Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846640
johnm wrote:A 2nm ATZ is fine for a Tiger Moth but a bit tight for a more modern aeroplane


I would hate to see the size of the "bomber circuit" you do if you consider a 3nm base to be normal... :twisted:
User avatar
By Josh
#1846641
He initially reported an engine failure, which with a huge bang and yaw not an unreasonable guess. Acquaintances who have flown the type say it’s so noisy that not noticing the additional noise from the hole in the back is entirely plausible. Visibility behind you in most narrow two crew aircraft is pretty rubbish, and unless you have a good reason to look back you’re unlikely to go through the contortions required.
johnm, Ben K, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846644
skydriller wrote:
johnm wrote:A 2nm ATZ is fine for a Tiger Moth but a bit tight for a more modern aeroplane


I would hate to see the size of the "bomber circuit" you do if you consider a 3nm base to be normal... :twisted:


I very rarely fly circuits but on those rare occasions I can just about keep it in the ATZ at 120 KIAS :twisted:
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1846653
johnm wrote:
skydriller wrote:
johnm wrote:A 2nm ATZ is fine for a Tiger Moth but a bit tight for a more modern aeroplane


I would hate to see the size of the "bomber circuit" you do if you consider a 3nm base to be normal... :twisted:


I very rarely fly circuits but on those rare occasions I can just about keep it in the ATZ at 120 KIAS :twisted:


What are you flying if you struggle to keep within the ATZ at 120 kts :scratch:
User avatar
By Rob P
#1846656
Lockhaven wrote:What are you flying if you struggle to keep within the ATZ at 120 kts :scratch:


I think @johnm 's "just about" might have been ironic.

Rob P
By Boxkite
#1846660
A4 Pacific wrote:The cause of this near multiple fatal appears crystal clear. Nothing is likely to save anyone who’s a total d1@khe@d!

Runways 17L and 17R are VERY closely spaced parallel runways! Just another (frequent!) hazard of operating in the Wild West to add to all the others!! :roll:

Really?
There is more than one reason why this could have occurred.
The Cirrus departed runway 17L (according to ADSB Exchange), flew half an hour north and then returned.
Let's not forget that someone mentioned it may have been a training flight and may have had an instructor on board. So who is the "total d1@khe@d" ?
Possible scenarios (for those with a more open mind):
1. As everybody seems to believe, he overshot his intended final for 17R (for one of many reasons).
2. He knew he was cleared for 17R, but misidentified it because 17R is much narrower and shorter and not so easy to distinguish from a taxi-way, so was lining up with 17L believing it to be 17R.
3. He was cleared for 17R but misheard it and thought he was cleared for 17L (the one he departed from).
4. He was cleared for 17R, but due to mental overload, it hadn't registered that it was different to his departure runway and continued to line up with 17L.
Last edited by Boxkite on Thu May 13, 2021 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By xtophe
#1846663
From the VASA youtube video (I haven't checked the original from LiveATC), tower did pass traffic information to the Cirrus crew on the Metroliner and the Cirrus reported traffic insight.

It will be interesting when reading the NTSB report to learn what human factors caused him to then loose sight of the twin. Or maybe, he didn't assimilate it was additional traffic and the "traffic in sight" answer was about the Cessna in the 17R circuit which had already been pointed to the Cirrus.
By Boxkite
#1846667
xtophe wrote:From the VASA youtube video (I haven't checked the original from LiveATC), tower did pass traffic information to the Cirrus crew on the Metroliner and the Cirrus reported traffic insight.

Not quite as I read it. He was told about the Metroliner and a Cessna. It is not clear which aircraft he was referring to when he reported "traffic insight".
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846690
What are you flying if you struggle to keep within the ATZ at 120 kts


TB 20 on autopilot doing rate 1 turns :D
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846710
Boxkite wrote:
xtophe wrote:From the VASA youtube video (I haven't checked the original from LiveATC), tower did pass traffic information to the Cirrus crew on the Metroliner and the Cirrus reported traffic insight.

Not quite as I read it. He was told about the Metroliner and a Cessna. It is not clear which aircraft he was referring to when he reported "traffic insight".

The tower calls out the traffic they are following, a cessna, the Cirrus replies traffic in sight.
The tower then calls out additional traffic, a metroliner, northshore [presumably its position] landing on the parallel, the Cirrus replies traffic in sight.

To someone else listening, seems pretty clear that the Cirrus replied traffic in sight for that.
As there doesn't seem to be many injuries, hopefully there will be a full report that will let us all learn from.

Once (if) the Cirrus pilot realised he was going to over shoot the final turn, what options would he have had? He was presumably no longer visual with the metroliner, he probably couldn't steepen the turn?

The two runways are 180m / 600ft or so apart. Mac was about 3 miles (5km) from the runway. How feasible is it to be within 180m of being in line? Thats being off by just 2 degrees! https://www.calculator.net/triangle-cal ... &x=71&y=15

Worth following any official updates via AV Herald: http://avherald.com/h?article=4e74b6e5&opt=0
By IMCR
#1846713
Once (if) the Cirrus pilot realised he was going to over shoot the final turn, what options would he have had? He was presumably no longer visual with the metroliner, he probably couldn't steepen the turn?


With traffic in sight and kept in sight, if he was below dive, if he was above, climb, the Cirrus had plenty of airspace and air speed and would have at most been at flaps 2, bail out dead side, and sort it out after.

Reminds me of an occasion a fast jet came out the cloud literally a few hundred feet away on an approach (he shouldnt have been there, a long and very scary story).

He climbed full after burners (I could see the whites of his eye through his bone dome), I literally shoved the yoke forward and we missed. My dive was almost an automatic reaction back then, I think his was rather more trained.

Bit like birds and how they react when they see you thinking you are a damn falcon (of the flying variety). :D
Iceman liked this
By Ibra
#1846717
Josh wrote:Worth noting that the 160 kt is almost certainly groundspeed.

KAPA has an elevation of 5900’ and assuming still wind that gives an IAS more in the 140 kt region. Still pretty rapid for a circuit in a notoriously slippery aircraft!


You are probably right, I recall when flying in Colorado the CFI talk was mostly about takeoff on hot days wigh density but he also put some emphasis on flying wider pattern to account for higher true airspeed (same for overshooting turn in valley), I have to admit it did not cross my mind the first time, but one will feel the effect of higher TAS on turn radius with same IAS !
Last edited by Ibra on Thu May 13, 2021 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9