Mid-air collision over Colorado
The Cooler King
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: south carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cnn have a link showing the moments after the collision and it appears as if there is a parachute recovey system on one aeroplane.
3 killed when two planes collide near Colorado airport - CNN.com.
bb
3 killed when two planes collide near Colorado airport - CNN.com.
bb
I've heard that Cirrus collided with a towplane towing a glider. All souls perished on the two planes, the glider released and landed safely.
Tragic.
Mid-air in Colorado - RC Groups
--Bill
Tragic.
Mid-air in Colorado - RC Groups
--Bill
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the American news channels reporting that the two occupants of the Cirrus SR20 successfully deployed the BRS parachute, but the on-board fire became sufficiently intense to make them jump out. Bloody sad and unpleasant.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite amazing that the parachute stayed attached to the airframe all the way down, despite the collision damage and the fire: a testament to the quality of that particular BRS' design.
As for the fire itself, given the Cirrus' not-so-brilliant reputation with regard to post-crash fires, it's almost ironical that this accident provides yet another example, when for once the ground was not involved in the impact.
What a horrible way to go.
As for the fire itself, given the Cirrus' not-so-brilliant reputation with regard to post-crash fires, it's almost ironical that this accident provides yet another example, when for once the ground was not involved in the impact.
What a horrible way to go.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lymington
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but I don't think you can blame the Cirrus safety standards for this one.
From the video it looks like it is descending with one wing down under the parachute. That could suggest that the other wing became separated causing fuel lines to be ruptured etc, hence fire near to the cabin/engine.
Although not relevant here, at least initially it looks like they survived the collision and the chute deployed successfully. The same cannot be said for the tug plane which didn't stand a chance after the collision.
I suppose efforts could be made to fire proof the whole cabin, or for pilots to wear fire proof suits and extra parachutes. But even that won't prepare for an endless array of alternative scenarios.
These things just seem to happen...Cause: 2 x planes in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's where the blame lies.
From the video it looks like it is descending with one wing down under the parachute. That could suggest that the other wing became separated causing fuel lines to be ruptured etc, hence fire near to the cabin/engine.
Although not relevant here, at least initially it looks like they survived the collision and the chute deployed successfully. The same cannot be said for the tug plane which didn't stand a chance after the collision.
I suppose efforts could be made to fire proof the whole cabin, or for pilots to wear fire proof suits and extra parachutes. But even that won't prepare for an endless array of alternative scenarios.
These things just seem to happen...Cause: 2 x planes in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's where the blame lies.
If we are to believe the report of the glider pilot's pre-impact release then we have to ask what effect this had on the Pawnee's flight path.
Perhaps the glider pilot will be the one who ends up being sued. It being the States, you can bet someone will.
Perhaps the glider pilot will be the one who ends up being sued. It being the States, you can bet someone will.
Since the glider is reported as flying through the post-collision fireball, it is highly unlikely to have released until the collision was imminent, with no effect on the flightpath.
Given the onus on a powered aicraft to give way to one towing a glider (under international air law) and the tug-glider combination being in a promulgated climb-out path, I know whose lawyer I would rather be.
Very sad, and a tragic reminder of the need to keep a good lookout.
Given the onus on a powered aicraft to give way to one towing a glider (under international air law) and the tug-glider combination being in a promulgated climb-out path, I know whose lawyer I would rather be.
Very sad, and a tragic reminder of the need to keep a good lookout.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are to believe the report of the glider pilot's pre-impact release then we have to ask what effect this had on the Pawnee's flight path.
The quote I read is that the glider pilot saw the Cirrus in the corner of his eye, cut the towrope, and ended up flying through "a fireball".
Sounds like the southbound Cirrus was on a collision course with the westbound Pawnee/2-32 combination and any action of the glider pilot would have made no difference, except he saved 3 people
There may be similarities to the helicopter collision with a Piper over the Hudson corridor.
In both cases a slow moving a/c climbs into the path of a faster a/c in cruise.
There may also be the common element of not being on the same frequency.
Glider ports are well used to itinerant aircraft blasting through circuit altitudes or not much more at cruise speed.
Update: There are now reports that the Cirrus was flying out of Boulder which raises the question of radio calls if any.
In both cases a slow moving a/c climbs into the path of a faster a/c in cruise.
There may also be the common element of not being on the same frequency.
Glider ports are well used to itinerant aircraft blasting through circuit altitudes or not much more at cruise speed.
Update: There are now reports that the Cirrus was flying out of Boulder which raises the question of radio calls if any.
Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 8th Feb 2010 at 22:58.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report does imply the Cirrus was in the descent, but it is still incumbent on the pilot of any aircraft (except balloons) to give way to a glider/tug combination as it would seem to have been heavily loaded and with limited maneouveability.
Given that it was probably on a standard tow-out route, you do have to wonder what the Cirrus guy was doing.
At my old gliding site in the UK we did discuss fitting SAM-7 missiles to the clubhouse to pick off powered aircraft bombing through the circuit following the magenta line.....!!
Given that it was probably on a standard tow-out route, you do have to wonder what the Cirrus guy was doing.
At my old gliding site in the UK we did discuss fitting SAM-7 missiles to the clubhouse to pick off powered aircraft bombing through the circuit following the magenta line.....!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet, that yet again, if this glider & or tug had a transponder operating, then this crash wouldn't have happened. I bet the Cirrus had a traffic system fitted......
Originally Posted by Fitter2
Given the onus on a powered aicraft to give way to one towing a glider (under international air law) and the tug-glider combination being in a promulgated climb-out path, I know whose lawyer I would rather be.
...a lawyer with Faegre & Benson, was piloting his Cirrus SR20 plane...
Family: Pilot in Boulder mid-air crash 'experienced,' 'made safety a priority' - Boulder Daily Camera
Family: Pilot in Boulder mid-air crash 'experienced,' 'made safety a priority' - Boulder Daily Camera
I have no idea what sort of notices/restrictions exist around an airport with known glider towing.
--Bill
Last edited by Bill Harris; 8th Feb 2010 at 22:16.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
standard tow-out route
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Airprox Board here says
"About 10% of all Airprox are glider-related – that’s about 20 incidents a year. Almost all occur in Class G airspace which is of course for everyone to use. In such airspace, “see and avoid” is the primary means of collision avoidance. Modern gliders can be very difficult to see so a better understanding of where gliders may be found should assist everyone to choose routes and levels that minimise the chances of an encounter. The Airprox Board’s gliding specialist offers the following advice to pilots, drawn from Airprox." ...
"About 10% of all Airprox are glider-related – that’s about 20 incidents a year. Almost all occur in Class G airspace which is of course for everyone to use. In such airspace, “see and avoid” is the primary means of collision avoidance. Modern gliders can be very difficult to see so a better understanding of where gliders may be found should assist everyone to choose routes and levels that minimise the chances of an encounter. The Airprox Board’s gliding specialist offers the following advice to pilots, drawn from Airprox." ...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And so the thread descends into that typical loop...
Not all gliders can be transponder equipped. This may be because:
- PCAS/TCAS/Mode-S not approved for fitting because of EASA implications
- Power consumption of existing units makes them unsuitable for gliding use (gliders often have a single 12v battery to run their instruments for flights typically in excess of 5-6 hours - a transponder would consume this capacity very quickly)
- There may not be adequate panel space
- Gliders may not have the payload or CofG flexibility for additional instrumentation and battery power
- Transponders would require external antennas fitting, that would require a mod to the airframe, against unapproved by EASA
- Transponders radiate energy that would be in close proximity to a glider pilot's head and there has not been a full risk assessment of the consequences of any such radiation risk
There's probably others too.
I'm keen that we adopt whatever aids we can, reasonably, introduce to improve interoperability. We need to be realistic too as to the limitations of the technology currently offerred. In the UK, the CAA attempted to railroad Mode-S, there seems to be a gradual voluntary adoption of PCAS by the power community and of FLARM by the gliding community. Meanwhile EU analysis of adding UAV's to the mix suggests that FLARM is the way to go. End result, we don't have a single, consistent, compatible, cross-platform solution (beyond lookout - which we can all do, but has its limits).
Not all gliders can be transponder equipped. This may be because:
- PCAS/TCAS/Mode-S not approved for fitting because of EASA implications
- Power consumption of existing units makes them unsuitable for gliding use (gliders often have a single 12v battery to run their instruments for flights typically in excess of 5-6 hours - a transponder would consume this capacity very quickly)
- There may not be adequate panel space
- Gliders may not have the payload or CofG flexibility for additional instrumentation and battery power
- Transponders would require external antennas fitting, that would require a mod to the airframe, against unapproved by EASA
- Transponders radiate energy that would be in close proximity to a glider pilot's head and there has not been a full risk assessment of the consequences of any such radiation risk
There's probably others too.
I'm keen that we adopt whatever aids we can, reasonably, introduce to improve interoperability. We need to be realistic too as to the limitations of the technology currently offerred. In the UK, the CAA attempted to railroad Mode-S, there seems to be a gradual voluntary adoption of PCAS by the power community and of FLARM by the gliding community. Meanwhile EU analysis of adding UAV's to the mix suggests that FLARM is the way to go. End result, we don't have a single, consistent, compatible, cross-platform solution (beyond lookout - which we can all do, but has its limits).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure someone could come up with a small, lightweight, low power transponder for gliders IF it wasn't for bureaucracy.....Or how about mandate Mode S & ADS-B for us power lots, and mandate that gliders carry passive traffic systems to detect us 