Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Midair Collision over Denver

avherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 237 posts

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#211

Post by 7952 »

mdip wrote: post #178
strogonoff wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Weather is an alarmingly common cause of accidents in general aviation. Or—to rewind the causal chain just a little further—pilot hubris, impatience and/or ignorance, which leads to weather being a factor in the first place. The choice to wing it and hope bad weather in the area will not affect you is the pilot’s. From my shallow study of fatal and non-fatal GA accidents, there is hardly ever such a combination of…

Without reviewing your profile, I'm just going to guess you're a pilot or you know pilots -- just from this: > Or—to rewind the causal chain just a little further--pilot hubris, impatience and/or ignorance, which leads to weather being a factor in the first place. The choice to wing it and hope bad weather in the area will not affect you is the pilot’s. My Dad says "it's always pilot error" and backs them up with sta…

I think you would still feel guilty if passengers were hurt even if you were completely blameless. And part of your responsibility is to understand the risks. Risks that passengers may not fully understand. It is more like a risky sport like horse riding or skiing.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#212

Post by randompwd »

KuiN wrote: post #38
t0mas88 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The probability is much higher in terminal airspace because all planes are going to or coming from the airport so they are on converging paths by definition. And better GNSS based navigation equipment is now making it more likely than 20 years ago. The historical accuracy was such that planes where often a bit offset left or right off the route giving extra separation. Now the accuracy is so good that planes going op…

The ability for planes to follow these highly accurate common flight paths was a contributing factor in the Gol flight 1907 mid-air collision in Brazil [0]. (That, plus ATC clearing the two planes at the same altitude _and_ both having TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) switched off). William Langewiesche published a great long-form article about the disaster called "The Devil at 37,0000ft" that's well worth r…

That vanity fair article was a good read but I felt it continually excused the American pilots ineptitude but happily pilloried the Brazilian air traffic controllers.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#213

Post by ertemplin »

Aeolun wrote: post #72
goodcanadian wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might not have been aware of the full extent of the damage. He is on final; the plane is flying; he's lost an engine; he's going to land it. There is no time for anything else.

I think it’s amazing planes can fly sort of straight with only one engine providing thrust though.

Engine failure is the most important thing you are trained for when you transition from flying single-engine airplanes to multi-engine.

Most multi-engine airplanes can even take-off and climb with only a single engine functioning. You would never do it intentionally, but sometimes engines fail shortly after takeoff when you are 50 feet above the runway.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#214

Post by tialaramex »

jrockway wrote: post #200
tialaramex wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you should probably pull the chute. Yes you're gliding right now, but whilst that's better than just falling uncontrolled from the sky it's no guarantee you'll walk away. Now if you're gliding... right towards a perfectly nice runway you were already lined up on then CAPS is likely the wrong call, not least because you may already be too low. But if you're just in the middle of nowhere then CAPS is much safer tha…

Here's an analysis of the CAPS system's safety record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT58pzY41wA (contains some good footage of an SR22 parachuting into the ocean, and into the ground). This is a good overview on the survivability of water landings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LwGYBBhTss . I haven't watched the video recently but I think even a 172 that cartwheels after landing has a pretty good survivability…

Paul Bertorelli is a lot of fun, I have seen those videos a while back. I enjoy his "cheap pilot bastard" attitude to things even if maybe I don't agree with it.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#215

Post by mlyle »

sokoloff wrote: post #58
dmix wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The device is attributed with saving over 200 lives to date. https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History

That particular phrasing and calculation, suggesting that every chute deployment without fatalities represents that number of people “saved” is quite controversial and IMO not supported by an analysis of the data. I think it’s great that the system exists, it has undoubtedly saved lives, but unless Cirrus crashes are overwhelmingly fatal compared to other airplanes, it’s overstating “fatal accidents turned into non-f…

> . I have no illusions that following a mid-air that I am still a strong favorite to bring my non-chute airplane to earth without fatalities. (The stats say I’m about a 60:40 favorite to do so.)

Note this was a midair with a much larger, faster aircraft and at an unfavorable aspect. The empennage was sliced nearly entirely through by the other aircraft's propeller and the elevator/horizontal stabilizer is deflected into a position commanding a steep dive.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#216

Post by DiggyJohnson »

BashiBazouk wrote: post #176
mdip wrote: post #62

Wow, that's incredible. Goes to show that people do walk away from plane crashes with some regularity. My father was a pilot[0]. He sold his plane about 15 years ago (to a group of owners, one of which was a priest, I'm sure there's a joke in there). A few of winters later, he was called out to Romeo Airport; the pilot flying the plane that was formerly his had crashed the aircraft a few miles short of the runway in…

I once witnessed an airplane crash that everyone survived. I was a preteen hanging around outside the Scotts Valley roller rink with a friend in the early eighties. The roller rink is next to the now defunct airfield. The airfield was lower than the rink by an embankment. We had recently been watching Jaws on Betamax and my most persistent memory is seeing only the tail crossing the field. It reminded me of a shark f…

Thanks for sharing this story. Well structured, great ending.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#217

Post by alistairSH »

goodcanadian wrote: post #65
ordu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pilot is speaking about failed engine after the collision, like it is nothing. Fascinating. I'd be shouting something obscene in such a situation. For half an hour at least, I think.

He might not have been aware of the full extent of the damage. He is on final; the plane is flying; he's lost an engine; he's going to land it. There is no time for anything else.

He might not have been aware of the full extent of the damage.

This is likely true. He was the only person onboard the plane, so he would not have been able to get up and look. Unlikely he could see the extent of damage from his seat. And as noted, on final approach, he doesn't have time for much to change plans. Even if he knew the extent of the damage, the choices are roughly the same - land as planned, or go around.

That said, he did exactly what he should. Aviate, navigate, communicate. He controlled the plane, made a decision, and communicated that to ATC. Well done.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#218

Post by TylerE »

elliekelly wrote: post #164
sokoloff wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no emergency-specific fees. Whether Newark (I think it was EWR, not LGA) would assess a normal landing fee is probably not a consideration for the pilot, especially back then. Landing fees are quite reasonable. Off peak, the landing fee would be $25 now. On peak, it would be $125. https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/airports/pdfs/scheduleofc...

Wow that's surprisingly low! I was imagining the fee was thousands of dollars.

Where they'll get you (for normal operations) is things like parking fees. At Newark, for an aircraft less than 100,000lbs that is $45/8 hrs.

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#219

Post by agloeregrets »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #138
sokoloff wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is indeed the early experience with BRS, which has been substantially addressed via training which started with some complex scenario-based messaging and later evolved to a more simplified “pull early, pull often” which has resulted in a bias in a better direction for human safety.

What's the risk to the people below? I'm reminded of a 2011 airshow crash of a Red Arrows T1 jet which, at least according to this account, [0] may have involved the pilot heroically making the decision not to personally eject, but to crash the aircraft away from crowded areas, perishing as a result. Of course, the aircraft itself had no parachute, unlike a Cirrus. (Also, I'm uncertain if that account of the incident…

I mean, would you rather the plane crash at 30mph at a chosen point or at 200mph wherever it leads?

Re: Midair Collision over Denver

#220

Post by na85 »

upofadown wrote: post #97
na85 wrote: post #21

I was camping near Whistler a few years ago and heard a bang. Looked up and saw falling debris and bodies. A wing landed not far from our campsite. Turns out a glider (low-wing monoplane) was descending and the tow plane (high wing monoplane) was climbing. They were each in each other's blind spots :( Glad to see no fatalities here; I'm an aerospace engineer in the field of airworthiness and technical risk management…

Probably this: * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pemberton-b-... Whenever there is a collision involving light aircraft the question of anti-collision systems comes up. Unfortunately the powers that be have completely failed to come up with a workable standard for such aircraft. The glider people eventually just gave up on waiting and now use a proprietary system called FLARM which has fairly good ado…

Yeah that's the one. I misremembered it as the tow plane instead of a Cessna.
Post reply on HN