http://www.wfaa.com/video/?z=y&nvid=245640
First Video: Improbable crash at Roanoke airport
May 15th, 2008

A small plane has landed on top of another aircraft as it was waiting
to take off at Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke. These are first
pictures from HD Chopper 8.
Read the full story:
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080515_wz_roanokecrash.103382c61.html

On May 19, 2:38*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> http://www.wfaa.com/video/?z=y&nvid=245640
> First Video: Improbable crash at Roanoke airport
> May 15th, 2008
>
> A small plane has landed on top of another aircraft as it was waiting
> to take off at Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke. These are first
> pictures from HD Chopper 8.
> Read the full story:http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080...

I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...

denny

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou

Lou > wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

> Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
> Lou

it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them from
the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an accident. You
carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie

On 20 May 2008 12:01:24 GMT, Robert Moore >
wrote in 8>:

>Denny wrote
>> I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...
>
>????????
>(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,
>
>Bob Moore

Right. From the video
<http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080515_wz_roanokecrash.103382c61.html>
it is apparent that the Stinson must have begun his takeoff roll while
the Cherokee was about to touchdown, as it was obviously not
positioned behind the runway threshold. It looks like yet another
high-wing/low-wing blind spot mishap, and begs the question of CTAF
position broadcasts.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 04:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
wrote:
>
>I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...

My money is on the Stinson, or both.

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> Denny wrote
>>> I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080515_wz_roanokecrash.103382c61.html

I saw two Galapagos turtles doing something like this at the Honolulu
Zoo one time.

-c

Larry Dighera wrote:
> It looks like yet another
>high-wing/low-wing blind spot mishap, and begs the question of CTAF
>position broadcasts.

According to the accounts I have read, both pilots were communicating with
each other on the CTAF. Apparently, they had a misunderstanding about who
was going to use the runway first. The Cherokee pilot understood that the
Stinson would hold, and the Stinson pilot thought he'd been OK'ed to go.

Didn't Stinson and Piper merge (less dramatically) back in the 60s?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

This will do nothing to settle the low wing vs high wing argument,
will it?

What puzzles me is I'd have thought the Stinson had to be on the
runway well ahead of the Piper, and although the Piper had right of
way shouldn't the other airplane have been visible? The runway may
have had the same color intensity as the Stinson, but it was a
different hue.

A slow airplane accelerating for take off, and a faster one
decelerating for landing, it takes just an awful set of circumstances
where the two paths converge at the same time on the runway.

Most times at uncontrolled airports we visit or use, the airplanes
waiting to take off usually are facing the downwind direction, or are
at least parked 45 degrees toward the incoming traffic for improved
visibility. Is that not common?


On May 20, 12:09 pm, B A R R Y >
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 04:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...
>
> My money is on the Stinson, or both.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote in
>:

>Most times at uncontrolled airports we visit or use, the airplanes
>waiting to take off usually are facing the downwind direction, or are
>at least parked 45 degrees toward the incoming traffic for improved
>visibility. Is that not common?

If I recall correctly, there were a line of trees at the airport
boundary that may have obscured the aircraft from each other. But
aircraft that decline to participate in broadcasting their positions
on CTAF at uncontrolled fields are hazards. I have no idea if radio
communications were being used by either of the two aircraft involved
in this mishap.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:10:41 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote in <847382c529f0d@uwe>:

> According to the accounts I have read, both pilots were communicating with
>each other on the CTAF. Apparently, they had a misunderstanding about who
>was going to use the runway first. The Cherokee pilot understood that the
>Stinson would hold, and the Stinson pilot thought he'd been OK'ed to go.

If that is the case, the Stinson should have given way to the landing
aircraft in accordance with 91.113(g). CTAF position broadcasts are
supposed to be just that. I haven't seen any regulation nor Advisory
Circular that advocates air-to-air discussion to resolve right-of-way
issues. Had they each broadcast their positions, and followed
regulations, this mishap might not have happened, IMO.

Below is AC 90-42F (poorly formatted; use the link). I don't see
where it recommends that pilots discuss agreeing to disregard
regulations:


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c54e50252a7fa56d862569d8007804ba/$FILE/ac90-42F.pdf

Advisory Circular
-!!: TRAFFIC ADVISORY PRACTICES AT AIRPORTS WITHOUT OPERATING
mtti 5/21/90 AC No: 9042F
hiti8bd by: ATA- rlklw:
CONTROL TOWERS
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) contains good operating
practices and procedures for use when approaching or departing
airports without an operating control tower and airports that have
contrd towers operating part time. This AC has been updated to include
changes in radio frequencies and phraseology.
2 . c ANCELlATlON. Advisory Circular 9042E, dated November 23,
1988, is cancelled.
3. REFERENCES The fdlwing AC’s also contain information applicable
to operations at such
uncontrolled airports.
a. AC Q&66, Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns for Aircraft
Operations at Airports
Without Operating Control Towers. .#f I.
b. AC 150/5340-27A, Air-to-Ground Radio Control of Airport
Lighting Systems.
4. DEFINITIONS.
a. COMMON TRAFFIC ADVlSORY FREQUENCY (CTAF) - A designated
frequency for the
purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while operating
to or from an airport t t does
not have a contrd tower or an airport where the contrd tower is
not operational. The ?!!T AF is
normally a UNICOM, MULTICOM, flight service station (FSS)
frequency, or a tower frequency.
CTAF will be Mentified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
b. UNICOM - A nongovernment air/ground radio communication station
which may provide
airport information at public use airports.
c. MULTICOM - A mobile service, not open to public cotiespondence
use, used for essential
communications in the conduct of activities performed by or
directed from private aircraft.
d. MOVEMENT AREA - The runways, taxiways, and other areas of an
airport/heliport which
are utilized for taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff and
landing of alrcraft, exclusbe of loading
ramps, and parking areas.
5. DISCUSSION.
a. In the Interest of promoting safety, the Federal Aviation
Administration, through its Airman’s
Information Manual, Airport Facility Directory, Advisory Circular,
and other publications provides
frequency information, good operating practices, and procedures
for pilots to use when operating
to and from an airport without an operating co&d tower.
b. There is no substitute for awareness while in the vicinity of
an airport. It is essential that
pilots remain alert and look for other traffic and exchange
traffic information when approaching or
FAA Form 7320-15 (4-82) Supersedes WA Fom l32B2
AC 9042F s/21/90
departing an airport without the services of an operating control
tower. This is of particular
importance since other aircraft may not have communication
capability or, in SOme cases, pilots
may not communicate their presence or intentions when operating
into or out of such &ports.
To achieve the greatest degree of safety, it is essential that all
radio-eau@Dd aircraft
tranSm@heCeive on a common freauencv identified for the DurDose of
airPort advisories.
c. The kev to communicatina at an airport without an ooeratina
control tower is selection of
the correct common freauencv. The CTAF for each airport without an
operating control tower is
published in appropriate aeronautical information publications.
The CTAF for a particular airport
can also be obtained by contacting any FSS. Use of the appropriate
CTAF, combined with visual
alertness and application of the following recommended good
operating practices, will enhance
safety of flight into and out of all such airports.
d. There are two ways for pilots to communicate their intentions
and obtain airport/traffic
information when operating at an airport that does not have an
operating tower: by communicating
with an FSS that is providing airport advisories on a CTAF or by
making a self-announced broadcast
on the CTAF.
6. RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC ADVISORY PRACTICES. All inbound traffic
should continuously
monitor and communicate, as appropriate, on the designated CTAF
from a point 10 miles from the
airport until clear of the movement area. Departing aircraft
should continuously
monitor/communicate on the appropriate frequency from startup,
during taxi, and until 10 miles
(from the airport unless the Federal Aviation Regulations or local
procedures require otherwise.
7. AIRPORT ADVISORY SERVICE MAS) PROVIDED BY AN FSS.
a. An FSS physically located on an airport may provide airport
advisory service (MS) tit &n
airport that does not have a contrd tower or where a tower is
operated on a part-time basis and the
tower is not in operation. The CTAF’s for FSS’s which provide this
service are published in
appropriate aeronautical publications.
b. An FSS AAS provides pilots with wind direction and velocity,
favored or designated runway,
altimeter setting, known traffic, Notices to Airmen, airport taxi
routes, airport traffic pattern, and
instrument approach procedures information. Pilots may receive
some or all of these elements
depending on the current traffic situation. Some airport managers
have specified that under certain
wind or other conditions, designated runways are used. Therefore,
pilots should advise the FSS of
the runway they intend to use. It is important to note that not
all aircraft in the vicinity of an airport
may be in communication with the FSS.
c. In communicating with an FSS on CTAF, establish two-way
communications before
transmitting outbound/inbound intentions or information. Inbound
aircraft should initiate contact
approximately 10 miles from the airport. lnbounds should report
altitude, aircraft type, and location
relative to the airport; should indicate whether landing or
overflight; and should request airport
advisory. Departing aircraft should, as soon is practicable after
departure, contact the FSS and
state the aircraft type, full identification number, type of
flight planned; i.e., visual flight rules (VFR)
or instrument flight rules (IFR), the planned destination or
direction of flight, and the requested
services desired. Pilots should report before taxiing, before
entering the movement area, and before
taxiing onto the runway for departure. If communication with a
UNICOM is necessary, pilots should
do so before entering the movement area or on a separate
transceiver. It is essential that aircraft
continuously monitor the CTAF within the specified area.
Par 5
5/21/90 AC 90-42F
d. Examples of AAS phraseology:
(1) Inbound:
VERO BEACH RADIO, CENTURION SIX NINER DELTA DELTA ONE ZERO MILES
SOUTH, TWO THOUSAND, LANDING VERO BEACH. REQUEST AIRPORT ADVISORY.
(2) outbound:
VERO BEACH RADIO, CENTURION SIX NINER DELTA DELTA, READY TO TAXI,
VFR,
DEPARTING TO THE SOUTHWEST. REQUEST AIRPORT ADVISORY.
8. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AERONAUTICAL ADVISORY STATIONS
(UNICOM).
UNICOM stations may provide pilots, upon request, with weather
information, wind direction, the
recommended runway, or other necessary information. If the UNICOM
frequency is designated
as the CTAF, it will be identified in appropriate aeronautical
publications. If wind and weather
information are not available, it may be obtainable from nearby
airports via Automatic Terminal
Information Sewice or Automated Weather Observing System
frequency.
9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSKION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended
flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF. This
procedure is used primarily at
airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport. The self-announce procedure
should also be used when a pilot is unabe to communicate with the
local FSS on the designated
CTAF. . - .‘1* ..
b. If an airport has a contrd tower which is either temporarily
closed or operated on a
part-time basis and there is no operating FSS on the airport,
pilots should use the published CTAF
to self-announce position and/or intentions.
c. Where there is no tower, FSS, or UNICOM station on the airport,
use MULTICOM frequency
122.9 for self-announce procedures. Such airports will be
identified in appropriate aeronautical
information publications.
d. Practice ADofoache& Pilots conducting practice instrument
approaches should be
particularly alert for other aircraft that may be departing in the
opposite direction. When conducting
any practice approach, regardless of its direction relative to
other airport operations, pilots should
make announcements on the CTAF as fdlows:
(1) when departing the final approach fix, inbound;
(2) when established on the final approach segment or immediately
upon being released by
ATC;
(3) upon completion or termination of the approach; and
(4) upon executing the missed approach procedure.
NOTE: Departing aircraft should always be alert for arrival
aircraft that are opposite direction.
10 . u NICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the fdlowing practices
will help reduce frequency
congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
help identify the IQcatlon of aircraft
Par 8
AC 90-42F 5/21/90
*
in. the traffic pattern, and enhance safety of flight:
(1) Select the correct CTAF frequency.
(2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
in each transmission.
(3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
(4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
airport, reporting altitude,
aircraft type, aircraft identification, location relative to the
airport, and whether landing or overflight.
Request wind information and runway in use.
(5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
(6) Report leaving the runway.
b. Examples of UNICOM Phraseologies:
(1) inbound:
FREDERICK UNICOM CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT 10 MILES
SOUTHEAST
DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) LANDING FREDERICK, REQUEST WIND AND
RUNWAY
INFORMATION FREDERICK.
FREDERICK TRAFFIC CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT ENTERING
DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE) FOR l RUNWAY ONE NINE (FULL
STOP/
TOUCH-AND-GO) FREDERICK.
FREDERICK TRAFFIC CESSNA EIGHTZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT CLEAR OF
RUNWAY ONE -
NINE FREDERICK. *
(2) Outbound:
FREDERICK UNICOM CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT (LOCATION ON
AlFiPORT)
TAXIING TO RUNWAY ONE NINE, REQUEST WIND AND iRAFflC INFORMATION
FREDERICK.
FREDERICK TRAFFIC CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT DEPARTING
RUNWAY ONE
NINE. ‘REMAINING IN THE PATTERN” or “DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE
(DIRECTION) (AS
APPROPRIATE)” FREDERICK.
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating
to or from another nearby airport may be making self-announce
broadcasts on the same UNICOM
or MULTICOM frequency. To help identify one airport from another,
the airport name shotdd be
spoken at the beginning and end of each self-announce
transmission.
(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTlTUDE),
(DESCENDING)
OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE) RUNWAY ONE SEVEN
FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.
* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *
Par 10
5/2 l/90 AC 90-42F
(2) outbawrd:
$TRAWN TRAFFtC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT)
TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.
STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX,
DEPARTING THE PATI’ERN TO THE (DIRECTION), CLlM!SING TO (ALTITUDE)
STRAWN.
(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ObIE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APCjR0ACl-l FIX)
IN~~JND MSCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH
RUNWAYTHREE
FIVE STRAWN.
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE PPE)
APPROACH
COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.
12 . SUM MARY OF RECOMfvIENDED COMMUN1CATIONS PROCEDURES.
FACILITY AT
AIRPORT FREL)U%NCY BE
COMMUNICATION/BROADCAST
PROCEDURES
_ rf, ..
PRACTICE
giUTBQUND INBOUND JNSTR APCH
a. UNICOM
(no Tower
or FSS)
b. No Tower,
FSS, 01
UNICOM
d. FSS Ckwd
(No Tower)
e. Tower or,
FSS not in
Operation
Communicate with
UNICOM station on
putWhed CTAF frequency
(122.7, 122.8, 122.725,
122.975, or 123.0).
If unable to contact
UNICOM &&on, use mlfampfmsm
CTAF.
Self-announce on
MULTICOM freq. 122.9
Comm8 w&h FSS on
CTAF
sti-announced on CmF
&If-annomxd on CTAF
68fofe
taxiing and
befofe
-Hnsm
th8 l@uway
fof
dqmture
10 miles
out, and
entering
downwind,
bass, and
final, and
leaving th8
runway.
Departing
final *
approach fix
mm
lnboutld,
and .
apptoach
completed/
tefminated
Par 11
AC 90-42F 5/21/90
13. IFR AIRCRAFT. When operating in accordance with an IFR
clearance, if air traffic contrd (ATC)
approves a change to the advisory frequency, change to and monitor
the CTAF as soon as possible
and fotlow the recommended traffic advisory procedures.
14. GROUND VEHICLE OPERATION. Drivers of airport ground vehicles
equipped with radios
should monitor the CTAF frequency when operating on the airport
movement area and remain dear
of runways/taxiways being used by aircraft. Radio transmissions
from ground vehicles should be
confined to safety-related matters.
15. RADIO CONTROL OF AIRPORT LIGHTING SYSTEMS. Whenever possible,
the CTAF will be
used to control airport lighting systems at airports without
operating contrd towers. This eliminates
the need for pilots to change frequencies to turn the lights on
and allows a continuous listening
watch on a single frequency. The CTAF is published on the
instrument approach chart and in
other appropriate aeronautical information publications. For
further details concerning radio
controlled lights, see AC 150/5340-27.
16. DESIGNATED UNlCOM/MULTICOM FREQUENCIES. The following listing
depicts appropriate
UNICOM and MULTICOM frequency used as designated by the Federal
Communications
Commission (FCC).
Freauencv Use
122.700
122.725
122.750
-----v---N-BP Airports without an operating contrd tower
122.800
122.900
Airports without an operating control tower
Air-to-air communications & private airports (not -
open to the public)
Airports without an operating contrd tower
(MULTICOM FREQUENCY) Activities of a
temporary, seasonal, or emergency nature.
(MULTICOM FREQUENCY) Forestry management
and fire suppression, fish and game management
and protection, and environmental monitoring and
protection.
122.950 ----HWII Airports with control tower or FSS on airport
122.975 -w-m- Airports without an operating contrd tower
123.000 ------m Airports without an operating control tower
123.050 -----w-u-- Airports without an operating control tower
123.075 uI--I-Iw----c--IIwIIY- Airports without an operating
contrd tower
NOTE 1: in some areas of the country, frequency interference may
be encountered from nearby
airports using the same UNICOM frequency.. Where there is a
problem, UNICOM operators are
encouraged to develop a “least interference” frequency assignment
plan for airports concerned
using the frequencies designated for airports without operating
contrd towers.
*UNICOM licensees are encouraaed to aDply for UNICOM 25 kHz spaced
channel frequencies.
Due to the extremelv limited number of freauencies with 50 kHz
channel-soacina. 25 kHz channel
spacina should be imPlemented UNICOM licensees may then request
FCC to assign frequencies
in accordance with the plan, which FCC will review and consider
for approval.*
NOTE 2: Wind direction and runway information may not be available
on UNICOM frequency
122.950.
Par 13
s/21/90 AC 9042F
17. USE OF UNICOM FOR ATC PURPOSES. UNICOM SERVICE MAY BE USED FOR
ATC
PURPOSES, only under the following circumstances:
a. Revision to proposed departure time.
b. Takeoff, arrival, or flight plan cancellation time.
c. ATC clearance, provided arrangements are made between the ATC
facility and the UNICOM
licensee to handle such messages.
18. MISCELLANEOUS. Operations at airports without operating
control towers require the highest
degree of vigilance on the part of pilots to see and avoid
aircraft while operating to or from such
airports. Pilots should stay alert at all times, anticipate the
unexpected, use the published CTAF
frequency, and follow recommended airport advisory practices.
Harold W. Becker
Acting Director, Air Traffic
Rules and Procedures Sewice
. _ .*, -.
Par 17 7
JL---
b







Here's the Part 91 regulation for reference:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1e59af62f4a3563cc99b1e9320d9617b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7
§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
top

(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation
of an aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether
an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating
an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this
section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give
way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it
unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over
all other air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging
at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the
aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft
are of different categories—

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of
aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other
head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course
to the right.

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the
right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter
course to the right to pass well clear.

(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.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt.
91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:847382c529f0d@uwe...
>
> Didn't Stinson and Piper merge (less dramatically) back in the 60s?
>

No. Piper acquired the Stinson division from Convair in 1948. Piper
produced the Twin Stinson as the Apache and sold the 108 to Univair.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If that is the case, the Stinson should have given way to the landing
> aircraft in accordance with 91.113(g). CTAF position broadcasts are
> supposed to be just that. I haven't seen any regulation nor Advisory
> Circular that advocates air-to-air discussion to resolve right-of-way
> issues. Had they each broadcast their positions, and followed
> regulations, this mishap might not have happened, IMO.
>

Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...
>

Why?

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

> According to the accounts I have read, both pilots were communicating with
> each other on the CTAF. Apparently, they had a misunderstanding about who
> was going to use the runway first. The Cherokee pilot understood that the
> Stinson would hold, and the Stinson pilot thought he'd been OK'ed to go.

14 CFR 91.113:
(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...

This sort of reminds me of "How do you keep four Oregonians busy all
day" joke. ("Throw in a four-way stop sign.")

It's like:
"You go" *point*
"No, you go."
"It's okay. You first. I insist."
"No, no, you go ahead." *wave wave*
"Okay...wait, you're moving. That guy's moving. Are you going? Go
ahead. Is he going?" *hestitate*
"JUST F'CKING GO!!!" ...and then they both go and get in a wreck. It's
even weirder with pedestrians.

It underscores the idea that if everybody just LEARNS THE RULES AND
FOLLOWS THEM, everything moves mechanically, everybody is happy, and
things get done faster.

-c

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If that is the case, the Stinson should have given way to the landing
>> aircraft in accordance with 91.113(g). CTAF position broadcasts are
>> supposed to be just that. I haven't seen any regulation nor Advisory
>> Circular that advocates air-to-air discussion to resolve right-of-way
>> issues. Had they each broadcast their positions, and followed
>> regulations, this mishap might not have happened, IMO.
>>
>
>Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>

Have you seen anything in the regulations or ACs that permits a VFR
pilot operating under Part 91 to do so contrary to FARs, other than in
an emergency situation under 91.3?:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=405ae836c869678cd984c43305d8987b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.2
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible
for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the
pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the
extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph
(b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator,
send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2120–0005)


As the subject mishap was presumably not an emergency at the time the
communications occurred, I highly doubt 91.3 was applicable at that
time.

In any event, if the pilots hadn't attempted to agree to deviate from
91.113(g), it's unlikely this mishap would have occurred.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> If that is the case, the Stinson should have given way to the landing
>>> aircraft in accordance with 91.113(g). CTAF position broadcasts are
>>> supposed to be just that. I haven't seen any regulation nor Advisory
>>> Circular that advocates air-to-air discussion to resolve right-of-way
>>> issues. Had they each broadcast their positions, and followed
>>> regulations, this mishap might not have happened, IMO.
>>>
>>
>>Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>>anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>>granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>>
>
> Have you seen anything in the regulations or ACs that permits a VFR
> pilot operating under Part 91 to do so contrary to FARs, other than in
> an emergency situation under 91.3?:
>
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=405ae836c869678cd984c43305d8987b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.2
> § 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
>
> (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible
> for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
> aircraft.
>
> (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the
> pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the
> extent required to meet that emergency.
>
> (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph
> (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator,
> send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
>
> (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
> number 2120-0005)
>
>
> As the subject mishap was presumably not an emergency at the time the
> communications occurred, I highly doubt 91.3 was applicable at that
> time.
>
> In any event, if the pilots hadn't attempted to agree to deviate from
> 91.113(g), it's unlikely this mishap would have occurred.
>

Is there some part of my question that you did not understand?

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>


I've surrendered my ROW via a two way conversation. I hope I haven't
broken any regs. <G>

Anybody have a pointer to a high-res version of a photo of this?
Good enough to print poster size?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>This will do nothing to settle the low wing vs high wing argument,
>will it?
>
>What puzzles me is I'd have thought the Stinson had to be on the
>runway well ahead of the Piper, and although the Piper had right of
>way shouldn't the other airplane have been visible? The runway may
>have had the same color intensity as the Stinson, but it was a
>different hue.
>
>A slow airplane accelerating for take off, and a faster one
>decelerating for landing, it takes just an awful set of circumstances
>where the two paths converge at the same time on the runway.

If the reports of a two way CTAF exchange are true, both should have
been exactly aware of the other, as in "in sight", before landing or
departing.

That's why both may get to do command performance rides.

I would NEVER accept the ROW to enter the runway from an aircraft I
didn't have in sight, and I wouldn't land after giving it away, if I
didn't see the pilot I gave it to. I've heard too many errorred
position reports, way too many.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>>anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>>granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>>
>
>
> I've surrendered my ROW via a two way conversation. I hope I haven't
> broken any regs. <G>
>

You didn't.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:02:46 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>You didn't.
>

I didn't think so, but I didn't want Larry to turn me in.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:02:46 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>You didn't.
>>
>
> I didn't think so, but I didn't want Larry to turn me in.
>

In another thread today Larry expressed a preference for incorrect
procedure. Go figure.

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>> Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>> anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>> granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>>
>
>
> I've surrendered my ROW via a two way conversation. I hope I haven't
> broken any regs. <G>


While you might have surrendered ROW via radio I doubt the FAA will find
that it relieved the other pilot from his responsibility under the regs.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>> I've surrendered my ROW via a two way conversation. I hope I haven't
>> broken any regs. <G>
>
>While you might have surrendered ROW via radio I doubt the FAA will find
>that it relieved the other pilot from his responsibility under the regs.

That's an interesting question. Let's say I'm on final and I call you on
the CTAF and tell you that I'm coming in slow and you have plenty of time to
depart before I get there. You can see me on final, but you can't really
tell how fast I'm moving. You go ahead and start your departure role, and I
end up colliding with you somewhere down the runway. Are you at fault for
not giving way to traffic on final? Even if I advised you to go ahead?

For you nitpickers that will claim that you should be able to tell the
speed and distance of an aircraft on final from the runup area, assume the
vis is 3 miles and I'm flying a helicopter.

For the record, I give way to other aircraft all the time when I have the
ROW. They are usually bigger, faster and burning a lot more fuel. I like
flying, so I don't have a problem remaining aloft for a few extra minutes.
We coordinate on CTAF and I've never had a problem. Much like when I'm
talking to ATC, if there's any question about what each of us is going to do,
I ask for clarification before proceeding.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:50:57 -0400, B A R R Y
> wrote in
>:

>On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>>anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>>granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>>
>
>
>I've surrendered my ROW via a two way conversation. I hope I haven't
>broken any regs. <G>

While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars nor
being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident, the mishap may not
have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the logic of that point
of view in this incident?

Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
authority to deviate from federal regulations?

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Lou > wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
> :
>
>> Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
>> Lou
>
> it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
> airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them from
> the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an accident. You
> carry your own roll cage around with you.
>
>
> Bertie


Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are
much better. :-)

On Wed, 21 May 2008 08:22:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>B A R R Y wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>>> anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>>> granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've surrendered my ROW via a two way conversation. I hope I haven't
>> broken any regs. <G>
>
>
>While you might have surrendered ROW via radio I doubt the FAA will find
>that it relieved the other pilot from his responsibility under the regs.


Possibly...

But I'm still not landing if I can't see him.

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 08:22:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:38 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you seen anything which prohibits such discussions? Have you seen
>>>> anything which prohibits one pilot from surrendering the right-of-way
>>>> granted by FAR 91.113 to another pilot?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've surrendered my ROW via a two way conversation. I hope I haven't
>>> broken any regs. <G>
>>
>> While you might have surrendered ROW via radio I doubt the FAA will find
>> that it relieved the other pilot from his responsibility under the regs.
>
>
> Possibly...
>
> But I'm still not landing if I can't see him.

Fully agreed but since we weren't there and didn't see what the pilots
involved saw we can only use this accident as a starting place for a
hypothetical discussion and hopefully learn something from it.

There are a few facts though. Considering what we know or at least think
we know the Cherokee had the ROW. The regs give it to him. No where do
the regs give a pilot on CTAS the authorization to give away the ROW.

Given that, the Stinson pilot can be found at fault for violation of
91.113.

Now we get to the Cherokee pilot. He THOUGHT he negotiated away the ROW.
The fact that he didn't makes no difference. But it does prove that he
knew there was another airplane down there and that alone should have
made him hyper-observant. So the FAA have a real good case against him
for reckless and careless.

What should have happened in all this was the Cherokee and the Stinson
pilots thought the Stinson had time to take the runway and take-off and
that's what they tried. The Stinson pilot lost sight of the Cherokee and
knew he would the moment he took the runway. Before the Cherokee loss
sight of the Stinson (which high wing and low wing had nothing to do
with it was the nose of the Cherokee that was in the way) the Cherokee
should have broken off the approach.

If for some reason I can't think of they never had each other in sight
or especially if the Cherokee never had the Stinson in sight the
Cherokee should have broken off the approach if he had any reason to
think the Stinson was on the runway.

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:847dd43febab4@uwe...
>
> That's an interesting question. Let's say I'm on final and I call you on
> the CTAF and tell you that I'm coming in slow and you have plenty of time
> to
> depart before I get there. You can see me on final, but you can't really
> tell how fast I'm moving. You go ahead and start your departure role, and
> I
> end up colliding with you somewhere down the runway. Are you at fault
> for
> not giving way to traffic on final? Even if I advised you to go ahead?
>
> For you nitpickers that will claim that you should be able to tell the
> speed and distance of an aircraft on final from the runup area, assume the
> vis is 3 miles and I'm flying a helicopter.
>

Why do you even bother with runways when you're flying a helicopter?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
> participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
> at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
> being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars nor
> being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
> negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident, the mishap may not
> have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the logic of that point
> of view in this incident?
>

There is no logic in that point of view.


>
> Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
> airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
> has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
> those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
> 91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
> authority to deviate from federal regulations?
>

No regulations are being overridden.

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:58:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:
>
>If for some reason I can't think of they never had each other in sight
>or especially if the Cherokee never had the Stinson in sight the
>Cherokee should have broken off the approach if he had any reason to
>think the Stinson was on the runway.

I agree.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> That's an interesting question. Let's say I'm on final and I call you on
>> the CTAF and tell you that I'm coming in slow and you have plenty of time
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> speed and distance of an aircraft on final from the runup area, assume the
>> vis is 3 miles and I'm flying a helicopter.
>
>Why do you even bother with runways when you're flying a helicopter?

Because I can.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:848a66ea82477@uwe...
>>
>>Why do you even bother with runways when you're flying a helicopter?
>>
>
> Because I can.
>

Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you can?

Frank Olson > wrote in
news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Lou > wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
>> :
>>
>>> Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
>>> Lou
>>
>> it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
>> airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them
>> from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
>> accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
> coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
> dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are
> much better. :-)
>

Not statistically.


BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Frank Olson > wrote in
> news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Lou > wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
>>>> Lou
>>> it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
>>> airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them
>>> from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
>>> accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
>> coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
>> dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are
>> much better. :-)
>>
>
> Not statistically.
>
>
> BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control.
>
>
> Bertie


Heh. Me too. If your engine fails you still have "full control" of the
aircraft and can guide it to a safe landing (with a little luck and some
altitude), as opposed to losing a primary flight system (like a wing or
your horizontal stab). In the latter examples your only option is KYAG
(Kiss Your Ass Goodbye).

Frank Olson > wrote in
news:aWzZj.289324$pM4.202964@pd7urf1no:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Frank Olson > wrote in
>> news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Lou > wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
>>>>> Lou
>>>> it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
>>>> airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild
them
>>>> from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
>>>> accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
>>> coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
>>> dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee
are
>>> much better. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Not statistically.
>>
>>
>> BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in
control.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Heh. Me too. If your engine fails you still have "full control" of
the
> aircraft and can guide it to a safe landing (with a little luck and
some
> altitude), as opposed to losing a primary flight system (like a wing
or
> your horizontal stab). In the latter examples your only option is
KYAG
> (Kiss Your Ass Goodbye).
>

Yeah, true.

I saw stats for this years ago. I think it might have been in Tony
Bengelis's books or maybe sprot aviation, but steel tube airplanes are
much safer in a crash than anything else. Tin is next but trails well
behind, with composite and wood bringing up the rear.


Bertie

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you can?

No. Because why I'm flying a helicopter to the runway was not the point of
the hypothetical question. I could be flying the ILS, or maybe I just feel
like making an approach to the runway. It doesn't really matter.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...

>
> Not statistically.
>
>
> BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control.
>
>
> Bertie

That's when I decide I'm gonna hit the pillow as opposed to just falling over sleeping...

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you
>> can?
>
> No. Because why I'm flying a helicopter to the runway was not the
> point of the hypothetical question. I could be flying the ILS, or
> maybe I just feel like making an approach to the runway. It doesn't
> really matter.
>

I'll take that as a "Yes".

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Yeah, true.
>
> I saw stats for this years ago. I think it might have been in Tony
> Bengelis's books or maybe sprot aviation, but steel tube airplanes are
> much safer in a crash than anything else. Tin is next but trails well
> behind, with composite and wood bringing up the rear.
>
>
> Bertie


Posted by a forger.

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:gqVZj.1170$v94.801
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, true.
>>
>> I saw stats for this years ago. I think it might have been in Tony
>> Bengelis's books or maybe sprot aviation, but steel tube airplanes
are
>> much safer in a crash than anything else. Tin is next but trails well
>> behind, with composite and wood bringing up the rear.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Posted by a forger.
>
>
>

Snort!

God I love usenet.


How's the forgery komplaint coming there wannabe boi?




Bertie

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Not statistically.
>>
>>
>> BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in
>> control.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> That's when I decide I'm gonna hit the pillow as opposed to just
> falling over sleeping...
>

Heh heh.

Bertie