Mid Air in the US
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.🤐
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.🤐
See and avoid isn't good enough as sole strategy. It is high risk..We are not up to the task
NASA 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 attention
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement, but let’s not lose sight of its effectiveness the majority of the time.
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
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
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.
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Date/Type of Last Inspection: Unknown
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 ......
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 ......
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
