Mid Air in the US
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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.
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.
ADS-B data for the Cirrus looks reasonably credible, last 8 points shown:
Interestingly, although the Cirrus was cleared to land on 17R, it had departed an hour previously from 17L.
Interestingly, although the Cirrus was cleared to land on 17R, it had departed an hour previously from 17L.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Great White North of the 49th
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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 ?
Considering nothing other than the ADS-B plot above, should the Metro pilot have seen the Cirrus coming at him from the right ?
Saw this picture on another forum.
Holding together after that certainly inspires confidence in the aircraft. Well done to the pilot getting back safely on the ground.
Holding together after that certainly inspires confidence in the aircraft. Well done to the pilot getting back safely on the ground.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Tech guy :
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 Bloggs
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.
Holding together after that certainly inspires confidence in the aircraft. Well done to the pilot getting back safely on the ground.
@ Capn Bloggs
The audio in the Youtube indicates that the Metro was not given Traffic on the SR22, only on the Cessna.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.