Mid Air in the US

[STN Ramp Rat]

seems a Metroliner and a Cirrus SR-22 had a coming together on approach to Centennial Airport. https://coloradosun.com/2021/05/12/two-planes-collide-cherry-creek-reservoir/
I have seen a picture of the Metro and it's a miracle it remained in one piece.

[Chiefttp]

Amazing the Tail section stayed on!
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/9e9a64b7_ea7a_46e1_8f08_0ffed973f7f1_845c25867152573a20e4e48 6743c02eb03ca9e6a.jpeg

[aa777888]

Article and more photos here: https://avherald.com/h?article=4e74b6e5

[Airbubba]

The folks walked away from the other plane as well.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1557x1112/centennial_crash_3_205bb1d49803d61165f91b545c1a3bccf895b579. jpg

[citabria06g]

KAPA is very much a towered airport. Looks like the Cirrus was on right base and overshot his turn to final... by quite a bit!

Metro pilot should go and buy a lottery ticket.

[7AC]

He has used his lottery ticket.

[roundsounds]

70 Mustang

The only thing that seems to be missing was an effective lookout. A lookout completes the “Alerted see and avoid” traffic avoidance method. There’s way too much reliance on ATC and technology, a proper lookout scan and Situational Awareness (mental picture of surrounding traffic) will prevent these types of accident.

[slacktide]

They called the Metroliner in-sight prior to the collision. It's possible that the called the wrong traffic in-sight, that has happened to me on occasion.

See and avoid is difficult and not 100% reliable even when practicing good situational awareness. I find that I cannot reliably and quickly spot Metroliner sized traffic until it is within 3nm, Cirrus sized around 2nm, and that's when I'm actively scanning for traffic reported by ATC or on ADS-B. Add to that, the Metroliner was essentially painted in a camouflage paint scheme, and the Cirrus was higher, so it would have been difficult to pick out against the ground and terrain.

Not overshooting the centerline while turning final would have been a much more reliable way to prevent a midair collision when landing at an airport with parallel runways. The Cirrus overshot the centerlines of both runways 17R and 17L during it's turn.

[Joejosh999]

Metro liner didn’t know he’d been hit? Can that be right?

[Airbubba]

He thought he had a right engine failure and declared an emergency. After landing, he taxied to the ramp at the Signature FBO.

Key Lime 970 checks in with APA tower at about 22:30 into this clip (the time mark seems to depend on the browser used):

https://archive.liveatc.net/kapa/KAPA2-Twr1-May-12-2021-1600Z.mp3

[EXDAC]

SR-22 had departed from KAPA and made numerous recent flights from KAPA. Seems to have been based there so should have been familiar. Makes me wonder if it was an instructional flight with both pilots head down working on the glass.

[SnowFella]

Vas Aviation already has the video out it seems.
https://youtu.be/f5tb2dVWJqc

[krismiler]

I can’t believe the Metro held together, after loading the aircraft someone was often needed to lift the tail up so the rear door could be closed afterwards due to fuselage distortion.

[JanetFlight]

Wow....First Student Solo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xQSbTrmuko

[citabria06g]

KeyLime : "I'm good, I'll just park over at Signature"
:cool:
​​​

[BFSGrad]

In addition to the see-and-avoid failure on the part of the colliding aircraft, seems ATC shares some blame.

1. ATC called Cessna and Metro as traffic to the Cirrus. Cirrus responded with “traffic in sight,” and ATC never followed up to verify that Cirrus had Cessna (lesser conflict) and Metro (greater conflict) in sight.

2. ATC never called Cirrus as traffic for the Metro.

3. Given the proximity of the parallel runways at KAPA, seems ATC should have some type of scheme to deconflict simultaneous visual approaches.

[KKoran]

The controller told the Cirrus about the Cessna he was to follow and the pilot reported it in sight. The controller then cleared the Cirrus to land and pointed out the Metroliner as additional traffic going on approach to the parallel and the Cirrus pilot reported it in sight.

[bcflyer]

BFSGrad

Give me a break. The Cirrus pilot overshoots the centreline of both runways after being told of traffic on the other runway and somehow you think ATC shares the blame? I hope I never have to share airspace with you!

[Cloudee]

JanetFlight

I wouldn’t have thought a Cirrus was a suitable aircraft for a first solo. If it was a first solo this student has demonstrated why.

[Airbubba]

The Cirrus is the plane that did the parachute landing, not the first solo. The plane doing the first solo was a Cessna 172, the high wing propeller plane pictured below.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x699/n65251_edac95cda0fee13d26c7bf8998b8a316cc286ea2.jpg

[SnowFella]

Think there's a mixup between planes, sounds more to me that the Cessna was the solo.
The video that mentions first solo is even titled "This all happened during my first student solo at KAPA. I was flying in N65251 and reported pulled chute and location of downed cirrus"

[Capn Bloggs]

The only thing that seems to be missing was an effective lookout. A lookout completes the “Alerted see and avoid” traffic avoidance method. There’s way too much reliance on ATC and technology, a proper lookout scan and Situational Awareness (mental picture of surrounding traffic) will prevent these types of accident.
Sounds good in theory.

The controller then cleared the Cirrus to land and pointed out the Metroliner as additional traffic going on approach to the parallel and the Cirrus pilot reported it in sight.
Clearly, he did not have the metroliner in sight because he ran into him. "Traffic in sight" appears to be in reference to the Cessna he was following. Now if he had said "Cessna in sight" then ATC would have taken further action.

The Cirrus pilot overshoots the centreline of both runways
The runways are only 200m apart. I would have thought an overshoot of that magnitude at a couple of miles out for a lighty would not be unexpected.

[Capn Bloggs]

bcflyer

Furthermore, it would appear that ATC did not pass the SR22 traffic to the Metro. Given they were going to be close (so close that they eventually hit each other), the Metro should have got traffic on the SR22. I certainly wouldn't like to be flying down final on a 200m parallel with an aeroplane right beside me without watching them closely.

[FullWings]

Given that they were converging, with the Metroliner just below the Cirrus (as it hit the top), it could be one of those unfortunate occurrences where a) there was a constant relative bearing, and b) the nose of the SR22 might have partially or wholly obscured the view of the Metroliner.

The SR22 pilot would have likely been concentrating more on the runway than anything else, same goes for the other pilot. Short finals is a classic area for conflict: it’s not at all uncommon for aircraft to get really close without realising, especially when one is just above/below the other.

[rich34glider]

I read elsewhere that the Cirrus groundspeed on base was something like 186 kts ... if that's true it seems a little "hot" and probably a good reason for screwing the pooch on the final turn?

[Chiefttp]

Obviously the Cirrus was belly-up on the Metroliner and most likely never saw him as he probably was fixating on the runway on his right side to correcti his overshoot.

[mnttech]

Capn Bloggs

Two different frequencies I think, that was typical at KAPA when I flew there. The west runway (17R in this case) and all the T&G aircraft stay on it, then the east runway has the aircraft arriving and departing from KAPA. Notice the one video shows TWR East and TWR West.

Video of 22

[EXDAC]

FullWings

The Cirrus prop seems to be undamaged. At least it does not show the sort of damage that would be expected if it had passed through the fuselage of the Metro. The left wing of the Cirrus seems to have hit high on the Metro's tail. I'd speculate that the Cirrus was in an aggressive pull up when it hit.

I'm taking an interest in the accident because I fly at an airport with a similar environment - parallel runways, separate tower frequencies, and lots of student traffic. The only good thing about the COVID pandemic is that there has been a significant reduction in student activity.

[WHBM]

Parallel runways closer than some UK taxyways are to their runway.

Different radio frequencies for each.

Traffic including basic-level students brought in side by side without any stagger.

How do they manage without this happening regularly ?

[Capn Bloggs]

mnttech

Point taken. I'll edit my other post. :ok:

[B2N2]

Cloudee

How can it be a “solo” with two occupants?

[Pistonprop]

For goodness sake, it has already been explained above that the Cirrus was not on a first solo flight. The solo flight applied to the Cessna 172 who reported the chute deployment of the Cirrus.

[pattern_is_full]

EXDAC

The SR22 has fixed landing gear. They appear to be missing in both the video of the descent, and post-touchdown still pictures.

So yes and no - definitely damaged, but the gear seem to have absorbed the worst of the impact for the Cirrus.

A last-second pull-up is possible, but so is just being lucky in one's position ± a foot or a fraction of a meter. ;)

This accident shares characteristics with other collisions involving flight paths converging at a shallow angle - from PSA 727-Cessna at KSAN (1978) to the helo-Piper collision over the Hudson (2009).

I'm sure the NTSB will get full use out of their nifty-difty re-creation/simulation tools for examining what obstructions to vision each aircraft was experiencing in the last seconds.

[rak64]

Obviously the Cirrus was belly-up on the Metroliner and most likely never saw him as he probably was fixating on the runway on his right side to correct his overshoot.
Highlighted by me. Maybe the Cirrus pilot never had visually identified the Metroliner. Because his altitude seems a little higher, plus in a right turn, make it hard for a low wing aircraft to see this Metroliner.
Maybe he misinterpreted the aircraft he had identified or he did not expect 2 aircraft on the final.

[slacktide]

As a note, during a parachute descent, the Cirrus relies on the gear collapse to dissipate energy on impact with the ground. So their arrival may have been a bit more firm than Cirrus intended.

[Mudman]

Some views of the Cirrus in this news clip:
https://youtu.be/20O2kOKCBTM

[DuncanDoenitz]

pattern_is_full

As a Licensed Engineer/Mechanic, any thoughts on what Type-Approval I would need to remove Cirrus Landing Gear from a Metroliner?

[Ridger]

roundsounds

You have more faith in human visual processing and cognitive capacity than I do. You can scan until your head falls off but if you can't spot it, you can't avoid it. You may believe your 'SA' to be 100% but you don't know what you don't know...

[lederhosen]

I fly a Cirrus SR22T and would concur that it is not a simple aircraft. However it is marketed to people who may not have a lot of background in aviation. Cirrus compensate for this by having very comprehensive training and an amazing autopilot/flight management system. The aircraft was making the turn to final at what appears to be high speed. It will be interesting to see whether the pilot was hand flying. One possible scenario is that the pilot was concentrating on the preceding traffic possibly with the autopilot flying and seems to have left a high power setting which contributed to them overshooting the turn. The left wing in a right turn to final may have blocked view of the metroliner and the smaller aircraft rather unusually appears to catch and cross the larger aircraft. The parachute worked as advertised while the cargo pilot proceeded to land while displaying amazing cool, truly the 'right stuff'.

[Airbubba]

From the NTSB:

NTSB News Release

National Transportation Safety Board Office of Safety Recommendations and CommunicationsInvestigative Update: Wednesday's Mid-Air Collision Near Denver
5/13/2021 ​WASHINGTON (May 13, 2021) — National Transportation Safety Board investigators continue Thursday to gather information about Wednesday’s mid-air collision involving a Cirrus SR-22 airplane and a Swearingen Metroliner airplane near Centennial Airport, Denver.

No one was injured when the Swearingen Metroliner, operated by Key Lime Air, and a Cirrus SR-22 rented, from Independence Aviation, collided as the planes were landing at Centennial Airport.

The NTSB Investigator-in-Charge for this accident has interviewed both pilots, and an NTSB air traffic control specialist has listened to recordings from air traffic control. Interviews of the controllers working with the Cirrus and Metroliner pilots are planned.

An NTSB investigator examined the wrecked Cirrus Wednesday and will examine the Metroliner Thursday. The insurer of the Cirrus arranged for removal and transport of the plane to Centennial Airport and the Metroliner is at a Key Lime Air facility at Centennial Airport.

Both aircraft were operating under Part 91 general aviation rules. The Cirrus was on a local flight from Centennial and the Metroliner was repositioning from Salida, Colorado.

The NTSB’s investigation of the mid-air collision will, in general terms, look at the people involved in the accident, the airplanes involved in the accident and the environment in which the accident happened. There are currently four NTSB investigators working on this accident investigation.

“We are working to understand how and why these planes collided,” said John Brannen, a Senior Air Safety Investigator from the NTSB’s Central Region office and the Investigator-in-Charge for the accident investigation. “It is so fortunate that no one was injured in this collision.”

A preliminary report will publish in the next 14 days and the investigation is expected to take between 12 and 18 months to complete.

[epc]

Radar track shows Cirrus was turning right to final, descending, and at high speed. It's a low wing aircraft also. Wonder if the wing obscured the Cirrus pilot's vision of the Metroliner.

[EDLB]

Does anyone know another midair were both crews made it down alive? They can be so lucky. Wonder what the speed of the SR22 was, that they made it through the Metroliner on an almost right angle and that on final.

[lederhosen]

The radar tracks are quite informative. I don't know what the procedures are at centennial, but flying downwind at 140 knots 500 feet above the pattern altitude and then descending in lockstep with the metroliner following the profile to 35L makes it look like the Cirrus was being flown like a mini airliner. The recording capability of the avionics will most probably allow a complete reconstruction of what the the Cirrus was doing. But one thing is clear the pilot did not have a good mental map of the traffic situation, which is strange as the Cirrus normally has a pretty good TCAS display. I know Denver is high with the effect on true airspeed, but turning final at 160 knots (if I am interpreting the Blancolirio analysis on YouTube right) looks more than a little sporty.

[DaveReidUK]

EDLB

"Does anyone know another midair were both crews made it down alive?"

There have been many over the years, in fact the first recorded mid-air collision (in 1910) was non-fatal.

The NTSB alone has recorded over 200 non-fatal mid-airs in the last 40 years.

[rich34glider]

lederhosen

God help us if flying a contra-circuit base leg on autopilot is a thing these days!

[Check Airman]

Too soon to say if it has bearing on this accident or not, but I've casually observed that the average pilot of some of these high performance, high tech GA planes is in over his/her head. Some of the avionics packages have enough bells and whistles to make an A350 pilot feel inadequate, and in the wrong hands, can be more of a distraction than anything else.

[Check Airman]

I know a few pilots working on their instrument and commercial ratings that use autopilots frequently. Whoever thought it was a good idea to put an autopilot in a training aircraft has lost the plot.

[lederhosen]

The Cirrus I fly for fun (Airbus captain) can do 210 knots at FL250 and would not usually be considered a training aircraft. In my experience it is a stupendous personal transportation device. But it does have some quirks, for example the power management takes a bit of getting used to. It is not single lever like a jet, but has a mixture control which needs to be used carefully to avoid cooking the engine. The accident aircraft was according to reports a rental and it will be interesting to know the experience of the pilot. The great thing about this event is that everyone survived unscathed and can tell their story. Hopefully we can all learn something new. But I would be surprised if there were not some man machine interface learning points, similar to some of the issues with Tesla cars currently, (in particular understanding the limits of automation / modern technology).

[ATC Watcher]

For those of you here who are (obviously ) no pilots or controllers and jumping to conclusions , always good to recalls the facts and what the book says :
a) different frequencies for parallel runways is the rule and the norm in busy airports, can be combined when traffic decreases ( e.g night) .
b) approaches for runways separated by less that 2500ft ( as it the case here ) should be staggered and not side by side . The USA has filed a difference on that one . They are the only ones as far as I know. (waiting to be corrected)
c) Class D airspace does not include ATC providing separation between VFRs or IFR/VFR.
d) passing traffic information on other traffic is usual and was done here.

Then on using aircraft equipped with the GARMIN1000 screen in VFR ( as was the case here) , I flew with students in a few of those including the SR22s, far too much time watching the screens and not outside , and with ADS-B now, replying " in sight" is sometimes seeing it in on the screen and not visually acquired out of the window. .I am not saying this is what happened here, just an observation , and indeed the speed they had on base was not helping. ..

[FullWings]

lederhosen

Centennial is ~6,000’ ASL and OAT was ~15C, which gives a density altitude in the circuit of >10,500’. TAS is nearly 20% higher than IAS, then add in a little tailwind (downwind leg) and you’re down to somewhere in the region of 115kts indicated, which for a SR22 is only around Vref+30. From the spacing of the dots on the radar replay, the SR22 and the Metro appear to have being doing similar speeds, which would make sense as the Metro AFAIK has a Vref around 115kts.

It might be a factor but it doesn’t look outrageous?

[Capn Bloggs]

The audio in the Youtube indicates that the Metro was not given Traffic on the SR22, only on the Cessna.

[lederhosen]

Fullwings I take it you mean the speed downwind would be 115 indicated? The radar track on Blancolirio's YouTube channel shows the Cirrus doing 160 on base and the Metroliner doing 110 on final. The wind on the ground was light and variable, which does not preclude something much higher at a thousand feet, but makes it less likely. I don't know how much Cirrus experience you have, but this would not be the way I would want to fly a visual circuit in one, and that is before they overshot the final turn. By the way Capn Bloggs the bit you attributed to me about passing traffic information on was actually by ATC Watcher.

[FullWings]

OK, I didn’t see that. 160 on base sounds somewhat excessive, maybe contributory to overshooting the extended centreline of 17R...

[lederhosen]

You tend to leave the power in during descent. But obviously you need to slow down at some point so you can configure. This looks like the power was left in too long and the aircraft left the pilot hanging someway behind. The new machines have higher flap limiting speeds so maybe you can do things differently, but the elephant in the room remains overshooting the final turn.

[FullWings]

There’s also the possibility of misidentifying the runway - there are four close, parallel taxiways and runways. If the SR22 pilot was a bit behind the curve (what we would term a rushed approach), the attraction of the most obvious runway in terms of nearness and prominence of markings could be a factor too...

[Duchess_Driver]

Curious as to why the Traffic Awareness system in the Cirrus wasn’t chirping?

[oceancrosser]

The Metro pilot sounded really relaxed in the ATC tapes. I would have liked to see the look on his face when he saw the damage to his plane.

[Dan Dare]

A typical class D exchange with IFR inbound goes something like this:

ATC: "traffic information is [a nuisance something being presented in a bored tone of voice like a thousand times previously requiring nothing further than acknowledgement]"
Pilot: "[disinterested because ATC won't let anything happen to us, we're IFR, right!] got it on TCAS [with tacit assurance to ATC that they're not going to hit it]"

Risky-shift and everyone is happy until it doesn't work.

[[email protected]]

Risky-shift and everyone is happy until it doesn't work. Absolutely. And who thought parallel runways with separate frequencies was a good idea? Not a pilot, that's for sure!

[WHBM]

ATC Watcher

And for those of us who are ...
a) My home field has close parallel runways - and one frequency.
b) Regarding parallels, there's close separation ... and CLOSE. These seem to be about 400ft apart; one-sixth of the stipulation for side-by-side approaches.
d) Passing traffic info seems not to have been done to the Metro (which brings us back to two frequencies).

[Pistonprop]

[email protected]

That all depends on many factors. In this case I could arguably agree because of the close proximity of the runways and the fact there were landings on both. However, most major airports with parallel runways use separate tower frequencies. There's no other option unless you want frequency saturation and multiple blocked transmissions.

[DaveReidUK]

ADS-B data for the Cirrus looks reasonably credible, last 8 points shown:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/629x396/n416dj_f80982f01dcfb420a88b74b8dea3c2189fd5fe3a.jpg

Interestingly, although the Cirrus was cleared to land on 17R, it had departed an hour previously from 17L.

[Check Airman]

Once it gets busy enough, that’s the only way to do it without frequency congestion and task saturating the controller.

Airports like ATL, DFW and ORD have ~5 parallel runways, each with separate tower frequencies. ORD has an inbound and outbound split for ground control, so you could be giving way to an aircraft that’s not even on your frequency!

[Ridger]

What could possibly go wrong? Oh...

[oceancrosser]

Nah, they just cut in front of you on a taxiway going into or coming out of an alley with no warning. ORD is a zoo.

[Drc40]

I hate that bloody place. Not near enough spacing at the best of times especially with such close proximity parallels. Makes for an overshoot final a perfect recipe for disaster. I avoid it when possible but given no choice YOU CANT BE STARING AT GLASS! Look out the damn wind screen. Too many automatics is itself distracting. This was microseconds and half a meter from a far more deadly outcome.

[Equivocal]

Check Airman

Is it that simple? I suspect that PRM operations may be required with a closely monitored NTZ in many cases.

[B2N2]

The Metroliner was on a visual approach which means that ATC is no longer responsible for traffic separation only for traffic information workload permitting.
So here’s a perfectly good reason to NOT accept a visual approach when flying single pilot in a high performance complex turboprop.
I’ll take the ILS thank you and the Cirrus would have been told to extend downwind till abeam the conflicting traffic.

[Equivocal]

I'm no expert in US ATC but this I suspect this is not necessarily always the case. It is one option, but surely, especially as the Cirrus was approaching a different runway, a simple acknowledgement from the Cirrus pilot that he/she has the Metroliner in sight would be sufficient to permit the Cirrus to position visually onto final?

[WHBM]

And always provided they knew what a Metroliner looked like ...

Not an idle comment; there's an expectation that one can recognise from a considerable array of types. I've been asked to park next to a type I've never heard of.

[cavuman1]

I have been unsuccessful in locating a diagram of the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner's control cable routing. The path from cockpit to empennage must be ventral; a dorsal configuration would have resulted in a loss of elevator and rudder control in this collision. Does anyone have a schematic showing the cable layout?

[377 Pete]

ADS-B rendering of Both A/C, final seconds-

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1701x860/denverinc_850e8d1d57581651930cfcada9f99c824a26322b.jpg

[Check Airman]

Equivocal

I don’t recall if ORD and DFW do PRMs. ATL does for sure though.

It really is a simple system. I’ve been in and out of those airports multiple times. ATL is by far the most civilised. ORD is my least liked of the three. There’s just too much going on there.

As to the parallel runway ops, it really is a non-event. Comply with instructions promptly, and don’t overshoot the runway. Have your thumb on the red button for the inevitable time the AP does something stupid.

[[email protected]]

I'm sure that parallel runways with separate freqs works well when you only have arriving and departing traffic - like LHR in UK - but introducing circuit traffic (including first solo) seems barking mad and a recipe for disaster.

[EDLB]

Hello,

again, the first solo student pilot in his C172 N65251 did everything right. In addition to his pattern setup he did look out and radioed the chute location. I would assume that his instructor must have had a few bad seconds before he figured, that not his solo student caused the mid air. From what we currently know, only the SR22 pilot screwed up badly. Will be interesting to figure out, why he crossed all finals. I would assume that his glass should have given him a good idea where the airport is. Looking out the window helps a lot too in the pattern. My bet is, that the SR22 pilot lost the SA and had in the last minutes no clue where his runway is located.

[wiggy]

[email protected]

From the small amount of this I saw on my occasional visits to the States It works fine...but the number one rule, obviously, is if you are flying a pattern with a base turn don't "blow" through the centreline.....Now that can get interesting if have to get a visual on traffic on the parallel approach....but rule one still applied.

[Cornish Jack]

The AvHerald report says that the Metro was on a visual approach (so, 'heads-up).
Considering nothing other than the ADS-B plot above, should the Metro pilot have seen the Cirrus coming at him from the right ?

[Tech Guy]

Saw this picture on another forum.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/881x1920/93f1ef0d427e4d4ebe64998189a9074fbb871103_cfccc87c5e961055e67 0faefa57944cbcca9c3c6.jpg
Holding together after that certainly inspires confidence in the aircraft. Well done to the pilot getting back safely on the ground.

[ATC Watcher]

@ Tech guy : Holding together after that certainly inspires confidence in the aircraft. Well done to the pilot getting back safely on the ground. Indeed and if I was the pilot I would send a couple of bottles of Champagne to the widow of Ed Swearingen who sadly passed away a few years ago..
@ Capn BloggsThe audio in the Youtube indicates that the Metro was not given Traffic on the SR22, only on the Cessna. The VAS Youtube audio is just that , a recording from small scanners on the ground limited to line of sight , below 1000ft they might not pick up everything ,as we have seen before. The traffic could also have been passed on earlier, but not really relevant relevant as passing traffic info in this configuration is not mandatory .

This accident is interesting from an ATC point of view as it reveals the flaw of the US waver in authorizing the use of simultaneous parallel side by side approaches in so close separated runways. In any other Country the Cirrus would have been turned base behind the Metro, not in a 90 degrees conflicting course. But again that is allowed in the US and the controller just followed the rules of the place.

From a GA pilot point of view, looking at the tracks published, I tend to lean for a Garmin 1000 ( or any other similar EFIS) related accident rather than a Cirrus one. I have a few thousands hours GA behind me and the major cocks up I have seen in navigation were when using those EFIS. The thing is marvelous 99% of the time so it erodes your basic training and awareness. Because enter a single wrong digit or letter on a waypoint in flight and suddenly the thing sends you a few hundred Miles behind you. And then often the reaction is to spend time looking down trying to fix the bloody thing not looking outside anymore and overshooting where you were supposed to go.. I am not saying that is what happened here but seen the stable track across BOTH runway centerlines , I will be inclined to bet a bottle a Champagne on it.,
As someone already said, when cleared for visual you should looking outside and fly the pattern manually , not looking at a glass screen.

[MerrillParker]

This situation is somewhat confusing regarding ATC and pilot responsibilities. Presuming the Metroliner was flying IFR and was given a visual approach clearance without cancelling his IFR, his visual approach continued to be an IFR procedure. The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) states in Section 5-4-23 Visual Approach paragraph c “When operating to airports with parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet, the succeeding aircraft must report sighting the preceding aircraft unless standard separation is being provided by ATC.” And in paragraph d it says “Separation Responsibilities. If the pilot has the airport in sight but cannot see the aircraft to be followed, ATC may clear the aircraft for a visual approach; however, ATC retains both separation and wake vortex separation responsibility.” I cannot find in any of the ATC clips the pilot of the Metroliner reporting any traffic in sight. He only said “we’re looking.” And he was not following any traffic for 17L, only warned of traffic for the closely spaced parallels. Does this change ATC responsibilities for providing traffic separation when he did not see the traffic?

The Cirrus pilot will get the blame, but these Centennial Airport operations have no allowance for any errors such as overshooting the turn to final which may happen a lot more often than anyone would admit.

[Stuka Child]

Cornish Jack

To be fair, even on a visual approach, the Metro pilot would probably be looking ahead to watch for possible runway incursions once established on final - not to mention, you know, having to keep your eyes on the runway as you're literally using it to guide your descent. I doubt anyone would be doing a full traffic scan that late in the approach, and he might not have seen him anyway. It's really not easy to spot someone coming towards you at a 90 degree angle. Furthermore, Key Lime is a pretty harsh single pilot IFR operation and there is a good chance the pilot might have been pretty cooked by that time - again, traffic cutting him off from the right would have been the last thing on his mind.

Thank God.

The flying you-know-what might not be the most forgiving of aircraft, but at least it's solid.

[DaveReidUK]

Stuka Child

"It's really not easy to spot someone coming towards you at a 90 degree angle"

And correspondingly more difficult when the angle between the relative flightpaths (at the time of impact) was only about 30°, at which point the Cirrus was still travelling about 30 kt faster than the Metro.

[tdracer]

cavuman1

No knowledge of the Metroliner, but it's pretty common industry practice to put control cables through the floor structure. The floor is surprisingly strong - one of the strongest part of the aircraft after the center wing box (and notice where the collision damage appears to stop...).

[Cornish Jack]

Stuka and DRUK.- thank you. Fully understand the problems, having had two near misses in one flight during a 2 day sequence of 'problems'. The prompt for my question was the particularly stark depiction on the ADS-B readouts.

[Booglebox]

b) approaches for runways separated by less that 2500ft ( as it the case here ) should be staggered and not side by side . The USA has filed a difference on that one . They are the only ones as far as I know. (waiting to be corrected)

The standard in the US is 1500ft and some airports have LOIs for 750ft

[EXDAC]

KDVT, from which I have been flying for over 30 years, has a runway separation of about 700 ft (I measure 695 ft in GE). I have often been on approach parallel to other traffic. I have also sometimes been on head on base with traffic for the other runway. It pays to adjust intercept angle and speed to achieve separation but that requires head outside to know where the traffic is. Tower usually keeps pilots informed of traffic for the other runway.

[30/30 Green Light]

Confirm that all flight control cables on the metro run through below floor structure. I've been unfortunate enough to have changed them all, several times, in a previous life!! Cheers.

[Longtimer]

thanks. but I continue to wonder if in this case the cargo mod includied heavier load bearing cabin flooring?

[westhawk]

EXDAC

Me too. I was only at DVT for about 3 years, but was instructing out of both of the big schools. Plenty of laps around the patterns. I agree that ATC usually gave traffic point-outs for the parallel runway, but sometimes they get task saturated and don't. I preferred to create a little bit of offset with the other aircraft too just because! These are the little nuances of technique that can get lost in translation where foreign students are concerned. Progressing beyond the rote to the well-reasoned is the goal, achievable or not!

[Mogwi]

I am amazed at the incompetence of the local controller. It must have been obvious to her that the aircraft had suffered damage but she didn't tell the pilot that he had an effin great hole in his fuselage - or close the runway for a FOD inspection until prompted by another pilot.

Still, she can sure speak quickly!

[Check Airman]

Armed with that information on short final, what would you have done differently as a pilot?

[West Coast]

At what point was it clear to the controller that the two planes hit and what the extent of the damage was? Fog of war applies equally to ATC. Even realizing a collision, the Metro pilot reported an engine failure and an intent to continue to land. That would shape my initial view that the pilot was aware of the collision.

[Lookleft]

I think the Metro pilot would have assumed an engine failure because of he yaw that would have resulted from the collision. the Cirrus hit him on the right side so the airplane would have yawed to the right so the pilot has naturally assumed that the yaw has been created by an engine failure. He would have focused on getting it on the ground rather than trying to analyze what the engine indications are showing him. He might have also been confused why he didn't much rudder to keep it straight. The Metro needs some serious effort to keep straight if you lose an engine so the absence of that effort on short final (look at the photo of it over the threshold) would have been confusing but so close to the ground you are not going to waste time wondering what just happened. I think he has done a good job.

[Bksmithca]

Mogwi, and ATC are now required to have super eyesight? The midair happened about 2 or 3 miles out from the airport so she would have had zero knowledge of the damage done other than the Metro Pilot telling her that he suspected an engine failure. As to closing the runway for a FOD inspection I would have guessed that the Airport would have been closed until everything settled down.

[nomorecatering]

Many of you here are banging on about GA airports with contra circuits.

Here is a video of Bankstown Airport in Sydney Australia. It has 3 runways (L,C & R). The distance between centrelines of L&R is 213m. Centre is only used in liu of either L or R, the 3 runways don;t work at the same time. One runway is for arrivals and departures and the other for circuit training. Different frequencies for each runway. As an instructor with several thousand hr in thi circuit i always trained my students to spot traffic inthe other circuit and make sure they don;t hit you if they overshot the centrline. Contra circuits to work pretty well if everyone brings their A game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PXzBAIICHE

[lederhosen]

The late great aviation writer Richard Collins wrote an excellent article about Cirrus pilots https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/ nearly ten years ago. I think what he wrote then and updated a few years later still provides some interesting insights. These highly capable aircraft are flown by a lot of pilots that think they are flying a mini airliner, but without two current and experienced pilots. I flew our group SR22T a lot last year but still way less than I would consider even halfway adequate (in hours terms at least) to be current flying an airbus. We don’t yet know much about who was flying here and the accident was clearly not just caused by one thing. Procedures may also have played a role. For example I have flown for many years from Munich, a busy parallel runway airport. Aircraft are vectored onto the approaches at different altitudes. Obviously VFR and IFR are two different things and maybe it really was just chance that the Cirrus appears to have been perfectly on the vertical profile and completely off directionally and speed wise. But it still makes me wonder how the plane was being flown. On the plus side it is a great advertisement for the parachute system.

[DaveReidUK]

Bksmithca

"and ATC are now required to have super eyesight? The midair happened about 2 or 3 miles out from the airport"

Yes, the collision happened a tad over 3 nm from the tower.

[ATC Watcher]

@Mogwi :I am amazed at the incompetence of the local controller. Nice for her to read that kind of judgement,:rolleyes:

Back to the applicable US regulations here regarding simultaneous OPS on runways separated by less that 2500ft. I have been looking at the FAA doc but under visual approaches/visual separation below 2500 it always mentions to keep visual to the preceeding traffic on the parallel APP. which would imply the approaches should be staggered as we do in rest of the world. Can someone points me out to the text with the procedure that allows parallel side-by -side approaches in these circumstances.? ( what we call independent parallel approaches in ICAOese)
Just curious.

[lederhosen]

The guy who questioned the controller is an ex military pilot and to be fair to him would probably be used to controllers looking out for battle damage etc. He is also fairly easily identifiable and well known. We all bring our own bias based on personal experience. You post a lot of sensible stuff ATC Watcher. Whilst I actually agree with your point, I am not so sure about the way you made it. But then again I am sure I often come across differently than I intend.

[ATC Watcher]

@ lederhosen.
Thanks! point taken, yes , I removed a few words from my previous post, I am indeed always edgy when I see those kind of comments
We all bring our own bias based on personal experience. Oh yes, I had to laugh when you mentioned controllers looking for battle damage, now I get it .

[Chiefttp]

Perhaps the approaches were initially staggered, but the High airspeed of the Cirrus, coupled with an early turn to final might have closed the gap between the two aircraft.

[jmmoric]

Not sure if the normal separation rules for parallel approaches apply once you have VFR flights involved? You pass the traffic information, then the pilot is responsible for separation.

To some earlier post..... the Metro was on short final, what would you gain from telling him a part of his fuselage is missing? He wouldn't go around.... and there are no real checklists to complete in this event.... if anything, a quick landing is probably the safest anyway.

Did the controller see the collision? She could've had her eyes elsewhere for a second.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, the previously-mentioned "independent parallel approaches", and the rules applying to those, refer to instrument approaches only.

[visibility3miles]

In terms of ATC not being able to see the damage, the damage is quite obvious from a sideways view, but when you are looking straight down the nose of the aircraft, even if you have astonishingly good eyesight, the damage would have been nearly invisible.

[M609]

DaveReidUK

Yes, all talk about rules for IPA are way out of scope in this case.

Not commenting on the actions of the two TWR controllers in this case, but as a controller myself, what I can say, is that one of the things that influence when you commit further traffic info, is when one aircraft reports the other aircraft in sight. Especially when it is the aircraft that have to maneuver to avoid collision and/or find its place in a sequence.

It is also quite probable that the 17R controller told his 17L colleague that the Cirrus had the Metro in sight.

There is however an elephant in the room, and that is that commercial pressure to allow parallell VFR operations on that close RWYs on separate frequencies DO introduce an increased risk compared to having one frequency for both runways.
It clearly works well at MANY airports all the time all over the world, but at some point someone will own the risk.🤐

[lpvapproach]

See and avoid isn't good enough as sole strategy. It is high risk..We are not up to the task..

[megan]

See and avoid isn't good enough as sole strategy. It is high risk..We are not up to the taskNASA Human Factors Division at Ames Research Center, United Airlines and the Airline Pilots Association found that the normal cockpit duties during approach resulted in flight crews detecting another aircraft on a converging course less than 30% of the time. This detection rate plummeted to nearly zero when flight crews were given a late-minute change of runway instructions and/or report of a meteorological change that required their attentionhttps://aviationweek.com/forum/business-aviation/why-business-aviation-has-higher-risk-mid-airs?utm_rid=CPEN1000000180327&utm_campaign=28468&utm_medium=email&elq2=a1212f35383c4192a7754aafae042ae0

[Busbuoy]

We've never been up to the task. Even when our immediate survival has depended on us spotting approaching aircraft intent on hitting us with something, if not themselves then some piece of hardware they're carrying.
We've accepted the risk associated with "see and be seen" operations and done our best to mitigate it, acknowledging that by doing so we're able to do a lot more things that we wouldn't be able to otherwise.

[MarkerInbound]

Check Airman

DFW doesn't. They have enough runways and they normally depart on the inboards and land on the outers. 17L/35R is far enough away from 17C/35C they don't need it. ORD has some published for 10R/28R and 10C/28C but in over a decade of flying out of there I've never heard of them being used.

[NoelEvans]

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/cirrus-warned-not-to-overshoot-turn-before-colorado-collision/143839.article

[West Coast]

And of the millions of times see and avoid has worked?

Doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement, but let’s not lose sight of its effectiveness the majority of the time.

[megan]

Control towers don't do what you think they do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM3dmaC4z8E

[BFSGrad]

No surprises...

Final Report (https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103073/pdf)

[Asturias56]

A Cirrus SR22 and a Swearingen AS226TC were approaching to land on parallel runways and being controlled by different controllers on different control tower frequencies. The pilot of the
Swearingen was established on an extended final approach for the left runway, while the pilot of the Cirrus was flying a right traffic pattern for the right runway.

Data from an on-board recording device showed that the Cirrus’ airspeed on the base leg of the approach was more than 50 kts above the manufacturer’s recommended speed of 90 to 95
kts. As the Cirrus made the right turn from the base leg to the final approach, its flight path carried it through the extended centerline for the assigned runway (right), and into the extended centerline for the left runway where the collision occurred. At the time of the collision, the Cirrus had completed about ½ of the 90° turn from base to final and its trajectory would have taken it even further left of the final approach course for the left runway.

The pilot of the Swearingen landed uneventfully; the pilot of the Cirrus deployed the airframe parachute system, and the airplane came to rest upright about 3 nautical miles from the airport. Both airplanes sustained substantial damage to their fuselage.

During the approach sequence the controller working the Swearingen did not issue a traffic advisory to the pilot regarding the location of the Cirrus and the potential conflict. The issuance of traffic information during simultaneous parallel runway operations was required by Federal Aviation Administration Order JO 7110.65Y, which details air traffic control procedures
and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. The controller Page 2 of 11 CEN21FA215 working the Cirrus did issue a traffic advisory to the Cirrus pilot regarding the Swearingen on the parallel approach

[First_Principal]

I see the report doesn't include flight experience for the Cirrus pilot.

Although I've seen the odd report where such information has been missing it's not the norm, and I'd have thought it less common in recent times. I find this a useful metric, is anyone able to shed light on why it's missing here?

FP.

[BFSGrad]

I see the report doesn't include flight experience for the Cirrus pilot.A glaring omission especially given the detailed flight information that’s listed for the pilot not at fault.

[ATC Watcher]

A glaring omission especially given the detailed flight information that’s listed for the pilot not at fault.
indeed , it would seem the Cirrus pilot did not really cooperate with the NTSB, as details about the aircraft maintenance status are also missing Date/Type of Last Inspection: Unknown

[Dave Gittins]

Have been into Centennial a couple of times .. last time 4 or 5 years ago I was in a 172 landing on 28 and was a little surprised that there was a stream of corporate jet and feederliner traffic on 35 R operating on a different frequency.

I was having my normal bimble round from Meadowlake and simply doing a few touch and goes at fields around Denver (I love that there are no landing fees).

It was a bit surprising to be cleared to land on 28 and to be told there is no go-round from your runway due to conflicting traffic. When I did a full stop and was ready to depart again I was sent off on 10 again, to avoid conflicting traffic. Couldn't fly east quick enough !

Surprised they don't have more trouble there ......

[KKoran]

KAPA is busy with more than 300,000 operations annually.

[KKoran]

Given that the Cirrus hit the Swearingen from slightly behind on the right side, I don't think a traffic advisory would have made a difference. I doubt the Swearingen pilot could have seen the Cirrus from the left seat.