Georgetown, TX - MIDAIR Collision

[Nasir]

There was a midair at Georgetown yesterday. Apparently two planes were on
final and landed on top of each other. Both pilots had injuries but both
survived.

Anyone know more details on this? Was it lack of radio communication ..did
they just not announce positions or something else was involved?

-Nasir

[tom418]

Hope this helps:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/I_0510_N.txt

http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0510_N.txt


"Nasir" > wrote in message
om...
> There was a midair at Georgetown yesterday. Apparently two planes were on
> final and landed on top of each other. Both pilots had injuries but both
> survived.
>
> Anyone know more details on this? Was it lack of radio communication ..did
> they just not announce positions or something else was involved?
>
> -Nasir
>
>

[Jeff Meininger]

In article <ecWnc.132660$f_5.85331@lakeread01>,
"tom418" > writes:
> Hope this helps:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/I_0510_N.txt
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0510_N.txt
>

I see that the reports say a "DA-40 Katana" was involved. I wonder if
it was a DA-40, or a Katana. I understand that Adventure has a DA-40...
I wonder if it was theirs.

Are there any Katanas at GTU?

I hope the Giles pilot's "unknown injuries" aren't too serious.

[Nasir]

"Jeff Meininger" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ecWnc.132660$f_5.85331@lakeread01>,
> "tom418" > writes:
> > Hope this helps:
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/I_0510_N.txt
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_0510_N.txt
> >
>
> I see that the reports say a "DA-40 Katana" was involved. I wonder if
> it was a DA-40, or a Katana. I understand that Adventure has a DA-40...
> I wonder if it was theirs.
>
> Are there any Katanas at GTU?
>
> I hope the Giles pilot's "unknown injuries" aren't too serious.

Here is a first hand account of the accident:

Folks,

What we have been talking about, and fearing happened this afternoon at the
Georgetown airport. I was taxiing to the run-up area near runway 18 when I
saw a Diamond Star on short final. Then all of a sudden I saw a yellow and
blue Extra sport plane approaching fast from short left base to final. He
was higher and slipping down from behind as they usually do. At first I
could not believe my eyes. It looked like the Extra sport plane was going to
go around, or over the Diamond and then they collided about 50 feet in the
air. Both planes spun around in the air and landed on the runway. The
Diamond spun in and landed on its nose then settled on its mains. The Extra
did a flat spin and hit hard on the runway. It happened so fast. I don't
recall hearing any radio calls prior to the collision. Anyway, we stopped in
the run-up area and I got out and ran over to the wreckage on the runway.
The pilot of the Diamond was walking around in a daze and the Extra pilot
was laying on his back on the runway. When I got to him, he was in pain and
complaining about his back. He kept saying that he never saw the other
plane. We calmed him down until emergency personnel came. EMS, Fire
Department, DPS and Police were there in a very short time. The news media
was also there as usual.


Runway 18 is closed until tomorrow when the FAA investigator arrives and
does his thing.


Please...let us keep our heads up and out of the cockpit, look for other
traffic, and make position reports on the radio to let the other planes know
where you are.


Thank God the collision didn't occur over the homes near the end of the
runway and nobody was killed.


Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The traffic
is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower. We
all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy.


I have attached some photos that I took of the crash site.


Fly Safely,

Bill Eldredge

[Peter Duniho]

"Nasir" > wrote in message
. com...
> [...]
> Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The
traffic
> is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower. We
> all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy.

Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had looked
out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should
probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.

Pete

[Nasir]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Nasir" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > [...]
> > Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The
> traffic
> > is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower.
We
> > all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy.
>
> Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had
looked
> out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should
> probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
> control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.
>
> Pete

Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit
yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already. This
accident could have also been avoided if both pilots had made position
reports. Since that is not a requirement, a control tower would have also
prevented this miscommunication (or lack of communication) based accident. I
think thats what the guy meant.

-Nasir

[Jeff Meininger]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > writes:
> "Nasir" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> [...]
>
> The guy who wrote that account should
> probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
> control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.
>

I should probably keep my mouth shut as I'm not even an official student
pilot yet... but the author of that account is Bill Eldredge, the chief
flight instructor at Wright Aviation (an FBO at GTU). I assume he knows
what he's talking about. :) Also, AFAIK, GTU has been trying to raise
money for a tower for a while now. I think they increased hangar rates
by a significant amount for just this reason.

[Peter Duniho]

"Nasir" > wrote in message
. com...
> Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit
> yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already.

For an FAA control tower, simple being "a very busy field" is insufficient.
We have several "very busy fields" in the Washington Puget Sound area --
Arlington, Harvey Field in Snohomish, and Bremerton to name a few -- but
none are busy enough to justify a control tower, even though at those
airports on clear days "its [sic] an excersize [sic] to fit yourself into
the pattern".

As with many accidents, there are a number of things that COULD have
prevented the accident. But that doesn't mean that all of those things
should be implemented. After all, the accident could have been prevented by
shutting down the airport. I doubt the folks there want that to happen,
right?

The real problem is that the pilot of the Extra wasn't paying attention to
the airspace in front of him. Trying to use this accident as an excuse to
build a control tower makes no more sense than if the neighbors tried to use
the accident as an excuse to shut down the airport.

Pete

[David Megginson]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had looked
> out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should
> probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
> control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.

Could the problem be fixed by overhauling VFR pattern procedures? For
example, require all VFR aircraft to join the pattern the same way at
uncontrolled airports, rather than allowing them to come in from all
different directions. You seem to have a *lot* of midair collisions in the
pattern in the U.S.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

Nasir wrote:

> Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit
> yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already. This
> accident could have also been avoided if both pilots had made position
> reports. Since that is not a requirement, a control tower would have also
> prevented this miscommunication (or lack of communication) based accident. I
> think thats what the guy meant.

Another possibility to fix this problem would be to borrow the "mandatory
frequency" (MF) idea from Canada. Up here, when an airport is too busy to
be completely uncontrolled, but not busy enough for a tower, it is
designated as an MF -- everyone, VFR or IFR, is required to monitor and
report on the mandatory frequency within the control zone during the MF
hours. Sometimes there will be an FSS specialist coordinating planes on the
frequency (and to give NORDO traffic a chance to fly in by prior
arrangement), but the system works fine without one.

The cost of implementing an MF is minimal -- just chart changes -- but it
might have avoided this accident.


All the best,


David

[Peter R.]

Jeff Meininger ) wrote:

> I should probably keep my mouth shut as I'm not even an official student
> pilot yet... but the author of that account is Bill Eldredge, the chief
> flight instructor at Wright Aviation (an FBO at GTU). I assume he knows
> what he's talking about. :)

There have been more than a few fatal midair collisions at towered
airports. A tower will not prevent a MAC. If Mr. Eldredge is really the
chief CFI (which I accept from your comment), then he should know that.

If you need proof, go to the NTSB aviation accident site and search for
midair crashes. Two notable accidents that come immediately to my mind
since I began flying in March of 2002 are the fatal MAC at Caldwell, NJ
and Carlsbad, CA.

--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
> Could the problem be fixed by overhauling VFR pattern procedures? For
> example, require all VFR aircraft to join the pattern the same way at
> uncontrolled airports, rather than allowing them to come in from all
> different directions. You seem to have a *lot* of midair collisions in
the
> pattern in the U.S.

I doubt that the number of midairs here, adjusted for traffic density, is a
heck of a lot different from the rate found elsewhere, including Canada.

As for this particular accident, since the Extra was on base turning final,
I don't see how mandating a standard entry would have avoided this accident.
Nothing about the report suggests that either of the involved planes
*didn't* use the preferred 45-degree standard entry.

Pete

[Richard Hertz]

I have been in the pattern at a "controlled" field where the controller
issued instructions for a plane "behind me" in the patter to start base from
downwind while I was on final. We would have collided. Neither the
controller nor the other pilot had the situational awareness needed to stop
a collision. Thankfully I did.

Control towers are not always the answer.


"Nasir" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Nasir" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > [...]
> > > Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The
> > traffic
> > > is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a
tower.
> We
> > > all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy.
> >
> > Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had
> looked
> > out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should
> > probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
> > control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.
> >
> > Pete
>
> Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit
> yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already. This
> accident could have also been avoided if both pilots had made position
> reports. Since that is not a requirement, a control tower would have also
> prevented this miscommunication (or lack of communication) based accident.
I
> think thats what the guy meant.
>
> -Nasir
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

There were two aircraft involved - not just one. Apparently no radios were
involved. I would not place the blame on one pilot.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Nasir" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Georgetown is a very busy field. On clear days, its an excersize to fit
> > yourself into the pattern because there are so many in already.
>
> For an FAA control tower, simple being "a very busy field" is
insufficient.
> We have several "very busy fields" in the Washington Puget Sound area --
> Arlington, Harvey Field in Snohomish, and Bremerton to name a few -- but
> none are busy enough to justify a control tower, even though at those
> airports on clear days "its [sic] an excersize [sic] to fit yourself into
> the pattern".
>
> As with many accidents, there are a number of things that COULD have
> prevented the accident. But that doesn't mean that all of those things
> should be implemented. After all, the accident could have been prevented
by
> shutting down the airport. I doubt the folks there want that to happen,
> right?
>
> The real problem is that the pilot of the Extra wasn't paying attention to
> the airspace in front of him. Trying to use this accident as an excuse to
> build a control tower makes no more sense than if the neighbors tried to
use
> the accident as an excuse to shut down the airport.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
. net...
> There were two aircraft involved - not just one.

The firsthand report unequivocably puts the pilot of the Extra as being at
fault.

> Apparently no radios were involved.

Radios are a useful tool, as an addition to the normal see-and-avoid. Lack
of use of the radios in no way shows fault on either pilot's part.

> I would not place the blame on one pilot.

Your choice. But I would.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> I would not place the blame on one pilot.

I would. It's clearly the fault of the pilot of the Extra.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[John Galban]

Peter R. > wrote in message >...
>
> There have been more than a few fatal midair collisions at towered
> airports. A tower will not prevent a MAC. If Mr. Eldredge is really the
> chief CFI (which I accept from your comment), then he should know that.
>

The last few midairs we had in my area were both at towered airports.

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

[Gerald Sylvester]

> If you need proof, go to the NTSB aviation accident site and search for
> midair crashes. Two notable accidents that come immediately to my mind
> since I began flying in March of 2002 are the fatal MAC at Caldwell, NJ
> and Carlsbad, CA.

My friend was the pilot of the Mooney at the Carlsbad accident. I keep
track of that NTSB report and now a year and a half later it is still
not closed and marked as preliminary. In that prelim report, apparently
the tower told both pilots that a plane is headed in their direction.
So a tower can't prevent any collision but they certainly help the
organization of that traffic.

One time in the pattern at SQL (San Carlos, CA), a mooney pilot
which I presume is someone with more than 41 hours total time couldn't
make a radio call to save his life (or anyone elses). I was in the
pattern and he buzzed off. 10 minutes later he comes back was told
to report at a local VFR point. I told my instructor "Oh ****. he's
back." Well sure enough he doesn't repot and buzzes onto final
and almost lands on another plane. He is told to go "climb to 1200
and circle the airport for spacing." Well he climbs to 800 (pattern
altitude), does one circle and buzzes into the pattern. My heart
was racing as I was watching/listening to this happen. when the
accident almost happened, I told my CFI, "you watch that asshole.
I'll keep an eye on the traffic in front of me." Towers won't
prevent anything but they certainly can help.

On my PPL checkride everyone and their mother was out flying (12/17/03).
I did my engine out landing at TCY (Tracy, CA). A 172 (?, a 4-seater
high-wing) was holding short of the runway and despite our radio
calls he positioned himself right on the numbers and held. No radio,
no looking. I was slow enough and far enough out that it did not
pose a major problem although I was maybe 5 seconds from going around
despite my "engine failure." I'm sure the DE would have been cool
with that but still, just unneeded pressure on the checkride
and unneeded excitement on final at any time. Again, a tower would
have helped a lot as they wouldn't have been cleared onto the runway
(well hopefully).

Gerald

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Nasir" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > [...]
> > Georgetown airport needs a control tower. It is long over due!!! The
> traffic
> > is hectic... This accident could have been prevented if we had a tower. We
> > all need to educate the city council before we have a worst tragedy.
>
> Sounds like it also could have been prevented if the Extra pilot had looked
> out for traffic already on final. The guy who wrote that account should
> probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
> control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.
>
> Pete

The pilot that gave the first hand report knows that the number of
operations determines whether the airport can get a control tower.
GTU is estimated to have 100,000 take off and landings a year. (As
reported in the local paper.)
The FAA agreed to fund 50% of the tower in 2001. The pilots wanted
the tower to improve safety at the airport. The people who live near
the airport did not want the tower to be built because they thought it
would cause the airport to expand even more than it has. Because two
local airports (about 20 miles away) were shutdown, GTU has grown
faster then expected.
The anti airport people in the area would like to have the airport
closed. Since the decision to not build the tower in 2001, the
airshow was canceled after a Stearman crashed into a house during the
airshow in 2002. Since then, there has been a twin that landed in the
houses north of the airport. That was
in July of 2003. (The NTSB prel doesn't even get the location of the
accident correct.) In April of this year, a plane had to land on the
frontage road of I-35 near the airport, fortunately no one was hurt.
Now this.
One city official stated on TV that the FAA will now do a 90%
funded control tower at the airport.
GTU now has three flight training schools, teaching private,
instrument, commercial, multiengine, flight instructor, and
helicopters. In addition, it has a number of turbo prop and jets
based out of there. Add to that the army doing practice approaches,
formation flying, and some acrobatics based out of there. That means
that you have new students who think there is only one way to fly a
pattern, a large number of instrument students flying approaches and
the normal number of pilots with attitudes and lack of situational
awareness. For example, it is not a good idea to do a midfield
crossing into the pattern when another plane is doing an instrument
approach that will probably end in a missed approach procedure. It is
not a good idea to practice hovering upwind from the favored runway.
It is not a good idea to land on 11 when everyone else is landing on
18. So yes, in some ways GTU was an accident waiting to happen, and
it has.
It is fine to say that people should have been using their radios
and should have been looking for the other planes. But, until you
have been there, being a Monday quarterback is always easy and it is
easy to blame someone you don't know. I've heard it on these
newsgroups, with people assuming that only inexperienced pilots will
use the rudder to try to turn the plane on base to final. Pilots have
to learn that these things can happen to experienced pilots as well as
inexperienced pilots. I can't make any comments about what was done
correctly or incorrectly in this situation, because I wasn't there,
and like the rest of you, I don't know all of the details.
So, for those of you that do not fly out of the GTU airport, you
have the luxury of arguing that the building of control towers are a
function of the number of ops, not the number of accidents. You have
the luxury of arguing about the merits of radio calls vs. see and
avoid. You have the luxury of arguing about how to enter the traffic
pattern. You have the luxury of arguing about whether a towered
airport is safer than a nontowered airport. Unfortunately the pilots
at GTU no longer have that luxury. They have to figure out how to
have a safe airport amidst a growing group of citizens that would like
to shut down the airport.

Hobbes

The interesting thing about planes you don't see is that you don't
really know how many of them you haven't seen.

[Mark]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...

> > I would not place the blame on one pilot.
>
> Your choice. But I would.
>
> Pete

FAR 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, 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.


One problem I see is a lot of pilots don't like to use the radios.
They would rather fly 50 miles out of thier way than call a class B
controller and ask permission to fly through their airspace.

Another problem with uncontrolled fields is when someone is practicing
instrument approaches. For instance, if someone is using the localizer
approach doing a straight into the landing runway and gives position
reports like "Georgetown traffic, Cessna xxxxx, final for runway 26
VOR-A". To a non-IFR pilot this gives them little information.

My final pet peeve is pilots (at least around here) that don't like to
talk to other pilots that are in the same traffic pattern (at a
uncontrolled field). Most of the time these pilots make position
reports but then "turn off their ears" while they complete landing
checklists. If I'm in the pattern with another pilot that has just
made a position report, I like to say "OK 38Alpha, I have you in
sight" or "38Alpha, we are both 3 miles out from the airport for
runway 26 and I don't see you. I'll slow down a little and let you
join the pattern. Please let me know when your established on downwind
than I'll enter the 45 for downwind for runway 26". This establishes
a two way dialogue with the other pilot and he/she will then be more
likely to "remember" there is another plane near them.

As for Farmer Joe that won't use his radio cause he hasen't seen
another aircraft in the past hour is a lost cause.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
om...
> The pilot that gave the first hand report knows that the number of
> operations determines whether the airport can get a control tower.
> GTU is estimated to have 100,000 take off and landings a year.

According to the FAA, it's actually just under 87,000 operations per year.
Compare that with Arlington, WA (KAWO...I mentioned it earlier) with 135,000
operations per year and no control tower, nor any suggestion that one is
needed.

> [...] The pilots wanted the tower to improve safety at the airport.

Be that as it may, it's not clear that a control tower is needed, nor should
the lack of a control tower have led to this accident (nor would a control
tower necessarily have prevented it, for that matter).

> The anti airport people in the area would like to have the airport
> closed. Since the decision to not build the tower in 2001, the
> airshow was canceled after a Stearman crashed into a house during the
> airshow in 2002. Since then, there has been a twin that landed in the
> houses north of the airport.

How would a control tower have prevented airplanes from crashing into the
houses? How is that relevant at all to this accident?

> One city official stated on TV that the FAA will now do a 90%
> funded control tower at the airport.

When an FAA official says that, then you can believe it.

> [...] It is fine to say that people should have been using their radios
> and should have been looking for the other planes. But, until you
> have been there, being a Monday quarterback is always easy and it is
> easy to blame someone you don't know.

I *have* been "there". I've flown into plenty of other airports that are
similar. As far as playing "Monday quarterback", the first-hand account you
posted makes very clear who was at fault. Having a control tower would not
necessarily have prevented the accident, nor is there any indication that
the lack of a control tower caused the accident.

> [...]
> So, for those of you that do not fly out of the GTU airport, you
> have the luxury of arguing that the building of control towers are a
> function of the number of ops, not the number of accidents.

You have the luxury too, and so does the guy who wrote the first-hand
account. It's a simple fact, and it doesn't matter what airport you fly out
of, the fact is the same for everyone.

> You have
> the luxury of arguing about the merits of radio calls vs. see and
> avoid.

Ditto.

> You have the luxury of arguing about how to enter the traffic
> pattern.

Who said anything about pattern entry? That doesn't appear to be related to
this accident at all.

> You have the luxury of arguing about whether a towered
> airport is safer than a nontowered airport.

Huh? Now you're off the deep end. It's YOU and the guy whose account you
posted who are claiming that a towered airport is safer than a nontowered
airport. You brought it up. What "luxury" are the rest of us enjoying that
you are not?

> Unfortunately the pilots
> at GTU no longer have that luxury. They have to figure out how to
> have a safe airport amidst a growing group of citizens that would like
> to shut down the airport.

None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with how to make the
airport a safe airport. Yes, you need to get your act together (two crashes
into houses in the last three years? geez), but your airport is no busier
than a number of other non-towered airports, and is in fact quite a bit less
busy than many non-towered airports. Quit blaming your problems on the lack
of a control tower, and figure out why your local pilots just can't be
bothered to look where they are going.

Pete

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> om...
> > The pilot that gave the first hand report knows that the number of
> > GTU is estimated to have 100,000 take off and landings a year.
>
> According to the FAA, it's actually just under 87,000 operations per year.
> Compare that with Arlington, WA (KAWO...I mentioned it earlier) with 135,000

As I said, estimated.

>
> > [...] The pilots wanted the tower to improve safety at the airport.
>
> Be that as it may, it's not clear that a control tower is needed, nor should
> the lack of a control tower have led to this accident (nor would a control
> tower necessarily have prevented it, for that matter).

The FAA has done studies and agreed to the tower. While it is not
clear that a control tower would have prevented this accident, having
a control tower would force the issue of radio communication, runway
in use, traffic pattern.

> How would a control tower have prevented airplanes from crashing into the
> houses? How is that relevant at all to this accident?

It is called perspective. I was giving some of the recent history of
this airport. All of this is fuel for the fire for the anti airport
group.

>
> > One city official stated on TV that the FAA will now do a 90%
> > funded control tower at the airport.
>
> When an FAA official says that, then you can believe it.

I was reporting what was said by a city official on TV during the
article on the accident.

>
> > [...] It is fine to say that people should have been using their radios
> > and should have been looking for the other planes. But, until you
> > have been there, being a Monday quarterback is always easy and it is
> > easy to blame someone you don't know.
>
> I *have* been "there". I've flown into plenty of other airports that are
> similar. As far as playing "Monday quarterback", the first-hand account you
> posted makes very clear who was at fault. Having a control tower would not
> necessarily have prevented the accident, nor is there any indication that
> the lack of a control tower caused the accident.

First, I meant Monday morning quarterback. (Knew that didn't sound
right when I typed it.) Second, I was not the person that posted the
first-hand account. Third, I doubt that you have "been there". I
don't doubt that you have flown into airports that are similar and you
may be right about who is at fault. But, what I find more important
is to determine what could have been done to avert the accident.
Maybe that's because I have seen the look in the eyes of people that
have lost family of close friends in flying accidents. Assigning
blame is not that important, and that is all that Monday morning
quarterbacks do.


>
> > [...]
> > So, for those of you that do not fly out of the GTU airport, you
> > have the luxury of arguing that the building of control towers are a
> > function of the number of ops, not the number of accidents.
>
> You have the luxury too, and so does the guy who wrote the first-hand
> account. It's a simple fact, and it doesn't matter what airport you fly out
> of, the fact is the same for everyone.

No, it is different. NATA declared GTU as one of "America's 100 Most
Needed Airports." Part of the criteria to get on the list was the
amount of anti-airport sentiment faced by the airport. The
anti-airport groups use the number of accidents to show that the
airport is unsafe.


>
> > You have
> > the luxury of arguing about the merits of radio calls vs. see and
> > avoid.
>
> Ditto.

But, a control tower mandates radio traffic. It also monitors
traffic when it is open and will police unsafe practices.

>
> > You have the luxury of arguing about how to enter the traffic
> > pattern.
>
> Who said anything about pattern entry? That doesn't appear to be related to
> this accident at all.
>

Others in the thread did mention it.

> > You have the luxury of arguing about whether a towered
> > airport is safer than a nontowered airport.
>
> Huh? Now you're off the deep end. It's YOU and the guy whose account you
> posted who are claiming that a towered airport is safer than a nontowered
> airport. You brought it up. What "luxury" are the rest of us enjoying that
> you are not?

No, I am not going off the deep end. Obviously a towered airport is
safer than a nontowered airport for the same number of operations.
That is why we have towered airports.

>
> > Unfortunately the pilots
> > at GTU no longer have that luxury. They have to figure out how to
> > have a safe airport amidst a growing group of citizens that would like
> > to shut down the airport.
>
> None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with how to make the
> airport a safe airport. Yes, you need to get your act together (two crashes
> into houses in the last three years? geez), but your airport is no busier
> than a number of other non-towered airports, and is in fact quite a bit less
> busy than many non-towered airports. Quit blaming your problems on the lack
> of a control tower, and figure out why your local pilots just can't be
> bothered to look where they are going.

I really am not arguing for or against a tower. Pilots with more
experience than you or me that are based out of GTU feel that a tower
is needed. There are also some pilots that would prefer not to have
the tower because they are uncomfortable with towered airport
operations.
I am not blaming the problem on a lack of a control tower. Unlike
you, I don't really care what caused the problem, what I want to know
is what can be done to fix the problem. The FAA and other pilots feel
that a tower would help the situation. I'm okay with that.
And your last statement speaks volumes about why it is so
difficult to improve pilot safety. It is very easy to not see a plane
when it is in the ground clutter. I've noticed that the more
experienced pilots realize this and are less likely to criticize other
pilots. They know that something like this could just as easily
happen to them. They are the ones that take safety seriously. It is
the pilots that are quick to blame others and feel that it can't
happen to them that are the most difficult to reach.

>
> Pete

Fly safe,
Hobbes

[Andrew Gideon]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Control towers are not always the answer.

That's true, but it's one additional person that must make a mistake (or
lose awareness) for something bad to happen. It's not a perfect solution,
but it does improve the odds.

It's a mistake to *depend* upon the tower, though. There's someone with
whom I'll no longer fly because he one refused to shift his approach to
avoid an aircraft because the (class D tower) had "cleared" him for entry
to the downwind. That same person immediately placed all blame upon that
same tower for a midair there a while back.

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> That's true, but it's one additional person that must make a mistake (or
> lose awareness) for something bad to happen.

It's also one additional person who can make a mistake and create a
hazardous situation where none previously existed.

> It's not a perfect solution, but it does improve the odds.

Are you sure? I've never seen any statistics that prove that a tower
"improves the odds". Due to the additional failure modes, it could just as
easily reduce the odds. There are lots of examples of where adding manpower
doesn't improve efficiency, quality, or safety. This might be one of them.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
om...
> [...] But, what I find more important
> is to determine what could have been done to avert the accident.
> [...] Assigning
> blame is not that important, and that is all that Monday morning
> quarterbacks do.

No proper accident analysis comes to any conclusion without assigning blame.
Without knowing who caused the accident, it is impossible to suggest how the
accident happened or how one might avoid similar accidents in the future.

> [...] The
> anti-airport groups use the number of accidents to show that the
> airport is unsafe.

If the airport has a greater-than-average number of accidents than other
comparable airports, then it IS unsafe. That has nothing to do with someone
trying to argue that a control tower is justified just because of the number
of accidents. The only way to successfully make that latter argument is to
first prove that the lack of the control tower is the primary cause of the
accidents in the first place. If there are other comparable airports with
better safety records than yours and which also don't have a control tower,
that would suggest it's not the lack of a control tower causing the problem.

> [...]
> No, I am not going off the deep end. Obviously a towered airport is
> safer than a nontowered airport for the same number of operations.
> That is why we have towered airports.

Obviously? Hardly. At most, you *might* be able to say that above a
certain traffic volume, towered airports are safer. At worst, all you can
say is that a towered airport helps solve a variety of resource management
issues. Towers are NOT created simply for the purpose of enhancing safety;
they address a variety of other needs as well, and may be desirable even
where they do nothing to enhance safety.

> I really am not arguing for or against a tower.

Neither am I. I'm simply pointing out that the control tower issue, this
accident, and the overall safety issue are not necessarily related at all.

> I am not blaming the problem on a lack of a control tower. Unlike
> you, I don't really care what caused the problem, what I want to know
> is what can be done to fix the problem.

Again, you cannot fix a problem until you know what it is. If you don't
know the cause, you don't know what the problem is, and you can't fix it.
It's absurd to say that you "don't really care what caused the problem" and
yet then to say that you "want to know...what can be done to fix the
problem". Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

> And your last statement speaks volumes about why it is so
> difficult to improve pilot safety.

How so?

> It is very easy to not see a plane when it is in the ground clutter.

Never said it wasn't. But a tower doesn't help you see an airplane lost in
the ground clutter.

> [...] It is
> the pilots that are quick to blame others and feel that it can't
> happen to them that are the most difficult to reach.

I'm seeing a personal attack on my own flight safety here...you sure you
meant it that way? In any case, I am not quick to blame the pilot here.
The person whose first-hand account you provided was. I'm simply taking his
statement at face value. Perhaps you should take HIM to task for being
quick to blame others.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
But a tower doesn't help you see an airplane lost in
the ground clutter.
<<

A tower can make a pilot aware that there IS (rather than might be) an airplane
somewhere over there in the ground clutter. It can even give the pilot an idea
as to where.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...] But, what I find more important
> > is to determine what could have been done to avert the accident.
> > [...] Assigning
> > blame is not that important, and that is all that Monday morning
> > quarterbacks do.
>
> No proper accident analysis comes to any conclusion without assigning blame.
> Without knowing who caused the accident, it is impossible to suggest how the
> accident happened or how one might avoid similar accidents in the future.
>

You are not conducting a proper accident analysis. You are assigning
blame based on one report that you have read. In addition, it is
possible to suggest how to avoid similar accidents without assigning
blame. Please reread
the first person account. Who might or might not have had the last
opportunity to do something to avert the midair?

>
> > [...] The
> > anti-airport groups use the number of accidents to show that the
> > airport is unsafe.
>
> If the airport has a greater-than-average number of accidents than other
> comparable airports, then it IS unsafe. That has nothing to do with someone
> trying to argue that a control tower is justified just because of the number
> of accidents. The only way to successfully make that latter argument is to
> first prove that the lack of the control tower is the primary cause of the
> accidents in the first place. If there are other comparable airports with
> better safety records than yours and which also don't have a control tower,
> that would suggest it's not the lack of a control tower causing the problem.
>

No, just because an airport has a greater-than-average number of
accidents
than other comparable airports does not mean that it is unsafe. All
it means
is that it has more accidents than the average. Even if all airports
were safe, some airports would have more accidents than the average,
and even if
all airports were unsafe, some would have less accidents than the
average.
The average number of accidents says nothing about the safety of an
airport.

>
> > [...]
> > No, I am not going off the deep end. Obviously a towered airport is
> > safer than a nontowered airport for the same number of operations.
> > That is why we have towered airports.
>
> Obviously? Hardly. At most, you *might* be able to say that above a
> certain traffic volume, towered airports are safer. At worst, all you can
> say is that a towered airport helps solve a variety of resource management
> issues. Towers are NOT created simply for the purpose of enhancing safety;
> they address a variety of other needs as well, and may be desirable even
> where they do nothing to enhance safety.
>

Obviously? Yes. Towers have been established to provide for a safe,
orderly
and expeditious flow of traffic on and in the vicinity of an airport.
(AIM 4-1-2)

>
>
> > I really am not arguing for or against a tower.
>
> Neither am I. I'm simply pointing out that the control tower issue, this
> accident, and the overall safety issue are not necessarily related at all.

I disagree. Towers have the effect of controlling the activities that
go on
at the airport. They act as a single point of authority and tend to
curb
pilots' attitudes.

>
> > I am not blaming the problem on a lack of a control tower. Unlike
> > you, I don't really care what caused the problem, what I want to know
> > is what can be done to fix the problem.
>
> Again, you cannot fix a problem until you know what it is. If you don't
> know the cause, you don't know what the problem is, and you can't fix it.
> It's absurd to say that you "don't really care what caused the problem" and
> yet then to say that you "want to know...what can be done to fix the
> problem". Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
>

They are not mutually exclusive. You may never know what caused the
problem,
but that doesn't mean that you can't offer solutions to mitigate the
possibility of future problems/accidents.

>
>
>
>
> > And your last statement speaks volumes about why it is so
> > difficult to improve pilot safety.
>
> How so?
>
> > It is very easy to not see a plane when it is in the ground clutter.
>
> Never said it wasn't. But a tower doesn't help you see an airplane lost in
> the ground clutter.
>

No, but a tower might see the problem developing and provide a course
of
action to avoid the accident.

>
>
> > [...] It is
> > the pilots that are quick to blame others and feel that it can't
> > happen to them that are the most difficult to reach.
>
> I'm seeing a personal attack on my own flight safety here...you sure you
> meant it that way? In any case, I am not quick to blame the pilot here.
> The person whose first-hand account you provided was. I'm simply taking his
> statement at face value. Perhaps you should take HIM to task for being
> quick to blame others.
>
> Pete
>

I was addressing the hazardous attitude that I have seen both here, in
these
newsgroups, and in person, that of "Invulnerability." It is up to
each
individual to determine if it applies to him/her.

I did not provide the first-hand account. I just reread the
first-hand report, and I do not see where he blamed either pilot. In
one of your other
posts, I do see that you state that the report unequivocally puts the
Extra pilot at fault. Later on, you then state that you would put the
blame on one
pilot.

Hobbes

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...] But, what I find more important
> > is to determine what could have been done to avert the accident.
> > [...] Assigning
> > blame is not that important, and that is all that Monday morning
> > quarterbacks do.
>
> No proper accident analysis comes to any conclusion without assigning blame.
> Without knowing who caused the accident, it is impossible to suggest how the
> accident happened or how one might avoid similar accidents in the future.
>

You are not conducting a proper accident analysis. You are assigning
blame based on one report that you have read. In addition, it is
possible to suggest how to avoid similar accidents without assigning
blame. Please reread
the first person account. Who might or might not have had the last
opportunity to do something to avert the midair?

>
> > [...] The
> > anti-airport groups use the number of accidents to show that the
> > airport is unsafe.
>
> If the airport has a greater-than-average number of accidents than other
> comparable airports, then it IS unsafe. That has nothing to do with someone
> trying to argue that a control tower is justified just because of the number
> of accidents. The only way to successfully make that latter argument is to
> first prove that the lack of the control tower is the primary cause of the
> accidents in the first place. If there are other comparable airports with
> better safety records than yours and which also don't have a control tower,
> that would suggest it's not the lack of a control tower causing the problem.
>

No, just because an airport has a greater-than-average number of
accidents
than other comparable airports does not mean that it is unsafe. All
it means
is that it has more accidents than the average. Even if all airports
were safe, some airports would have more accidents than the average,
and even if
all airports were unsafe, some would have less accidents than the
average.
The average number of accidents says nothing about the safety of an
airport.

>
> > [...]
> > No, I am not going off the deep end. Obviously a towered airport is
> > safer than a nontowered airport for the same number of operations.
> > That is why we have towered airports.
>
> Obviously? Hardly. At most, you *might* be able to say that above a
> certain traffic volume, towered airports are safer. At worst, all you can
> say is that a towered airport helps solve a variety of resource management
> issues. Towers are NOT created simply for the purpose of enhancing safety;
> they address a variety of other needs as well, and may be desirable even
> where they do nothing to enhance safety.
>

Obviously? Yes. Towers have been established to provide for a safe,
orderly
and expeditious flow of traffic on and in the vicinity of an airport.
(AIM 4-1-2)

>
>
> > I really am not arguing for or against a tower.
>
> Neither am I. I'm simply pointing out that the control tower issue, this
> accident, and the overall safety issue are not necessarily related at all.

I disagree. Towers have the effect of controlling the activities that
go on
at the airport. They act as a single point of authority and tend to
curb
pilots' attitudes.

>
> > I am not blaming the problem on a lack of a control tower. Unlike
> > you, I don't really care what caused the problem, what I want to know
> > is what can be done to fix the problem.
>
> Again, you cannot fix a problem until you know what it is. If you don't
> know the cause, you don't know what the problem is, and you can't fix it.
> It's absurd to say that you "don't really care what caused the problem" and
> yet then to say that you "want to know...what can be done to fix the
> problem". Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
>

They are not mutually exclusive. You may never know what caused the
problem,
but that doesn't mean that you can't offer solutions to mitigate the
possibility of future problems/accidents.

>
>
>
>
> > And your last statement speaks volumes about why it is so
> > difficult to improve pilot safety.
>
> How so?
>
> > It is very easy to not see a plane when it is in the ground clutter.
>
> Never said it wasn't. But a tower doesn't help you see an airplane lost in
> the ground clutter.
>

No, but a tower might see the problem developing and provide a course
of
action to avoid the accident.

>
>
> > [...] It is
> > the pilots that are quick to blame others and feel that it can't
> > happen to them that are the most difficult to reach.
>
> I'm seeing a personal attack on my own flight safety here...you sure you
> meant it that way? In any case, I am not quick to blame the pilot here.
> The person whose first-hand account you provided was. I'm simply taking his
> statement at face value. Perhaps you should take HIM to task for being
> quick to blame others.
>
> Pete
>

I was addressing the hazardous attitude that I have seen both here, in
these
newsgroups, and in person, that of "Invulnerability." It is up to
each
individual to determine if it applies to him/her.

I did not provide the first-hand account. I just reread the
first-hand report, and I do not see where he blamed either pilot. In
one of your other
posts, I do see that you state that the report unequivocally puts the
Extra pilot at fault. Later on, you then state that you would put the
blame on one
pilot.

Hobbes

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...] But, what I find more important
> > is to determine what could have been done to avert the accident.
> > [...] Assigning
> > blame is not that important, and that is all that Monday morning
> > quarterbacks do.
>
> No proper accident analysis comes to any conclusion without assigning blame.
> Without knowing who caused the accident, it is impossible to suggest how the
> accident happened or how one might avoid similar accidents in the future.
>

You are not conducting a proper accident analysis. You are assigning
blame based on one report that you have read. In addition, it is
possible to suggest how to avoid similar accidents without assigning
blame. Please reread
the first person account. Who might or might not have had the last
opportunity to do something to avert the midair?

>
> > [...] The
> > anti-airport groups use the number of accidents to show that the
> > airport is unsafe.
>
> If the airport has a greater-than-average number of accidents than other
> comparable airports, then it IS unsafe. That has nothing to do with someone
> trying to argue that a control tower is justified just because of the number
> of accidents. The only way to successfully make that latter argument is to
> first prove that the lack of the control tower is the primary cause of the
> accidents in the first place. If there are other comparable airports with
> better safety records than yours and which also don't have a control tower,
> that would suggest it's not the lack of a control tower causing the problem.
>

No, just because an airport has a greater-than-average number of
accidents
than other comparable airports does not mean that it is unsafe. All
it means
is that it has more accidents than the average. Even if all airports
were safe, some airports would have more accidents than the average,
and even if
all airports were unsafe, some would have less accidents than the
average.
The average number of accidents says nothing about the safety of an
airport.

>
> > [...]
> > No, I am not going off the deep end. Obviously a towered airport is
> > safer than a nontowered airport for the same number of operations.
> > That is why we have towered airports.
>
> Obviously? Hardly. At most, you *might* be able to say that above a
> certain traffic volume, towered airports are safer. At worst, all you can
> say is that a towered airport helps solve a variety of resource management
> issues. Towers are NOT created simply for the purpose of enhancing safety;
> they address a variety of other needs as well, and may be desirable even
> where they do nothing to enhance safety.
>

Obviously? Yes. Towers have been established to provide for a safe,
orderly
and expeditious flow of traffic on and in the vicinity of an airport.
(AIM 4-1-2)

>
>
> > I really am not arguing for or against a tower.
>
> Neither am I. I'm simply pointing out that the control tower issue, this
> accident, and the overall safety issue are not necessarily related at all.

I disagree. Towers have the effect of controlling the activities that
go on
at the airport. They act as a single point of authority and tend to
curb
pilots' attitudes.

>
> > I am not blaming the problem on a lack of a control tower. Unlike
> > you, I don't really care what caused the problem, what I want to know
> > is what can be done to fix the problem.
>
> Again, you cannot fix a problem until you know what it is. If you don't
> know the cause, you don't know what the problem is, and you can't fix it.
> It's absurd to say that you "don't really care what caused the problem" and
> yet then to say that you "want to know...what can be done to fix the
> problem". Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
>

They are not mutually exclusive. You may never know what caused the
problem,
but that doesn't mean that you can't offer solutions to mitigate the
possibility of future problems/accidents.

>
>
>
>
> > And your last statement speaks volumes about why it is so
> > difficult to improve pilot safety.
>
> How so?
>
> > It is very easy to not see a plane when it is in the ground clutter.
>
> Never said it wasn't. But a tower doesn't help you see an airplane lost in
> the ground clutter.
>

No, but a tower might see the problem developing and provide a course
of
action to avoid the accident.

>
>
> > [...] It is
> > the pilots that are quick to blame others and feel that it can't
> > happen to them that are the most difficult to reach.
>
> I'm seeing a personal attack on my own flight safety here...you sure you
> meant it that way? In any case, I am not quick to blame the pilot here.
> The person whose first-hand account you provided was. I'm simply taking his
> statement at face value. Perhaps you should take HIM to task for being
> quick to blame others.
>
> Pete
>

I was addressing the hazardous attitude that I have seen both here, in
these
newsgroups, and in person, that of "Invulnerability." It is up to
each
individual to determine if it applies to him/her.

I did not provide the first-hand account. I just reread the
first-hand report, and I do not see where he blamed either pilot. In
one of your other
posts, I do see that you state that the report unequivocally puts the
Extra pilot at fault. Later on, you then state that you would put the
blame on one
pilot.

Hobbes

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...] But, what I find more important
> > is to determine what could have been done to avert the accident.
> > [...] Assigning
> > blame is not that important, and that is all that Monday morning
> > quarterbacks do.
>
> No proper accident analysis comes to any conclusion without assigning blame.
> Without knowing who caused the accident, it is impossible to suggest how the
> accident happened or how one might avoid similar accidents in the future.
>

You are not conducting a proper accident analysis. You are assigning
blame based on one report that you have read. In addition, it is
possible to suggest how to avoid similar accidents without assigning
blame. Please reread
the first person account. Who might or might not have had the last
opportunity to do something to avert the midair?

>
> > [...] The
> > anti-airport groups use the number of accidents to show that the
> > airport is unsafe.
>
> If the airport has a greater-than-average number of accidents than other
> comparable airports, then it IS unsafe. That has nothing to do with someone
> trying to argue that a control tower is justified just because of the number
> of accidents. The only way to successfully make that latter argument is to
> first prove that the lack of the control tower is the primary cause of the
> accidents in the first place. If there are other comparable airports with
> better safety records than yours and which also don't have a control tower,
> that would suggest it's not the lack of a control tower causing the problem.
>

No, just because an airport has a greater-than-average number of
accidents
than other comparable airports does not mean that it is unsafe. All
it means
is that it has more accidents than the average. Even if all airports
were safe, some airports would have more accidents than the average,
and even if
all airports were unsafe, some would have less accidents than the
average.
The average number of accidents says nothing about the safety of an
airport.

>
> > [...]
> > No, I am not going off the deep end. Obviously a towered airport is
> > safer than a nontowered airport for the same number of operations.
> > That is why we have towered airports.
>
> Obviously? Hardly. At most, you *might* be able to say that above a
> certain traffic volume, towered airports are safer. At worst, all you can
> say is that a towered airport helps solve a variety of resource management
> issues. Towers are NOT created simply for the purpose of enhancing safety;
> they address a variety of other needs as well, and may be desirable even
> where they do nothing to enhance safety.
>

Obviously? Yes. Towers have been established to provide for a safe,
orderly
and expeditious flow of traffic on and in the vicinity of an airport.
(AIM 4-1-2)

>
>
> > I really am not arguing for or against a tower.
>
> Neither am I. I'm simply pointing out that the control tower issue, this
> accident, and the overall safety issue are not necessarily related at all.

I disagree. Towers have the effect of controlling the activities that
go on
at the airport. They act as a single point of authority and tend to
curb
pilots' attitudes.

>
> > I am not blaming the problem on a lack of a control tower. Unlike
> > you, I don't really care what caused the problem, what I want to know
> > is what can be done to fix the problem.
>
> Again, you cannot fix a problem until you know what it is. If you don't
> know the cause, you don't know what the problem is, and you can't fix it.
> It's absurd to say that you "don't really care what caused the problem" and
> yet then to say that you "want to know...what can be done to fix the
> problem". Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
>

They are not mutually exclusive. You may never know what caused the
problem,
but that doesn't mean that you can't offer solutions to mitigate the
possibility of future problems/accidents.

>
>
>
>
> > And your last statement speaks volumes about why it is so
> > difficult to improve pilot safety.
>
> How so?
>
> > It is very easy to not see a plane when it is in the ground clutter.
>
> Never said it wasn't. But a tower doesn't help you see an airplane lost in
> the ground clutter.
>

No, but a tower might see the problem developing and provide a course
of
action to avoid the accident.

>
>
> > [...] It is
> > the pilots that are quick to blame others and feel that it can't
> > happen to them that are the most difficult to reach.
>
> I'm seeing a personal attack on my own flight safety here...you sure you
> meant it that way? In any case, I am not quick to blame the pilot here.
> The person whose first-hand account you provided was. I'm simply taking his
> statement at face value. Perhaps you should take HIM to task for being
> quick to blame others.
>
> Pete
>

I was addressing the hazardous attitude that I have seen both here, in
these
newsgroups, and in person, that of "Invulnerability." It is up to
each
individual to determine if it applies to him/her.

I did not provide the first-hand account. I just reread the
first-hand report, and I do not see where he blamed either pilot. In
one of your other
posts, I do see that you state that the report unequivocally puts the
Extra pilot at fault. Later on, you then state that you would put the
blame on one
pilot.

Hobbes

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> A tower can make a pilot aware that there IS (rather than might be) an
airplane
> somewhere over there in the ground clutter. It can even give the pilot an
idea
> as to where.

It can also tell you that the airplane is a long way from where it actually
is (Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column recently related a fatal accident
caused by this very thing).

I have had tower controllers make all sorts of mistakes. If it weren't for
the fact that I already had a good mental picture of the situation, and had
visually identified the traffic prior to the tower's instructions, each of
those mistakes could easily have resulted in a fatal accident.

I like towered airports, and having a tower does solve a variety of
problems. But it is simply false to assume that mid-air collisions are
prevented by tower controllers. The accident rates don't bear that out.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
om...
> [snipped]

You know, posting it four times, once in HTML, doesn't make incorrect
conclusions any more correct.

[Richard Russell]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 00:22:24 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>> A tower can make a pilot aware that there IS (rather than might be) an
>airplane
>> somewhere over there in the ground clutter. It can even give the pilot an
>idea
>> as to where.
>
>It can also tell you that the airplane is a long way from where it actually
>is (Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column recently related a fatal accident
>caused by this very thing).
>
>I have had tower controllers make all sorts of mistakes. If it weren't for
>the fact that I already had a good mental picture of the situation, and had
>visually identified the traffic prior to the tower's instructions, each of
>those mistakes could easily have resulted in a fatal accident.
>
>I like towered airports, and having a tower does solve a variety of
>problems. But it is simply false to assume that mid-air collisions are
>prevented by tower controllers. The accident rates don't bear that out.
>
>Pete
>

Amen. I have encountered more disturbing situations at towered fields
than I have at uncontrolled fields. When I say towered, they
invariably are Class D. It's not always the controllers fault as they
are dependent upon accurate position data from the pilots. Sometimes,
however, it is their fault. An example, which happened to me and
surely many others is being told to position and hold and then
clearing someone to land (having clearly forgotten about you). I do
not avoid Class D airports but I do consider them to be at least as
hazardous, if not more, than uncontrolled fields.
Rich Russell

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 00:24:35 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>You know, posting it four times, once in HTML, doesn't make incorrect
>conclusions any more correct.

Peter, had the situation that resulted in the midair occured at a
towered airport, isn't it highly likely that because both airplanes
would necessarily have had to call in, they'd have been made aware of
each other and assigned positions to land? That is, if both had
radios of course.

Doesn't that situation (being made aware of one another and being
assigned a number to land) lend itself to being more safe than the
situation in which the Extra literally landed on top of the other
airplane because he did not see him in the pattern?

Corky Scott

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 00:24:35 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
> >You know, posting it four times, once in HTML, doesn't make incorrect
> >conclusions any more correct.
>
> Peter, had the situation that resulted in the midair occured at a
> towered airport, isn't it highly likely that because both airplanes
> would necessarily have had to call in, they'd have been made aware of
> each other and assigned positions to land? That is, if both had
> radios of course.
>
> Doesn't that situation (being made aware of one another and being
> assigned a number to land) lend itself to being more safe than the
> situation in which the Extra literally landed on top of the other
> airplane because he did not see him in the pattern?
>
> Corky Scott

I doubt any evidence can be provided to support either side of the
towered/non-towered airport safety record but my experience in multiple
incidents is if the towers were closed safety would improve. Class B and
some class C airports excepted.

[Teacherjh]

>>
It can also tell you that the airplane is a long way from where it actually
is [...] I have had tower controllers make all sorts of mistakes.
<<

.... and then the pilot is there to catch it. TWO people have to make a mistake
rather than just one.

Not that it automatically makes anything safer, but an extra pair of eyes is
always good, as long as it is extra, and not replacement.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dave Stadt]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message > >
>
> Amen. I have encountered more disturbing situations at towered fields
> than I have at uncontrolled fields. When I say towered, they
> invariably are Class D. It's not always the controllers fault as they
> are dependent upon accurate position data from the pilots. Sometimes,
> however, it is their fault. An example, which happened to me and
> surely many others is being told to position and hold and then
> clearing someone to land (having clearly forgotten about you). I do
> not avoid Class D airports but I do consider them to be at least as
> hazardous, if not more, than uncontrolled fields.
> Rich Russell

Quadruple amen times 10.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Peter, had the situation that resulted in the midair occured at a
> towered airport, isn't it highly likely that because both airplanes
> would necessarily have had to call in, they'd have been made aware of
> each other and assigned positions to land?

Possible? Yes. Likely? No one can say. Mid-airs happen at towered
airports too. As long as there are humans in the loop, accidents will
happen. And it's impossible to take humans out of the loop (even automation
relies on humans at some point).

> Doesn't that situation (being made aware of one another and being
> assigned a number to land) lend itself to being more safe than the
> situation in which the Extra literally landed on top of the other
> airplane because he did not see him in the pattern?

You might hope it would. But knowing about the other plane has not in the
past always prevented accidents. I don't see why it always would in the
future.

Pete

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:31:10 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

What I don't understand is folks that do their own "position and hold"
at non-towered airports. In doing so, they've got nobody at all
looking out for their back-side.... Kinda like pulling your pants
down in public and hoping nobody will take "advantage" of you!

Bela P. Havasreti

>
>"Richard Russell" > wrote in message > >
>>
>> Amen. I have encountered more disturbing situations at towered fields
>> than I have at uncontrolled fields. When I say towered, they
>> invariably are Class D. It's not always the controllers fault as they
>> are dependent upon accurate position data from the pilots. Sometimes,
>> however, it is their fault. An example, which happened to me and
>> surely many others is being told to position and hold and then
>> clearing someone to land (having clearly forgotten about you). I do
>> not avoid Class D airports but I do consider them to be at least as
>> hazardous, if not more, than uncontrolled fields.
>> Rich Russell
>
>Quadruple amen times 10.
>

[Nasir]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > That's true, but it's one additional person that must make a mistake (or
> > lose awareness) for something bad to happen.
>
> It's also one additional person who can make a mistake and create a
> hazardous situation where none previously existed.
>
> > It's not a perfect solution, but it does improve the odds.
>
> Are you sure? I've never seen any statistics that prove that a tower
> "improves the odds". Due to the additional failure modes, it could just
as
> easily reduce the odds. There are lots of examples of where adding
manpower
> doesn't improve efficiency, quality, or safety. This might be one of
them.

From 1st January 1989 to 30 June 1999, seventeen mid-air collisions were
reported in French Territory.

Twelve collisions occurred in uncontrolled airspace (UA). Three took place
in controlled airspace (CA) in which radio contact was not compulsory.
Finally, there were two accidents in controlled airspace where radio contact
was compulsory.
In three cases, one of the two aircraft was passing from controlled airspace
to uncontrolled airspace.

http://www.bea-fr.org/etudes/abordageseng/midair.htm

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> om...
> > [snipped]
>
> You know, posting it four times, once in HTML, doesn't make incorrect
> conclusions any more correct.

Well Peter, welcome to the wonderful world of using Google Groups to
post a
message.

I beleive that reasonable people will not disregard my point simply
because of the multiple posting. When the Google software did not
respond, I resumbitted it, because I felt my message was important. I
posted the message, not to change your position on this matter, but
to, hopefully, reach other pilots that would read the message.

Hobbes

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A tower can make a pilot aware that there IS (rather than might be) an
> airplane
> > somewhere over there in the ground clutter. It can even give the pilot an
> idea
> > as to where.
>
> It can also tell you that the airplane is a long way from where it actually
> is (Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column recently related a fatal accident
> caused by this very thing).
>
> I have had tower controllers make all sorts of mistakes. If it weren't for
> the fact that I already had a good mental picture of the situation, and had
> visually identified the traffic prior to the tower's instructions, each of
> those mistakes could easily have resulted in a fatal accident.
>
> I like towered airports, and having a tower does solve a variety of
> problems. But it is simply false to assume that mid-air collisions are
> prevented by tower controllers. The accident rates don't bear that out.
>
> Pete

No one is saying that a tower will prevent all mid-air collisions.
But, a tower does improve safety. You are misunderstanding the
accident rates. If the question is, is it safer to fly into GTU,
Georgetown Texas, non-towered, or into AUS, Austin, towered class C,
then, if the statistics supported it, you could argue that it is safer
to fly into a non-towered airport.

However, that is not the issue being discussed. The question is,
would the GTU airport be safer with a tower? When the FAA determines
that an airport will be safer, based on a number of factors, they
authorize a tower. The FAA
has done so. The FAA has realized that if the number of operations a
year is below a certain number, a tower will not improve safety enough
to justify a tower. After the number of operations reaches a given
threshold, they do realize that a tower will be justified. Average
number of operations per day is just one simple statistic. The number
of operations per day can vary widely based on the weather and the day
of the week. So, just looking at total number of operation a year
does not tell the whole picture. For that reason, the FAA does a
detailed study to determine the need for a tower.

You state that "the accident rates don't bear that out." I take this
to mean that there are more mid-airs at towered airports than at
non-towered airports. Do you actually think the total number of
mid-airs would go down if we got rid of all of the towered airports
that are not class C or class B?
I ask that question so that reasonable people will understand that it
is ridiculous to think that. It is just as ridiculous to think that
all mid-airs will be eliminated if all airports had towers.

For GTU, the question is more difficult. Will safety and other
operational considerations be improved enough to justify the expense
of a tower? Experienced pilots, FBO's on the field, and the FAA
believe the answer is yes. The anti-airport contingent don't want the
tower, because they feel it will further expand the airport and make
it more difficult to close.

Unfortunately, there is a group of pilots that are afraid of towered
operations. These are usually the pilots that trained at a
non-towered field and have simply never been trained in tower
operations. Most of these are good pilots, but some are a safety
issue. They fly into non-towered airports because their skills are
not up to the standards of towered operations.

There is also a group of pilots that were trained at a towered
airport. These pilots are afraid of non-towered operations. Most of
these are good pilots, but some are a safety issue because they depend
too much on having a tower tell them what to do and on radio
communication. They sometimes forget the importance of see and avoid.
The pilots are a danger at both towered and non-towered fields, but
it is less obvious at a towered airport.

Fly safe,
Hobbes

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> You might hope it would. But knowing about the other plane has not in the
> past always prevented accidents. I don't see why it always would in the
> future.
>

The infamous case of a PSA B727 running over a C-172 under the hood at
San Diego comes to mind.

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/78-09-25(PSA).asp

Despite this I think the odds are still better with a control tower,
however you still have to look!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Richard Russell > wrote in message >...
>
> Amen. I have encountered more disturbing situations at towered fields
> than I have at uncontrolled fields.
>

No doubt because towered fields tend to have more traffic than
uncontrolled fields.


>
> When I say towered, they
> invariably are Class D. It's not always the controllers fault as they
> are dependent upon accurate position data from the pilots.
>

Some pilots are hoorribly inaccurate with position reports. Austin
approach provides IFR services to Georgetown, they're about 29 miles
away. If a tower was established at Georgetown it would probably be
equipped with a BRITE scope and feed from the Austin radar. That
would ease the position report problem.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
om...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > A tower can make a pilot aware that there IS (rather than might be) an
> > airplane
> > > somewhere over there in the ground clutter. It can even give the
pilot an
> > idea
> > > as to where.
> >
> > It can also tell you that the airplane is a long way from where it
actually
> > is (Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column recently related a fatal
accident
> > caused by this very thing).
> >
> > I have had tower controllers make all sorts of mistakes. If it weren't
for
> > the fact that I already had a good mental picture of the situation, and
had
> > visually identified the traffic prior to the tower's instructions, each
of
> > those mistakes could easily have resulted in a fatal accident.
> >
> > I like towered airports, and having a tower does solve a variety of
> > problems. But it is simply false to assume that mid-air collisions are
> > prevented by tower controllers. The accident rates don't bear that out.
> >
> > Pete
>
> No one is saying that a tower will prevent all mid-air collisions.
> But, a tower does improve safety.

Not saying it isn't true but I have not seen anything to support the fact
towers improve safety. Could you provide a reference especially regarding
class D airports. I can see it is probably true for class B and C but have
my doubts about Class D.

[Max T, CFI]

Thanks for mentioning where Bill is these days. I knew him when he was in
CA about 8 years ago, but lost track of him. We were both very active in Los Medicos Voladores
(Flying Doctors) flying medical teams to Mexico to provide free services. Great guy.
Max T, CFI

Jeff Meininger > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > writes:
> > "Nasir" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> >> [...]
> >
> > The guy who wrote that account should
> > probably be informed that number of operations is what affects whether a
> > control tower is at an airport or not, rather than number of accidents.
> >
>
> I should probably keep my mouth shut as I'm not even an official student
> pilot yet... but the author of that account is Bill Eldredge, the chief
> flight instructor at Wright Aviation (an FBO at GTU). I assume he knows
> what he's talking about. :) Also, AFAIK, GTU has been trying to raise
> money for a tower for a while now. I think they increased hangar rates
> by a significant amount for just this reason.

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Due to the additional failure modes, it could just
> as
> easily reduce the odds.

I'm not sure how you're seeing this. All additional failure modes are
independent of anything that exists w/o the tower. That is, any way that
the tower can fail has no impact on the "see & avoid" technique that would
be present with or without a tower.

At least, this is what I see. What do you see differently?

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> [...]
> I'm not sure how you're seeing this. All additional failure modes are
> independent of anything that exists w/o the tower. That is, any way that
> the tower can fail has no impact on the "see & avoid" technique that would
> be present with or without a tower.

A tower failure mode can introduce a situation where a pilot who would
otherwise have been more diligent about "see & avoid" might wind up relaxing
their efforts, resulting in a crash. Mid-airs in Class D airspace very
likely almost always involve at least to some degree this effect.

The failure modes are NOT independent.

Pete

[Alan Fletcher]

"Nasir" > wrote in message >...
> There was a midair at Georgetown yesterday. Apparently two planes were on
> final and landed on top of each other. Both pilots had injuries but both
> survived.
>
> Anyone know more details on this? Was it lack of radio communication ..did
> they just not announce positions or something else was involved?
>
> -Nasir


A very similar accident few years ago in Mascouche (near Montreal)
Canada...

Here's the link to the report
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1997/a97q0250/a97q0250.asp

Best wishes for both pilots involved.

[[email protected]]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...And the Diamond pilot was walking around????

I toured their factory last year...and took note of the
seating structure that they said would not collapse under the
occupant/pilot..

Kinda looks like they got it right, at least in this case...

Dave


On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:44:27 GMT, "Nasir"
> wrote:

>"Jeff Meininger" > wrote in message

>
>Folks,
>
>What we have been talking about, and fearing happened this afternoon at the
>Georgetown airport. I was taxiing to the run-up area near runway 18 when I
>saw a Diamond Star on short final. Then all of a sudden I saw a yellow and
>blue Extra sport plane approaching fast from short left base to final. He
>was higher and slipping down from behind as they usually do. At first I
>could not believe my eyes. It looked like the Extra sport plane was going to
>go around, or over the Diamond and then they collided about 50 feet in the
>air. Both planes spun around in the air and landed on the runway. The
>Diamond spun in and landed on its nose then settled on its mains. The Extra
>did a flat spin and hit hard on the runway. It happened so fast. I don't
>recall hearing any radio calls prior to the collision. Anyway, we stopped in
>the run-up area and I got out and ran over to the wreckage on the runway.
>The pilot of the Diamond was walking around in a daze and the Extra pilot
>was laying on his back on the runway. When I got to him, he was in pain and
>complaining about his back. He kept saying that he never saw the other
>plane. We calmed him down until emergency personnel came. EMS, Fire
>Department, DPS and Police were there in a very short time. The news media
>was also there as usual.
>

>