AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aviation (Students) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Nasir Guest Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 11:47 pm    Post subject: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision There was a midair at Georgetown yesterday. Apparently two planes were on final and landed on top of each other. Both pilots had injuries but both survived. Anyone know more details on this? Was it lack of radio communication ..did they just not announce positions or something else was involved? -Nasir Back to top tom418 Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 1:42 am    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision Hope this helps: http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/I_0510_N.txt http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0510_N.txt "Nasir" <baragargoyle_spamnono (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: There was a midair at Georgetown yesterday. Apparently two planes were on final and landed on top of each other. Both pilots had injuries but both survived. Anyone know more details on this? Was it lack of radio communication ..did they just not announce positions or something else was involved? -Nasir Back to top Jeff Meininger Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 3:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision In article <ecWnc.132660$f_5.85331@lakeread01>, "tom418" <cscokid11768 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> writes: Quote: Hope this helps: http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/I_0510_N.txt http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0510_N.txt I see that the reports say a "DA-40 Katana" was involved. I wonder if it was a DA-40, or a Katana. I understand that Adventure has a DA-40... I wonder if it was theirs. Are there any Katanas at GTU? I hope the Giles pilot's "unknown injuries" aren't too serious. Back to top Nasir Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 3:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision "Jeff Meininger" <ilovespam (AT) boxybutgood (DOT) com> wrote Quote: In article <ecWnc.132660$f_5.85331@lakeread01>, "tom418" <cscokid11768 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> writes: Hope this helps: http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/I_0510_N.txt http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0510_N.txt I see that the reports say a "DA-40 Katana" was involved. I wonder if it was a DA-40, or a Katana. I understand that Adventure has a DA-40... I wonder if it was theirs. Are there any Katanas at GTU? I hope the Giles pilot's "unknown injuries" aren't too serious. Here is a first hand account of the accident: Folks, What we have been talking about, and fearing happened this afternoon at the Georgetown airport. I was taxiing to the run-up area near runway 18 when I saw a Diamond Star on short final. Then all of a sudden I saw a yellow and blue Extra sport plane approaching fast from short left base to final. He was higher and slipping down from behind as they usually do. At first I could not believe my eyes. It looked like the Extra sport plane was going to go around, or over the Diamond and then they collided about 50 feet in the air. Both planes spun around in the air and landed on the runway. The Diamond spun in and landed on its nose then settled on its mains. The Extra did a flat spin and hit hard on the runway. It happened so fast. I don't recall hearing any radio calls prior to the collision. Anyway, we stopped in the run-up area and I got out and ran over to the wreckage on the runway. The pilot of the Diamond was walking around in a daze and the Extra pilot was laying on his back on the runway. When I got to him, he was in pain and complaining about his back. He kept saying that he never saw the other plane. We calmed him down until emergency personnel came. EMS, Fire Department, DPS and Police were there in a very short time. The news media was also there as usual. Runway 18 is closed until tomorrow when the FAA investigator arrives and does his thing. Please...let us keep our heads up and out of the cockpit, look for other traffic, and make position reports on the radio to let the other planes know where you are. Thank God the collision didn't occur over the homes near the end of the runway and nobody was killed. Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The traffic is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower. We all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy. I have attached some photos that I took of the crash site. Fly Safely, Bill Eldredge Back to top Peter Duniho Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision "Nasir" <baragargoyle_spamnono (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: [...] Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The traffic is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower. We all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy. Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had looked out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents. Pete Back to top Nasir Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM (AT) NnOwSlPiAnMk (DOT) com> wrote Quote: "Nasir" <baragargoyle_spamnono (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:vx6oc.66109$%R5.23187 (AT) newssvr25 (DOT) news.prodigy.com... [...] Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The traffic is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower. We all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy. Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had looked out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents. Pete Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already. This accident could have also been avoided if both pilots had made position reports. Since that is not a requirement, a control tower would have also prevented this miscommunication (or lack of communication) based accident. I think thats what the guy meant. -Nasir Back to top Jeff Meininger Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision In article <10a1uiu35drrc34 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM (AT) NnOwSlPiAnMk (DOT) com> writes: Quote: "Nasir" <baragargoyle_spamnono (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:vx6oc.66109$%R5.23187 (AT) newssvr25 (DOT) news.prodigy.com... [...] The guy who wrote that account should probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents. I should probably keep my mouth shut as I'm not even an official student pilot yet... but the author of that account is Bill Eldredge, the chief flight instructor at Wright Aviation (an FBO at GTU). I assume he knows what he's talking about. Also, AFAIK, GTU has been trying to raise money for a tower for a while now. I think they increased hangar rates by a significant amount for just this reason. Back to top Peter Duniho Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision "Nasir" <baragargoyle_spamnono (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already. For an FAA control tower, simple being "a very busy field" is insufficient. We have several "very busy fields" in the Washington Puget Sound area -- Arlington, Harvey Field in Snohomish, and Bremerton to name a few -- but none are busy enough to justify a control tower, even though at those airports on clear days "its [sic] an excersize [sic] to fit yourself into the pattern". As with many accidents, there are a number of things that COULD have prevented the accident. But that doesn't mean that all of those things should be implemented. After all, the accident could have been prevented by shutting down the airport. I doubt the folks there want that to happen, right? The real problem is that the pilot of the Extra wasn't paying attention to the airspace in front of him. Trying to use this accident as an excuse to build a control tower makes no more sense than if the neighbors tried to use the accident as an excuse to shut down the airport. Pete Back to top David Megginson Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision Peter Duniho wrote: Quote: Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had looked out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents. Could the problem be fixed by overhauling VFR pattern procedures? For example, require all VFR aircraft to join the pattern the same way at uncontrolled airports, rather than allowing them to come in from all different directions. You seem to have a *lot* of midair collisions in the pattern in the U.S. All the best, David Back to top David Megginson Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:51 pm    Post subject: How about Mandatory Frequencies? (was Re: Georgetown, TX - M Nasir wrote: Quote: Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already. This accident could have also been avoided if both pilots had made position reports. Since that is not a requirement, a control tower would have also prevented this miscommunication (or lack of communication) based accident. I think thats what the guy meant. Another possibility to fix this problem would be to borrow the "mandatory frequency" (MF) idea from Canada. Up here, when an airport is too busy to be completely uncontrolled, but not busy enough for a tower, it is designated as an MF -- everyone, VFR or IFR, is required to monitor and report on the mandatory frequency within the control zone during the MF hours. Sometimes there will be an FSS specialist coordinating planes on the frequency (and to give NORDO traffic a chance to fly in by prior arrangement), but the system works fine without one. The cost of implementing an MF is minimal -- just chart changes -- but it might have avoided this accident. All the best, David Back to top Peter R. Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision Jeff Meininger (ilovespam (AT) boxybutgood (DOT) com) wrote: Quote: I should probably keep my mouth shut as I'm not even an official student pilot yet... but the author of that account is Bill Eldredge, the chief flight instructor at Wright Aviation (an FBO at GTU). I assume he knows what he's talking about. There have been more than a few fatal midair collisions at towered airports. A tower will not prevent a MAC. If Mr. Eldredge is really the chief CFI (which I accept from your comment), then he should know that. If you need proof, go to the NTSB aviation accident site and search for midair crashes. Two notable accidents that come immediately to my mind since I began flying in March of 2002 are the fatal MAC at Caldwell, NJ and Carlsbad, CA. -- Peter Back to top Peter Duniho Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 6:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision "David Megginson" <nobody (AT) example (DOT) org> wrote Quote: Could the problem be fixed by overhauling VFR pattern procedures? For example, require all VFR aircraft to join the pattern the same way at uncontrolled airports, rather than allowing them to come in from all different directions. You seem to have a *lot* of midair collisions in the pattern in the U.S. I doubt that the number of midairs here, adjusted for traffic density, is a heck of a lot different from the rate found elsewhere, including Canada. As for this particular accident, since the Extra was on base turning final, I don't see how mandating a standard entry would have avoided this accident. Nothing about the report suggests that either of the involved planes *didn't* use the preferred 45-degree standard entry. Pete Back to top Peter Duniho Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 10:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision "Richard Hertz" <ipfreely (AT) philmccrackin (DOT) com> wrote Quote: There were two aircraft involved - not just one. The firsthand report unequivocably puts the pilot of the Extra as being at fault. Quote: Apparently no radios were involved. Radios are a useful tool, as an addition to the normal see-and-avoid. Lack of use of the radios in no way shows fault on either pilot's part. Quote: I would not place the blame on one pilot. Your choice. But I would. Pete Back to top G.R. Patterson III Guest Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 11:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision Richard Hertz wrote: Quote: I would not place the blame on one pilot. I would. It's clearly the fault of the pilot of the Extra. George Patterson I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in. Back to top John Galban Guest Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 12:41 am    Post subject: Re: Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision Peter R. <prgroup3 (AT) twcny (DOT) rrREMOVE.com> wrote Quote: There have been more than a few fatal midair collisions at towered airports. A tower will not prevent a MAC. If Mr. Eldredge is really the chief CFI (which I accept from your comment), then he should know that. The last few midairs we had in my area were both at towered airports. John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180) Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aviation (Students) All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next Page 1 of 3   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.