Beech Bonanza and Robinson R44 collide at Northern Colorado Airport, Loveland
Thread Starter
Beech Bonanza and Robinson R44 collide at Northern Colorado Airport, Loveland
Multiple agencies responded to a crash involving a plane and a helicopter shortly before noon Friday at the Northern Colorado Regional Airport in Loveland.
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...ed/1070589001/
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...ed/1070589001/
Sounds from the audio like the FW knew about the RW but not clear if that was mutual.
Thread Starter
The news coverage (see link in the OP) is unusually specific and detailed. Apparently, the Bonanza committed to land, assuming the RW landing before them would either do a go-around ("missed approach") or would land and clear the active.
The RW then didn't do neither, according to the article in the Coloradan.
The RW then didn't do neither, according to the article in the Coloradan.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Secret hide-out in the Rocky Mtns
Age: 73
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First time I've seen (heard) CTAF audio attached to a news article like this- wish the coverage of aviation accidents was more often this good.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Secret hide-out in the Rocky Mtns
Age: 73
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, BTW, it sounds like both pilots were aware of the other aircraft but screwed up the timing- the R-44 didn't clear the runway as quickly as the Bonanza pilot expected. Gonna be some finger-pointing going on I predict.
Luckily, all parties are still able to participate
Luckily, all parties are still able to participate
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Secret hide-out in the Rocky Mtns
Age: 73
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be more difficult to answer than you think once the lawyers get involved
91.113 Right-of-Way rules:
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
So if the R-44 was "approaching an airport for the purpose of landing" then he had ROW because he was at the lower altitude, but if he was "operating on the surface" the Bonanza had the ROW. If the R-44 was "attempting to make way" then the Bonanza may be at fault, which is how I tentatively see it. But how do you actually "force an aircraft off the runway"? Either way it sure loused up a nice day for flying for both of them.
I wonder how the FAA is going to sort this out. It'll be interesting to read the NTSB report (next year
).
91.113 Right-of-Way rules:
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
So if the R-44 was "approaching an airport for the purpose of landing" then he had ROW because he was at the lower altitude, but if he was "operating on the surface" the Bonanza had the ROW. If the R-44 was "attempting to make way" then the Bonanza may be at fault, which is how I tentatively see it. But how do you actually "force an aircraft off the runway"? Either way it sure loused up a nice day for flying for both of them.
I wonder how the FAA is going to sort this out. It'll be interesting to read the NTSB report (next year
).
"Missed Approach" is generally IFR terminology as compared to "Touch and Go" which is VFR usage.
Helicopters are generally supposed to avoid the flow of Fixed Wing Traffic.
You are not to land on a runway until the runway is clear.
You are supposed to clear the runway in an expeditious but safe manner.
The Insurance company lawyers are the ones that shall have the fun.
Helicopters are generally supposed to avoid the flow of Fixed Wing Traffic.
You are not to land on a runway until the runway is clear.
You are supposed to clear the runway in an expeditious but safe manner.
The Insurance company lawyers are the ones that shall have the fun.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the Alps
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft landing first has always priority no matter what. There can always be unexpected things happening when landing. Number two has to maintain adequate distance and perform a go-around if not possible.
