lucky escape after collision and beach landing in Holland

[flyme273]

De Telegraaf 10 September 2012 by Eric the Brouwer, WASSENAAR, Monday (translation from Dutch).

Hans van der Linden, “Apparently it was not my time.”

"I have at least one angel on my shoulder and probably more than a dozen. What has happened here was too bizarre for words. An accident like this is nine times out of ten fatal. I'm happy to have enough remaining control to make a landing. Apparently it was not my time ...”
So says the 56-year-old professional pilot Hans van der Linden from Goes after the accident near Wassenaar. In the incident, Saturday, three aircraft were involved. Van der Linden, with 35 years of flying experience, made a scary emergency landing on the beach at Meijendel, near Wassenaar.
Hans had departed early afternoon from airport Middenzeeland with his Husky for a banner towing flight to advertise the CDA (Dutch political party). His route was northwards along the beach to Amsterdam. On the way, he saw that there were two other aircraft, which had departed Rotterdam. A Piper Cub with a banner of the SP and a Cessna 172 that was filming the SP advertising.

Near Wassenaar the 'film set’ Cessna was in collision with the Husky of Van der Linden.

"the exhaust of the Cessna burned two holes in my Left wing, in addition his right wheel hit the ailerons on my wing” said Hans.
“My Husky was for 40-50 percent uncontrollable and I went into a nosedive. Due to my experience and luck, I was able to land on a quiet stretch of beach.”

correction: damage was to top of left wing and left flap caused by Cessna right wheel and exhaust.

[mad_jock]

What on earth were they doing so close together.

I presume once a banner is on the back your classed as reduced mobility so then any other powered aircraft has to give way and stay clear.

[Immortal]

Video of the event:

NOS Nieuws - Beeld van de vliegtuigbotsing Wassenaar (http://nos.nl/video/416584-beeld-van-de-vliegtuigbotsing-wassenaar.html)

[Immortal]

Another angle:

RTL Nieuws - Beelden vanuit cockpit botsend vliegtuigje (video) (http://www.rtl.nl/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2012/09_september/09/binnenland/beelden-vanuit-cockpit-botsend-vliegtuigje-video.xml)

[soaringhigh650]

Must have been all that crazy Class A airspace above where nobody can get a VFR clearance to enter controlled airspace.

The result is that all that VFR traffic is compressed below.

Unless the ATC attitude problems change, this will be a sad fact of life.

[Unusual Attitude]

Good call putting it straight down on the beach.....very lucky escape for all....

[Jan Olieslagers]

The result is that all that VFR traffic is compressed below.

Banner towing is mostly done at low altitudes anyway, you know.

[sycamore]

Another good reason not to wear `hi-vis` jackets whilst flying...

[flyme273]

Watching the NOS video, it does seem that both aircraft are travelling in the same direction. The Cessna catches the Hysky (Hysky pulling a banner) from the Hysky's above rear (Hysky blind spot) and then from a position already far too close, descends onto the Hysky left wing. Cessna had good visual on the Hysky for at least a couple of minutes and was aware of its presence (Cessna actually filming the Hysky).

by the grace of God.

[Jan Olieslagers]

And by the grace of Mr. Frank Louis Christensen it is a Husky and not a Hysky.

Also, I understand that the C172 was there to film the third plane - chartered by the same customer, a political party, and not the Husky, which started from another aerodrome and had been chartered by another political party.

If I got that right. Politics are so complicated these days. Almost as bad as low altitude flying.

[Pilot DAR]

I Cannot imagine any acceptable reason for the Cessna being flown that close to the Husky, particularly from that direction. Poor judgement flying like that puts people and aircraft at unjustifiable risk, and gives aviation a bad name.:=

If the Husky pilot managed to land with one flap extended, and the other retracted, that was an amazing demonstration of piloting skill.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Argument* among locals has it that the C172 and Husky might well have been unaware of each other's presence, having started from separate fields and hired by different customers.
It also seems that only two of the three planes carried an active transponder, so that no radar operator could have warned them, either.


* see: Vliegtuig maakt noodlanding op strand bij Wassenaar - Airwork (http://www.airwork.nl/bulletinboard/showthread.php?t=12879) - in local Dutch language, mind you.

[flyme273]

yes indeed, the news opportunity of having the banners promoting competing political parties CDA and SP has not been lost on the Dutch media (no significance to the accident).

Normally for close formation flights the parties are obliged to enter into prior agreement.

While this was the case of the Cessna and Piper Cub. The Husky was an independent flight and had no such agreement.

The Cessna should maintain normal minimum separation 500ft.

[sycamore]

Wasn`t everyone on the same frequency,operating in the same area...?

[Jan Olieslagers]

I've not seen the ultimate answer to that, but AFAIU it all happened in non-controlled (class G) airspace, thus no mandatory radio operations. Even if they had all been listening to the local FIS (Dutch Mil.? Amsterdam Info?), none might have reported their presence or position, there was no legal requirement.

[flyme273]

Jan O,

I would like to believe that an aircraft pulling a banner in VMC would be readily visible.

If not, then next time I take to the skies, a series of flares will be discharged.

I would have my doubts if transponders under ground controllers would help in this situation. An airline type TCAS warning - designed for a different situation - would have long ago gone to RA status. As we know from long dialogues the Dutch controllers request transponders off near Schiphol airspace - just when we most need their protection.

[Dg800]

Wasn`t everyone on the same frequency,operating in the same area...?
And what if they were? Unless you broadcast your position and flight vector with GPS accuracy every 10 seconds or so that's definitely not going to help you in any way. The real question is: what was the 172 pilot looking at all the time? He obviously wasn't looking straight ahead or he would have had plenty of time to spot the other plane.

Ciao,

Dg800

[Dg800]

I would have my doubts if transponders under ground controllers would help in this situation.Couldn't agree more. Unless the controller is actually providing a separation service to both aircraft ATC will have neither reason nor the available manpower to constantly scan random targets for potential conflicts.

As we know from long dialogues the Dutch controllers request transponders off near Schiphol airspace - just when we most need their protection. I do believe that is no longer true. It was the case for some time as the systems were overwhelmed with the sheer amount of targets, but the issue has been dealt with a long time ago. Regardless of transponder status this would not have helped them in any way as neither aircraft will have been fitted with TCAS. Only looking where you're bloody going will keep you (reasonably) safe in a purely VFR environment.

Ciao,

Dg800

[Pilot DAR]

"See, and be seen"

A Husky towing a banner along the shore in VMC meets the obligation of being able to "be seen".

The Cessna was obviously carrying at least a passenger who "saw", why did the pilot not see?

I think that radar, transponders and radio advisories are a much less important aspect than simply watch where you are going, and avoid other traffic! And, by the way aircraft which are overtaking, shall give way the the aircraft being overtaken!

[172driver]

The NOS video unfortunately starts a bit too late to know what the Cessna was doing earlier on. It was shot (by a fixed/mounted camera?) from the right hand side. Given the relative position of the two a/c, the Cessna pilot probably wouldn't see the Husky from his seat.

That said, it all begs the question - where were the guys in the Cessna looking earlier? Why did the right seat occupant not warn the pilot? Was he looking backwards at/for his 'target' (the way I understand it he was there to photograph the *other* banner tower)?

Anyway, glad to hear it ended well, great flying on the behalf of the Husky pilot, perhaps not so by the Cessna guy.

PS: I cannot open the other video, so no idea if that gives a clearer picture of events.

[Dan the weegie]

Wasn`t everyone on the same frequency,operating in the same area...?

One of them were probably talking to Errol to make sure they weren't jumping ;)

[Humaround]

Banner towing and political parties do not mix, ask UKIP.

You know it makes sense.

[Armchairflyer]

The following video starts a bit earlier than the previous NOS one (couldn't open the other either); if I am not mistaken the Piper Cub which was followed by the 172 can be seen at the beginning at the right edge of the video. Possibly the 172 crew concentrated (in hindsight too much) on the Cub and their position relative to it, not even expecting another plane nearby. In addition, the dark Cub appears far better visible than the Husky which somewhat blends into the background in comparison:

Two airplanes collide in the air and are stuck together ~ ViralVideoCenter (http://www.viralvideocenter.com/2012/09/two-airplanes-collide-in-air-and-are_10.html)

[172driver]

Well, this goes some way to explaining it. The Husky sits right in the glare of the sun, a bit off to the right and below the Cessna pilot, who probably focussed on the dark Cub (his intended *target* after all). Very hard to see - don't forget the camera is mounted on the right. Btw, I don't see the banner the Husky was towing, although from above this probably would be all but invisible.

Not saying this was inevitable, but the holes in the cheese really lined up here.

What I don't quite understand is that it appears that either the Cessna descended or the Husky ascended at the last moment, thereby flying into each other. It looks like had they both maintained their flight paths they would have passed each other very, very closely but without contact.

[hoggy87]

This is just terrifying!

[flyme273]

Seems to me that here we are fortunate to have video footage of a serious mid-air collision that occurred at relatively slow closing speeds in good VMC and should never have happened.
We are also fortunate to have the survival of the pilots. (Some of the pilots involved hold CPL's). Taken from the video there is 22 secs of possible visible contact.

From the video, I find the "glare" arguement to work in favour of assisting visual contact.

Transponders: in my opinion all three aircraft were probably Mode S7000 and in radio contact (or listening to) Amsterdam Info 124.3Hz. Some kind of traffic conflict service would be appreciated.

Note that the Husky is located some 2 miles right of the beach centre-line following the Right Hand Rule, which is not widely recogised in Holland.

We should draw as much information and conclusions as possible from this accident. In most mid-air's we do not have this level of factual information.

[mary meagher]

Absolutely amazing that both evidently separated, after being stuck together, and landed without injury to occupants. Slow speeds and sturdy classic aircraft....

Looked for a while as if they would have to fly as an unusual type of twin!
Cessna on top, Husky below; how would you decide with the other Captain who was in control?

Certainly the glare and the haze that shows up in the video footage may have obscured the one below and in front ....two banner towing planes along a beach, unaware of each other ahead of time? and a third plane filming?
always a recipe for an accident. Seems to me Dutch authorities may require banner towing aircraft to at least file a flight plan in the future.

[Jan Olieslagers]

in my opinion all three aircraft were probably Mode S7000 and in radio contact (or listening to) Amsterdam Info 124.3Hz


Any source for this? And how high your probability?

[plikee]

This happened with one of my former flight instructors! Both aircraft were in airspace class G, the PA-28 went on top of the Cessna 152.

The C152 got it propeller ripped, as well as the flaps and aileron were damaged while the PA28 had a crash landing and caught fire from a fuel leak.

No one died, the pilots from de Piper got some injuries because of the hard landing.

If some one want to read the report (have to translate from Portuguese, no English version available), there's the link: Report (http://www.gpiaa.gov.pt/tempfiles/20090423122718moptc.pdf)

[DeltaV]

The thing I find extraordinary is that, while I can sort of see how the Cessna pilot with his attention on the Cub might miss seeing the Husky, the pilot of the Cub, off to the side as it was, apparently also failed to see it and alert the Cessna to the impending midair.
Since the Cessna was filming the Cub I presume they were in radio contact during the formate. If the Cessna was doing an unplanned formate then I think he's got some hard questions to answer.

A very very lucky escape for all concerned.

[markkal]

Husky seemed to first try to overtake and then mush towards preceding aircraft....Why did'nt passenger on right seat warn pilot, after all what is caught on camera is self explanatory....

[BackPacker]

Seems to me Dutch authorities may require banner towing aircraft to at least file a flight plan in the future.

At least the aircraft towing the CDA banner had a flight plan submitted. I saw it taking off from Rotterdam, where a flight plan is mandatory.

I don't know about the other aircraft, but I suspect the same. Rotterdam is the nearest airport where they can support banner towing operations.

But I don't see why a flight plan would have made a difference. It's class G airspace over there, and the best you can hope for (from Amsterdam Info) is a Flight Information Service. Traffic Service is not normally provided in the Netherlands (unfortunately), and even then you cannot conceivably expect them to provide TS to aircraft in close formation.

The only technology that would've helped here is some form of PCAS/TCAS, or Flarm (but both aircraft would have had to carry Flarm for it to be useful.)

[maxred]

The only technology that would've helped here is some form of PCAS/TCAS, or Flarm (but both aircraft would have had to carry Flarm for it to be useful.)

Firstly, glad these guys got out, relatively unscathed.

However, the level of lookout, for whatever reason, appears very poor. If these guys were so pre-occupied with whatever it was they were doing, then one would have to guess that any 'technology', may also have been missed/ignored.

I have watched this several times, and it may be that both other aircraft, were fixated on the cub, which was positioned far right. The report, and interviews with all pilots concerned, will make for intertesting reading.

Anyway, they lived to tell the tale....

[mad_jock]

Flight plan wouldn't make a difference.

You could though limit the amount of ariel work in a particular sector.

[BackPacker]

You could though limit the amount of ariel work in a particular sector.

From an aviation safety perspective that would be a good idea - although hard to implement since this is class G airspace. But it would never work from a marketing perspective.

The elections are this Wednesday, and last weekend we had glorious days with the beaches packed. Towing banners along the beach would get maximum attention and (if you believe the marketing guys) maximum votes to the parties involved.

There were also several banner towing flights over Rotterdam, because of the Havendagen (Harbour Days), which attracted 1000s of people. Rotterdam however lies in the EHRD CTR (class C) so Rotterdam Tower was able to provide traffic information to those.

[mad_jock]

Not really the airspace is one thing but commercial work is regulated in otherways.

The logistics of who, what, when and where would have to be set out.

But a mid air with two banner towing aircraft involved is a good enough reason in my book.

You would just have slot times going down the beach saves any fannying about just have them at 15 min intervals if you miss your slot because you stuffed up your uplift tough luck. Photo sorties need to be done away from the active tow line. NOTAM the tow line as well so private flights know they are going to be about

Two aircraft trying to do the same thing over the same bit of airspace without any coordination is always going to end in tears.

Marketing folk are a bunch of fannys I can quite imagine the pilots instructions are to follow the other one and try and get in front of it or some such rubbish.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

What I find incredible is that the cameraman kept filming without alerting the Cessna pilot to the close proximity of the Husky?!

Aviation aware cameraman: Tells pilot immediately that there is another aircraft low and to the right - has he seen it?

Aviation un-aware cameraman: I'm getting cracking shots of this other aircraft low and to the right - any chance of a closer shot!?

Either way pilot takes avoiding action.

FOK :ugh:

[Armchairflyer]

I am quite sure that the onboard camera that filmed the collision had no human eye behind it but was just attached to the dashboard. From what can be heard on the video it seems to me that the cameraman (or the pilot?) did notice the imminent collision, but too late (not even one second before impact). I speculate that the cameraman was focused on the Cub, too.

[Pilot DAR]

I struggle to imagine how this is not a case of negligence on the part of the pilot of the Cessna. One of the "reality checks" a pilot is morally bound to do is to say to one's self:

"Okay, I'm about to devote more than normal attention to [whatever is being done - videoing a Cub, in this case, perhaps]. So, before I get right into it, I must have a good look around, so as to assure that once my attention is concentrated on the subject, I can go for a minute at a time without another aircraft sneaking up on me."

Then every minute, a look around, or a qualified lookout person reports any traffic. As has been said, this should make for good reading, come report time.

Though I have no idea the details of this event. If there was intended formation flying between the Cessna and the Cub, there should have been radio communication too. The pilot of the Cub then bears some responsibility for traffic reporting and avoidance for both aircraft. Whenever I fly formation air to air photography, there is a prior ground briefing. Three things are vital to understand and agree: The subject aircraft flies steadily on the intended route, and the photographing aircraft forms on it, Who will do what in the case of a loss of visual contact/separation, And, the subject aircraft pilot is taking responsibility for traffic awareness for both aircraft, as the pilot of the photographing aircraft should be watching the subject aircraft only, as he forms up on it.

A long time ago, by prior agreement, I was formed up on a friend in his 182. He lead, I formed up. We had briefed traffic awareness (he was to do while I formed up), but I guess he got distracted. I suddenly saw him dive away - so unexpectedly, and quickly, that I could not follow him in formation. I asked him what he was doing. He replied: " did you not see that Twin Comanche?". "No" I replied. "I was formed up on you, and you were watching traffic - right?"..... "Oh yeah, sorry..."

I never did see the Twin Comanche, I have no idea how close it got to us/me.

I will not fly formation with a pilot until I have briefed with them face to face, and really believe that they will fly as agreed.

[dublinpilot]

PilotDAR,

Having watched the video I suspect that the pilot that ended up on top, probably say the other aircraft on their starboard, same level, which they were over taking.

If I was to take a guess, I'd say that they might have become fixated on that aircraft, avoiding it, and making sure that that it had seen him, and might have neglected their lookout in other directions.

Hence they wouldn't have seen the other aircraft ahead.

Not a good things to do, but it is easy to become fixated on the one "known" aircraft (where that is one seen or one reported and you're looking for) to the neglect of looking for others in other directions. Not good, be an easy trap to fall into. As always knowledge of the potential pitfall, and experience helps to avoid falling into it.

[Dan the weegie]

They will have become fixated on the cub because it's such a lovely machine.

Always hard to tell but the mistakes are
1. Aircraft trying to compete with another for banner towing
2. Bad lookout from everyone especially the guy in the Cessna, presumably because he was formating on the afforemention lovely cub.
3. Poor communication, either not all on the same channel or not reporting what was obvious
4. There was a change in height somewhere, the husky was flying very slowly presumably to formate on the cub but the Cessna clearly slowed and looks like it didn't manage to maintain altitude, the cub will have been back at about 60-65kts so the Cessna would not have been all that easy to handle while maintaining S+L and formation.

In isolation none of these would have caused an accident. I hate the "swiss cheese term" but the holes lined up good and proper.

Lucky people.

I still maintain that cubs are beautiful and is basically the hub of the problem here.

[flyme273]

All sizes | Oeps... | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/francoismique/7956641892/sizes/k/in/photostream/)

[SEP Flyer]

Given the opposing political banners being towed, it looks more like a mid-air coalition. :}

[DeltaV]

flyme273, that photograph makes the whole thing even more inexplicable.

[mary meagher]

A Supercub has really crap viz above and behind, and not particularly good ahead, either! one has to lower the nose from time to time when climbing, for example.

We have here three high wing aircraft with the same rough configuration and consequently the same problems of limited viz above and behind, to say nothing of descending without a good look where you are going. Two were engaged in banner towing, one engaged in arial photography. It is usual in banner towing that only one pilot is on board; though the Cessna seemed to have two up. It is mandatory for any aircraft filming that there are two aboard, one to fly the airplane - and maintain lookout, the other to worry about the photo shoot.

I see no reason why the Dutch authorities should not place a requirement on banner towing activity that could bring some order to the parade along the beachfront; we manage it nicely in Florida and New Jersey.

Question arises, who took that photo of all three planes?????

[maxred]

PFC:: Avoiding Midair Collisions (http://www.premierflightct.com/newsletters/TrainingArticles/AvoidMidair.html)

Not the first time either.

[Pilot DAR]

A Supercub has really crap viz above and behind

Yeah, but that's okay, because pilots (of non combat aircraft) are not expected to give way to aircraft approaching from above and behind.

[mad_jock]

It is mandatory for any aircraft filming that there are two aboard, one to fly the airplane - and maintain lookout, the other to worry about the photo shoot.

Not in the UK.

[mary meagher]

Thank you, maxred, for a superb presentation! a photo of a low-wing mating, so to speak, with a high wing aircraft, and a happy outcome. The discussion that follows this photo should be required reading for ALL PILOTS.

We had the same happen at Wycombe Air Park years ago; the low wing landed on top of a high wing, blind spot bites again. The only reason the pilot of the low-wing survived was the fact that a doctor was present at the gliding launchpoint and gave successful emergency treatment.

A while back I avoided a similar blind spot surprise. The pilot of the glider on tow behind me warned me of the traffic, and when I looked the wrong way commanded on the radio "TURN RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!" and I had a nasty view of the opposing low-wing's undercarriage! The glider pilot, a man of superior experience and ability, continued on tow to the planned altitude of separation; we were able after the flight, with the datalogger on the glider, to identify to the AAIB the time and place. The pilot of the opposing traffic was an instructor with a student under the hood. Another blind spot!

Mad Jock,when I said "mandatory" for any aircraft engaging in air-to-air camera games, I was referring to the laws of survival and common sense....

[Pace]

Mary

I have always been against the so called overhead join in powered flight for the very reasons of mixing high and low winged aircraft in one confined area and making them make several blind and un required 90 degree turns.
Back in the olden days of non radio poor nav it made sense to locate yourself over the airfield and check the ground markings but not nowadays.

Pace

[Immortal]

The long version of the mid-air:

Botsing CDA en SP vliegtuigen Wassenaar. Niet eerder vertoonde beelden! - YouTube

[mary meagher]

Immortal, many thanks for the extended version.

Jan O, flyme 273, or Backpacker, can you possibly give us a translation of the conversation?

As there were actually FOUR people on board that Cessna, including the young and beautiful blonde in the back, its possible the professional pilots were not concentrating 100%.

Interesting that the Cessna pilot has enough confidence in what remains of his aircraft to head for the major airport nearby, where he is met by the emergency services on the main runway. Fair enough, better than the beach. But he then decides that his aircraft is sufficiently intact to taxy five minutes to his hangar!!!!! I think I would have disembarked my pax immediately, asked them to move sharply away from the machine, in case one of those wing tanks was breached and leaking from the impact.

[Immortal]

You mean the conversation in the long version video?

[Armchairflyer]

Frankly, the longer the videos get (WRT to the time before the collision), the less I find it appropriate to put loads of blame and shame on the Cessna pilot. The husky merely appears as a tiny glistering dot in a rather "glareful" environment and its position on the windscreen remains quite stationary, with a tendency to move more and more to the pilot's peripheral field of vision (right lower corner).

I tend to concur with DAR here (if I got his point correctly): the main omission has not occurred in the minutes and seconds before impact but on the ground during planning and briefing of the Cub-Cessna duo. Maybe I misjudge that but IMHO the Husky should have been considerably better visible to the Cub than to the Cessna pilot, and an explicit briefing along the lines of "if anyone in either the Cub or the Cessna spots a plane in the vicinity, holler on the radio instead of assuming that the other pilot has seen it, too" might have made a difference.

[Dg800]

its position on the windscreen remains quite stationary

This is, unfortunately, true of any other traffic you are about to collide with. If it's moving across the windscreen that it's just going to be another airprox. Our attention is instinctively drawn to anything that moves but in this context it's what appears to be stationary that should really get all of our attention.

Ciao,

Dg800

[172driver]

Agree with Archchairflyer here. There but for the grace of God.......

Don't forget that the camera is mounted on the RIGHT side of the cockpit (in fact you can see it - a GoPro - very briefly towards the end of the long video), so from the left seat the Husky would have been almost invisible - a small dot right into the sun against a glistering sea surface which then most likely slipped beneath the cowling and out of view.

Also, the photographer on the right obviously was focussed on the Cub, that's what he was reporting on after all. No surprise that he didn't call out. The only one who should perhaps have had a good view of the Husky might have been the Cub pilot.

As I said in an earlier post, I think the collision wouldn't have happened if the the Cessna had continued straight and level, but for whatever reason (better view?), it descended a bit - right on to the wing of the Husky.

I'm not sure if better briefing on the ground would have helped much either, as in my understanding the two banner towers took off from different airports.

The holes in the cheese really lined up in this one, good they all lived to tell the tale.

[I Love Flying]

At 3:31 does it look to others as though the Cub pilot is trying to draw the photographer's attention to the Husky by pointing his finger?

[BackPacker]

The more I watch video footage the more I start to think that there was no deliberate formation or photo shoot or any other close formation work planned. Both banner towing aircraft would not be in close formation as they were towing banners of rival political parties (CDA and SP), and the Cessna would not be in a preplanned formation with any of them since it seems like it's just been a pleasure flight. At least, the young lady in the video was asked about what she thought about her first flight in a light aircraft. It might be me but I would not want to have a first-time flier with me when I'm doing a photo flight like that. And when you do a photo flight, you take pictures of the plane, not from the view outside the opposite window or your legs. And you keep up with the airplane you're photographing, instead of overtaking it. Furthermore, I cannot hear any radio traffic that would be consistent with a formation or planned photo shoot.

So it looks to me that the "formation" between the Cessna and the Cub was actually just an overtaking maneuver, although one executed in relative close proximity. In that bit of airspace you don't have a lot of choice. Sea on your right, a Prohibited area (EHP26/26a) on your left, possible opposing traffic going North over the beach, and the Schiphol TMA (class A) at 1500' above you. So the Cessna was simply overtaking the Cub, when the Cub noticed the Husky underneath the Cessna. He pointed down to indicate the other aircraft, at which point the RHS passenger saw the wing of the Husky, but by then it was too late to avoid.

The Dutch commentary of the girl and the guy at the end doesn't have a lot of substance to it. To a large extent it's just the rambling of two people who had a very close brush with death, but lived to tell the tale. The things that I found noteworthy are above.

I think the collision wouldn't have happened if the the Cessna had continued straight and level, but for whatever reason (better view?), it descended a bit - right on to the wing of the Husky.

The wind at that day was S-SE, very calm, and it was a bright sunny day. There might well have been thermals coming off the beach.

At 3:31 does it look to others as though the Cub pilot is trying to draw the photographer's attention to the Husky by pointing his finger?

The guy at the end of the video commented that he saw the Cub pilot pointing down, just before he saw the Husky. So that might well be the case.

Question arises, who took that photo of all three planes?????

The beaches were packed that day. I would imagine that quite a few of the sunbathers had cameras with them.

[Armchairflyer]

At 3:31 does it look to others as though the Cub pilot is trying to draw the photographer's attention to the Husky by pointing his finger? Maybe, indeed.

OTOH that would hardly be an effective and/or unambiguous warning (couldn't such a gesture also be understood as "descend a little"? :hmm:). If the Cub pilot really has spotted the Husky and was in radio contact with the Cessna (both pure speculation), then relying on handwaving instead of R/T would seem the gravest and least understandable omission to me :confused:.

Edit: BackPacker's conjecture that there never was a planned formation between Cub and Cessna somehow makes sense to me; in that case cancel gravity and lack of understanding.

[Immortal]

Some translated parts:

@ Minute 4:00 Male voice: I love you all

@6:44: Male: So people, what do think of this? "cursing"
Woman: "Yes it was kind of serious"
Male: Yes, so f*cking hell
woman: I was more flabergasted than afraid

@ min 07:04
Pilot: I tried to steer along with the other aircraft with my rudder.
Male: Very good, very good we were lucky because of that

@ 7:19
Male: So and how was your first flight in a small aircraft?
Woman: "Yes, well actually it started as fun."
Male: "Yes but a bit different than expected,"
Woman: "yes indeed, suddenly I saw a wing under our wheel, I thought, what is this?
Male: Yes, How does it get there?
Woman: Yes and then we suddenly dived downwards
Male: and when we hit the other aircraft what did you think at that moment?
Woman: Yes, I don't know, it goes so fast, you don't have time to feel fear. It's more like a what the f*ck moment.
Male: I agree on that! Absolutely what the f*ck

[BackPacker]

Hang on. It looks like the Cub and the Cessna were in a deliberate video shoot.

http://jdtvnieuwsbullet.********.nl/

JDTV has been following a campaign ("Cannacampagne") of a few soft drugs dealers that protest against the "wietpas". (A card that entitles you to buy soft drugs; without it you can't. And the card is only given to Dutch citizens, to prevent foreigners from buying drugs over here.) Their blog lists several interviews and other items about this. The campaign apparently paid for the banner (maybe together with the political party SP), and JDTV presumably arranged the Cessna flight.

It's going to be interesting to see the preparation that the Cessna and the Cub pilots did for this flight, the license and experience levels of the pilots involved and so forth. But I feel a few holes in the Swiss cheese lining up already.

[Pilot DAR]

Details are being considered here, while, in my opinion, a main theme is being passed by quietly.

The aircraft which is lower, slower, or being overtaken, has the right of way, thus the higher, faster, overtaking aircraft must give way (actively prevent a collision). That evidently did not happen in this case. Regardless of any intended formation, the Cessna pilot (who was obviously both higher and faster) is solely responsible for assuring that the airspace he is about to enter is unoccupied by lower slower aircraft. He has to do whatever it takes to accomplish that - there is no excuse.

If formation flying with either the Cub or the Husky was not prearranged, then the Cessna pilot also seems negligent to me in that he did form up on at least one of the aircraft without prior agreement with the pilot(s), which in Canada is a regulatory requirement for formation flying. I don't think that the actual distance between aircraft is expressly stated, but if you hit one of them, you were too close! You're not allowed to just come up alongside another aircraft at any close distance, without prior agreement. The radio call "Hey XYZ, I'm coming up on your right.", and acceptance from the other pilot meets the minimum requirement for prior agreement, though is still short of safe, because it lacks the "what if" element of the ground briefing.

[DeltaV]

And what happened to the rule about overtaking on the right?

From what I can see the Cessna pilot is entirely at fault here. Maybe he thought that since he was wearing his Hi-Viz everyone else would manoeuvre around him.

[UV]

I, too, believe the Cub pilot saw this situation developing.

At 3.14, before he made the hand signals, you can see him bank right, lower his head and look to his 7 or 8 o'clock. (The only way to look in that position from a Cub). Presumably, he was looking at the approaching Cessna.

Then, he must have then been between a rock and a hard place. To turn to the right, would bring the Cessna to the right, and not have been a realistic move with the Husky between them. To turn to the left, towards the Husky, was also impractical.

If you stop the video at 4.07 you can see, after the Cessna and Husky separate, the Husky appears to have full left flap down (you cannot see the right flap) and full left aileron applied. Presumably, therefore, he had assymetric flap.

The Husky pilot would have found it very difficult, almost impossible, to turn left.

In a way they may have been very fortunate that they stayed together and the Cessna "forced" them both to the left, away from the Cub and towards the beach, where the Husky pilot need to land immediately

[halwise]

If nothing else I'm glad to have learnt how to say "what the f***" in Dutch:E
Also, apologies to any "Wimmin" present, but I've got to say that little Dutch girl's a sight for sore eyes.......phwoooaarr:O

[dobbin1]

If the Cessna and Cub were in formation, who was the lead?

I would have expected it to be the Cessna, with the Cub formating on them. Assuming this to be the case, then it is the Cessna's responsibility to clear the airspace he is descending his formation into. Basic stuff, moving the nose out of the way for a look before starting the descent as per ex 8.1. The Cessna pilot (leader) should not have been looking at the Cub at all.

[peterh337]

I've got to say that little Dutch girl's a sight for sore eyes.Bottle blonde (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bottle%20blond)....

[englishal]

What baffles me is how the Cessna pilot could not have known that there were two banner tows in the same area, they are not exactly hard to miss !!

[peterh337]

The clue might be in the back seat passenger? :E

[DeltaV]

I really don't think the Cessna was in formation with anything or that the two banner towing aircraft were other than coincidentally operating in the same area although they probably were aware of each other, certainly the Cub seems to be aware of the presence of the Husky. But it looks to me like the Cessna just happened to be flying in the same area, spotted the Cub but not the Husky and chose to pass close to have a look. With the Cessna pilot's, and his passengers', attention out to the right he clearly was unaware of the Husky but had he overtaken the Cub properly then this particular incident would not have occurred.

Had the Cub and the Husky been part of a banner towing team I would expect them to have radio contact so that the Cub might have been able to warn the Husky of the impending midair.

Had the Cessna and the Cub been flying a photo shoot surely they would have had radio contact so that a verbal warning could have been given. Furthermore, if on a photo shoot the Cub would have been the 'lead' and, since he was clearly aware of the Husky, would have had a duty to lead his flight out of danger.

[dobbin1]

Furthermore, if on a photo shoot the Cub would have been the 'lead' and, since he was clearly aware of the Husky, would have had a duty to lead his flight out of danger.

Unlikely - the aircraft being photographed would usually formate on the aircraft taking the pictures.

[DeltaV]

I stand corrected but would that still hold true if the subject aircraft was towing a banner?