is only meant to be an example of having radar and TCAS.
100% will forever be impossible.
There is only safe and safer.
RIP.
Unfortunately for their loved ones the NTSB will come down on them; cause of accident will be "failure to maintain visual separation."
100% will forever be impossible.
There is only safe and safer.
RIP.
Unfortunately for their loved ones the NTSB will come down on them; cause of accident will be "failure to maintain visual separation."
BillH
New Member
You must realize that quite a few of us on this forum reading your posts knew the instructor onboard personally, and was a friend to us. How would you like it if you had a loved one that was killed and some stranger came in and started being an armchair NTSB investigator?
As for the Alert areas, I've flown in that same one out of FLL while I was with ATP, and I instructed for many hundreds of hours in the one west of Tamiami, KTMB. Very congested area's for training, and even with your head on a swivel, you will only see a fraction of the airplanes around you. For the few flights I did with a TIS enabled aircraft(G1000) I was scared of all the airplanes that popped up that I could not see. Andrew was a damn good pilot and some one who took flying very seriously. I lived with him my entire time at Stuart, we all gained our ratings together and helped each other out along the way. He was very serious about flying and there was nothing else in life he ever wanted to do. He was a special kid, a great guy and pilot.
So when you go about talking about this accident, just remember there were real people on board these aircraft with friends and families they left behind.
Clocks
Well-Known Member
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought his post lacked any class.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Capstone is really only implemented in Bethel, and in Southeast, that leaves a lot of alaska without ADS-B. The problem with it is that it doesn't show people who don't have capstone, which is still a lot of people, so you're just as hosed as if you don't have it at all in reference to other traffic that is lacking it (e.g. ACE, NAC, Everts, Frontier, etc.) Plus, that capstone stuff doesn't come cheap, and, while up here they install it for next to nothing, once its implemented down stateside there's no guarantee that anyone will install it just out of pricing concerns. Finally, there's the problem with enforcement. The FAA has indicated that once its implemented down in the states that it could be used for enforcement, which sounds ok, however, it will be a lot harder to justify anything to them, whether its legit or not, if they can run a play by play on your airplane. God forbid you have to deviate from the FARs for an emergency, and you end up getting your certs yanked because based on what they see of your capstone box they didn't think it was justifiable. Up here I know that you can turn the box off, but you lose GPS, and everyone can see when you turn it off, so you run the risk of a new law being created that says you can't turn your box off, or Capstone that will always report to someone, yes, big brother is watching you.
-pat
UndauntedFlyer
Well-Known Member
I can see that all of you are right about and this young man. He was probably as conscientious as anyone, or more so than most, and a fine young man too with all the same dreams of flying. He wanted a lifetime livelihood in this business. And you are all correct about the difficulties of instructing and looking for traffic. Every time we look down to explain something or reach for a checklist we know we're taking a chance for a possible mid-air. Fortunately for CFI's the odds are in their favor. That was true here too; but tragically, the odds caught up with these pilots who were doing the same thing others of us do routinely, lesson after lesson. This accident was, tragically, something that will happen again; we can only hope to minimize the odds by using all available efforts to avoid the same unforgiving result. If any good comes of this I would hope that a dedicated CTAF frequency is established for the Alert Areas and I would hope that ATC establish a dedicated frequency for radar advisories, helping those training in the Alert Areas. If both of these changes come to reality, accidents like this and the dozens of close calls that occur each day might be avoided.
To those four pilots: RIP…………….
To those four pilots: RIP…………….