PDA

View Full Version : B airspace separation - US style


Spodman
16th Jul 2006, 11:15
From AVWEB: www.avweb.com/news/columns/192601-1.html

Great Day for VFR

On a beautiful winter day in Denver, the 20-year-old pilot of a Cessna 172 loaded two passengers into the rented airplane for a VFR flight from Centennial Airport to Cheyenne, Wyo. He had gotten his private certificate about six months earlier and had accumulated just over 127 hours of flight time.

The Cessna took off from Centennial's Runway 17L at 5:08 p.m. and was cleared to proceed VFR "on course." The sun set a couple of minutes after takeoff. There were a few clouds at 8,000 feet -- about 2,500 feet AGL -- but visibility was more than 10 miles.

As the Cessna climbed on a northward track, a Piper Cheyenne took off from Jeffco Airport's Runway 29R, en route to Centennial, about 25 miles away. In the turboprop were two pilots. The 57-year-old PIC was a commercial pilot with nearly 9,500 hours total time, including more than 2,000 multi time. The passenger on board was also a commercial pilot who had nearly 2,000 hours, including 850 multi time. Both were qualified to fly the Cheyenne.

The Cheyenne took off at 5:17 p.m. and the controller gave him a discrete transponder code. He identified the airplane on radar and told the pilot to continue on course. The controller noted there was no Mode C display on the Cheyenne and asked the pilot for his altitude, which was 7,800 feet. The radar-computed ground speed was 230 knots.

A few minutes after the Cheyenne's takeoff, the Cessna pilot reported he was at 7,300 and wanted clearance into the Denver Class B so he could climb to 8,500 feet. The airplane was in a corridor under a shelf where the Class B airspace extended from 8,000 feet to 12,000 feet.

After the Cessna pilot's request, the controller attended to some other duties, then asked the Cessna pilot to repeat his request. The controller cleared the pilot to climb to 8,500 feet at about 5:20. The pilot pitched up and began his climb.

The controller was working several other airplanes. When he cleared the Cessna to climb into the Class B, the Cheyenne was 1.64 miles away and closing. Six seconds later, the separation was 1.2 miles. Five seconds after that, the separation was 0.8 miles.

The controller called the Cheyenne and asked for an altitude report. The pilot responded with an unintelligible. The controller asked for a repeat. The two airplanes were 0.29 miles apart.

The Cheyenne reported in at 7,600 feet and the controller issued a traffic advisory for the Cessna at 12 o'clock, one mile and 7,700 feet. The pilot did not reply. The radar data for both airplanes entered the coast mode.

Local law enforcement personnel took written statements from 113 witnesses on the ground, three of whom were pilots. Most reported hearing a bang, looking up, and seeing the airplanes falling to the ground. The Cessna dove into a house, trailing debris. The Piper fell in an inverted flat spin, missing its right wing.

Six people on the ground, including a teenager and a two-year-old girl, were injured. Debris was spread over a 24-block area.

Examination of the wreckage showed that the airplanes struck each other when both were wings-level, head-on with about a 20 degree offset. It appeared the Cessna's landing gear struck the right side of the fuselage and the propeller spinner of the Cheyenne. There were propeller marks on top of the Cheyenne's right nacelle.

Investigators found that the Cheyenne had made a similar flight three days before the accident flight in which the pilot was told the airplane's altitude squawk was intermittent. When investigators examined the altimeters, encoder and associate transponder system, the found a cold solder connection in one of the wiring harnesses. When that was repaired, the Cheyenne's transponder squawked Mode C normally.

Investigators also found fault with the Cheyenne pilot's decision to fly at 230 knots, when the speed limit under a Class B shelf is 200 knots. They concluded that the controller's training and workload were not factors in the accident.

Primarily, however, they pinned the blame squarely on the shoulders of the pilots for failing to see and avoid.

Is this want we want here? Waiting until the returns are 0.29 NM apart before passing traffic on two aircraft with a clearance and so expecting separation? Controller training or workload are not a factor???

Scurvy.D.Dog
16th Jul 2006, 12:24
..... bloody hell :(
.
.
..... makes my blood run cold :sad:

mjbow2
16th Jul 2006, 17:04
Is this want we want here? Waiting until the returns are 0.29 NM apart before passing traffic on two aircraft with a clearance and so expecting separation?


Your comments are quite misleading.

We do have the potential for this to happen here. If you consider the fact that neither pilot were operating on a clearance at the time of the collision and therefore were not subject to ANY separation services by ATC, it would be the same as if these two aircraft were operating VFR outside of class C at say Philip island or Avalon. I’m sure you can see how this same accident could happen in any class G surrounding our class C terminal areas.

We should be concerned that in some cases, like Avalon, we have RPT aircraft descending out of class C airspace into class G instead of at least class E were at least IFR to IFR separation will be given (especially when its needed in IMC conditions).

If the 172 actually made it into class B airspace then he would have been separated from the Cheyenne. Until that time, it is the responsibility of the pilots to see and avoid, just like Avalon.

jumpuFOKKERjump
16th Jul 2006, 23:45
Cheyenne took off at 5:17 p.m. and the controller gave him a discrete transponder code. He identified the airplane on radar and told the pilot to continue on course.then asked the Cessna pilot to repeat his request. The controller cleared the pilot to climb to 8,500 feet Both aircraft are reported as having a clearance, they had been cleared into the same block of airspace with no separation. This would appear to be normal.

Your comments are quite misleading...

Aussie
16th Jul 2006, 23:50
I agree, misleading comments

Aussie

gaunty
17th Jul 2006, 02:00
mjbow2

Dopellganger ? is a word that springs to mind.

The writing style, syntax is identical to the point that you could be he, scary, but then I was sure you had a mind of your own.:p

mjbow2
17th Jul 2006, 02:30
Gaunty,

Thanks, I'm flattered.

JumpuFokker.
No, both aircraft were not reported as having a clearance. Refer to the NTSB report. The Cheyenne was not given any clearance at all, in fact it is unlcear exactly what services he was to be provided as none were requested. Neither aircraft were being provided seperation services at the time of the accident. As I said, the 172 was cleared into class B but the responsibility to see and avoid was COMPLETELY his until reaching class B.

They were not cleared into the same block of airspace. The 172 was cleared to enter class B which has a lower level of 8000ft msl, the Cheyenne was not given any clearance at all and as such was to remain in class E (1200ft AGL to 8000ft msl) and continue VFR under see and avoid self seperation, just like Avalon.

So this is virtually the same as we have here in terms of two VFR aircraft colliding in class G near an airport, except that they have the benefit of class E surrounding all these airports so they can seperate IFR from IFR in both VMC and IMC conditions. That sounds like something our IFR traffic could benefit from doesn't it?