Bonehead move today

[Viperdoc]

Went to Lone Rock, Wisconsin today for the $100 hamburger , with excellent
VFR conditions, and winds light and variable.

After lunch we saw a 210 taxi to the approach end of runway 27 (clearly
visible from the the far end at the restaurant). Just as he started his
takeoff roll, another guy in a 152 taxied onto runway 9, and announced his
departure from runway 9! (yes the opposite direction, with another plane
coming directly at him down the runway.

The 210 did a very steep climb straight ahead, while the 152 did some pretty
radical low level maneuvering to avoid a head on collision. Perhaps the guy
in the 152 assumed the 210 had departed on 09 (there are no taxiways, so
everything is a back taxi, and the winds were light and variable), and the
guy in the 210 wasn't taking at all over unicom, but even so, the far end of
the runway was clearly visible, and there was a big as life 210 rolling in
the opposite direction.

It was about as close to a catastrophe as I'd ever seen, and the guy in my
right seat (CFI, multi, etc) agreed that the guy in the 152 probably never
looked. I'm not sure what to learn from theexperience, but it sure looked
like someone wasn't paying attention.

[John T]

Did the 210 make any announcements?

Wouldn't be surprised if the 152 had announced his back taxi a few
minutes earlier and wasn't really listening after that, even if the 210
anounced. That runway is what, 5K? (I fly out of Morey). Thats a long
taxi for any plane.

John

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:54:36 GMT, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>::

>It was about as close to a catastrophe as I'd ever seen,

How close to each other would you estimate the two departing aircraft
actually came?

[Viperdoc]

The 210 taxied from the hangar next to the restaurant all of the way to the
far end of the runway, while the 152 simply taxied from the restaurant
directly onto 9 and departed.

As I recall, the 210 only announced his taxi prior to going down the runway,
while the 152 said Cessna xxx departing runway 9, Lone Rock.

They converged at approximately midfield, with the 152 taking evasive action
by doing a steep right turn to the south away from the runway at low
altitude, while the 210 climbed on runway heading and did not take any
obvious evasive action. The 210 did not announce his takeoff roll, but he
clearly was on the runway and visible from the far end (where we were parked
in front of the restaurant). It happened so fast and we hadn't powered up
yet, so couldn't even have given a warning call on the radio.

It's hard to say, but from our perspective it looked like they came within
100 feet or less. In my opinion it was clearly the fault of the 152. For a
few brief moments there was a lot of traffic- a 337 landed, a Mooney was
running up, a Stearman departed, and we were cranking in the Baron, in
addition to the 152 and 210- a lot going on for a small uncontrolled field.

[Matt Whiting]

Viperdoc wrote:

> The 210 taxied from the hangar next to the restaurant all of the way to the
> far end of the runway, while the 152 simply taxied from the restaurant
> directly onto 9 and departed.
>
> As I recall, the 210 only announced his taxi prior to going down the runway,
> while the 152 said Cessna xxx departing runway 9, Lone Rock.
>
> They converged at approximately midfield, with the 152 taking evasive action
> by doing a steep right turn to the south away from the runway at low
> altitude, while the 210 climbed on runway heading and did not take any
> obvious evasive action. The 210 did not announce his takeoff roll, but he
> clearly was on the runway and visible from the far end (where we were parked
> in front of the restaurant). It happened so fast and we hadn't powered up
> yet, so couldn't even have given a warning call on the radio.

I agree that the 152 should have looked down the runway before
commencing his take-off roll, however, so should the 210 pilot. And if
the 210 pilot really didn't announce his intent to depart 27, then I'd
place the blame primarily on him/her.


Matt

[John T]

That is a lot of traffic for LNR...I've landed there about 3-4 times,
and we (instructor and I, or a bunch of us after a young eagles rally)
were usually the only traffic.

John

[[email protected]]

Viperdoc,
You weren't flying in your extra were you...?
I was out that way today in the afternoon and someone was putting on a
show just west of Morey. I think they saw me a few miles to the north
of their position, I gave a wing wag, and they gave a wing wag.

Ryan Wubben

[Jim Burns]

I'm pretty familiar with LNR, we used to own the farm land on 3 adjacent
sides of the airport. There are 3 or 4 run-up areas along the south edge of
the 9/27 that either could have used plus the 210 could have pulled off onto
36/18. Didn't either of them think of hitting the brakes and or maybe
pulling off into the run up areas?? What were they looking at as they rolled
down the runway towards each other? Although I don't know their weights or
the density altitude at the time, I think 9/27 is long enough for both of
them to accelerate/stop at the same time.

Bonehead move X 2 for sure.

Glad you weren't in either of their paths.

Jim

[Viperdoc]

Ryan:

Didn't fly the Extra today, but took the family and a friend in the sedan
(Baron). They're both fun to fly and a lot different.

By the way, are you coming back to visit us in MKE? We have some great trips
planned for the future.

JN

[Guy Elden Jr]

Sounds like a great reason to file an ASRS form to me.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[Jim Burns]

>For a
> few brief moments there was a lot of traffic- a 337 landed, a Mooney was
> running up, a Stearman departed, and we were cranking in the Baron, in
> addition to the 152 and 210- a lot going on for a small uncontrolled
field.
>

Sounds like the last time I was there. Traffic was using 27, so everybody
had to back taxi from the restaurant. When I was 1/2 way down, a plane
announced turning base to final, so I pulled off at one of the run-up areas
midway down the runway. I bet I waited there with both props spinning for
at least 4 planes to land before I got back out on the runway to finish my
taxi to the end.

Jim

[Morgans]

"Viperdoc" > wrote

> They converged at approximately midfield, with the 152 taking evasive
action
> by doing a steep right turn to the south away from the runway at low
> altitude, while the 210 climbed on runway heading and did not take any
> obvious evasive action.

My bet is that the 210 still doesn't know that there was any conflict during
his takeoff.
--
Jim in NC

[Brien K. Meehan]

Neither pilot had an obligation to announce anything on the radio.

[Viperdoc]

While neither pilot had any obligation to announce, if I had been in the 210
and somebody made a radio call saying they were departing off of the same
runway in the opposite direction it probably would have gotten my attention.

[Viperdoc]

Why file an ASRS? They didn't swap paint, there were no injuries, and as far
as I know there were no FAA officials present to write it up.

[Jay Honeck]

> Neither pilot had an obligation to announce anything on the radio.

Pilots aren't obligated by FAR to breathe, either -- but it's highly
recommended.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B. Jensen]

This is where common sense vs "by the book" conflict. You are correct
that "by the book" they didn't have to announce anything. However,
common sense tells us this was / is not the best course of action.

Anytime someone tells me he/she "flies strictly by the book", I pay 300%
more attention to what they are doing!! They ten d to be the most
dangerous pilots..IMO. The "book" is a good outline for structure, but
you must fill in the Chapters and pages with good common sense to be safe.

BJ

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

>Neither pilot had an obligation to announce anything on the radio.
>
>
>

[Guy Elden Jr]

The ASRS is there to report issues that affect flight safety. Having
two planes careening toward one another from opposite ends of a runway
at an uncontrolled field is something that I think should be reported.
Perhaps there is an issue with this particular field: could the planes
physically see each other from opposite ends? Did either / both pilots
actually use radio comms? The fact that all planes have to do a
taxi-back to either end of the runway certainly seems like a possible
factor that led to the near-miss. Who knows... maybe it's just a fluke
and isn't likely to reoccur. The point is the ASRS is there to make the
system safer, and should be used in instances like this (I think
anyways).

--
Guy

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Why file an ASRS? They didn't swap paint, there were no injuries, and as far
> as I know there were no FAA officials present to write it up.

Umm, to promote SAFETY??

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD
Capt, 110th Fighter Michigan ANG
University of Michigan Hospitals
Ann Arbor, MI

[[email protected]]

Uncontrolled fields can be scary. I learned to fly at one, and that has
programmed me from day one to stop, look & listen for the guy that
doesn't annouce position or intentions. I've seen some "stupid pilot
tricks" like the one described in this thread befoe - never got as
close as the 210 and 152 did though...

[Viperdoc]

How will filing an ASRS promote safety? Have you or anyone else read these
files and learned from the experience of others? Are they even available to
the public?

As stated in the original post, there was clear visibility from one end of
the runway to the other- one pilot didn't make radio calls, while the other
departed without looking. There were no physical limitations in visibility
from one end of the runway (including nearly 1000 feet of over run where we
were parked) to the other.

Do you think the FSDO will somehow take the information from an ASRS and use
it to investigate the circumstances or look at safety conditions at the
airport? If the involved pilots were so oblivious do you think they would
make an effort to improve their flying by filing the form?

In the abstract the ASRS may be beneficial, but from a practical perspective
in this scenario would have little to offer.

[Peter R.]

Viperdoc > wrote:

> How will filing an ASRS promote safety? Have you or anyone else read these
> files and learned from the experience of others? Are they even available to
> the public?

http://tinyurl.com/bmth3

--
Peter

[john smith]

Viperdoc wrote:
> How will filing an ASRS promote safety? Have you or anyone else read these
> files and learned from the experience of others? Are they even available to
> the public?

Doc, you need to read more! ASRS puts out a monthly newsletter (it's
free!), CALLBACK, that chronicals notable experiences by submitters of
NASA Form 277B (the reporting form). I have every issue that was ever
published (goes back about 30 years or so). They are also available online.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/

> As stated in the original post, there was clear visibility from one end of
> the runway to the other- one pilot didn't make radio calls, while the other
> departed without looking. There were no physical limitations in visibility
> from one end of the runway (including nearly 1000 feet of over run where we
> were parked) to the other.

Broaden your scope of thought the way these pilots should have broadened
their vision of their environment. Perhaps other incidents have occurred
at other airports under similar conditions. The analysts at ASRS may
find a common thread based on dissparate reports and determine a solution.

> Do you think the FSDO will somehow take the information from an ASRS and use
> it to investigate the circumstances or look at safety conditions at the
> airport? If the involved pilots were so oblivious do you think they would
> make an effort to improve their flying by filing the form?

That's not how the system works.

> In the abstract the ASRS may be beneficial, but from a practical perspective
> in this scenario would have little to offer.

Again, look at the big picture, not the the view through the pinhole.

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Pilots aren't obligated by FAR to breathe, either -- but it's highly
> recommended.

well, there are a thing or two about being physically fit
(14 CFR 67) and I am pretty sure that being alive is implied
even for sport pilots :-)

--Sylvain

[W P Dixon]

Nope don't even have a pulse!!!! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Pilots aren't obligated by FAR to breathe, either -- but it's highly
>> recommended.
>
> well, there are a thing or two about being physically fit
> (14 CFR 67) and I am pretty sure that being alive is implied
> even for sport pilots :-)
>
> --Sylvain

[Viperdoc]

I agree completely with the premise that collection of data can lead to
improved safety- this is one of the basic tenets of my job as a flight
surgeon.

However, I also had the the very real experience of nearly seeing two planes
collide and crash. In my civilian job as a surgeon at a level I trauma
center I see people on a near daily basis whose lives are irretrievably
changed through acts of stupidity or carelessness- the elderly lady shot
inadvertantly in a drive by shooting, or the family wiped out by a drunk
driver.

These things are very real, as was the near miss we saw the other day.
Filling out NASA forms is a voluntary process, and may be beneficial in the
abstract. Unless the data is utilized in some meaningful fashion, however,
it will have little benefit to the general flying public.

Most pilots would probably agree that they should self announce their
position and intent at uncontrolled airfields, as is recommended in the AIM,
and most would agree that it would be unwise to depart directly toward an
oncoming 210. Yet, both of these occurred.

Would filling out these forms help counsel these pilots in better operations
at uncontrolled fields? How many pilots read the ASRS reports? Why don't the
big magazines such as AOPA Pilot, Flying, etc summarize them on a regular
basis to help the rest of us? While they may be an undertilized safety
resource, I suspect the forms are of little practical utility since their
submission is voluntary, and frequently used as the "get out of jail free"
card to avoid enforcement action.

[Matt Whiting]

Viperdoc wrote:

> While neither pilot had any obligation to announce, if I had been in the 210
> and somebody made a radio call saying they were departing off of the same
> runway in the opposite direction it probably would have gotten my attention.
>
>

That's right, pilots aren't obligated to be smart. Fortunately, most of
us are, but there are a few really stupid ones out there that don't self
announce at uncontrolled fields. The sad part is that occasionally the
stupid pilots take down a smart pilot with them. Luckily, not in this case.


Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc wrote:
>
> > While neither pilot had any obligation to announce, if I had been in the
210
> > and somebody made a radio call saying they were departing off of the
same
> > runway in the opposite direction it probably would have gotten my
attention.
> >
> >
>
> That's right, pilots aren't obligated to be smart. Fortunately, most of
> us are, but there are a few really stupid ones out there that don't self
> announce at uncontrolled fields. The sad part is that occasionally the
> stupid pilots take down a smart pilot with them. Luckily, not in this
case.
>
>
> Matt

Let's not forget the really, really stupid ones that yack on the radio but
don't know what the windows on their airplanes are for. Give me a stupid
one looking out the window over a smart one yacking but not looking any day.

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Viperdoc wrote:
>>
>>
>>>While neither pilot had any obligation to announce, if I had been in the
>
> 210
>
>>>and somebody made a radio call saying they were departing off of the
>
> same
>
>>>runway in the opposite direction it probably would have gotten my
>
> attention.
>
>>>
>>That's right, pilots aren't obligated to be smart. Fortunately, most of
>>us are, but there are a few really stupid ones out there that don't self
>>announce at uncontrolled fields. The sad part is that occasionally the
>>stupid pilots take down a smart pilot with them. Luckily, not in this
>
> case.
>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Let's not forget the really, really stupid ones that yack on the radio but
> don't know what the windows on their airplanes are for. Give me a stupid
> one looking out the window over a smart one yacking but not looking any day.

Yes, that is equally stupid. No reason not to do both, assuming you
have a radio. If you don't, then I'll accept that as an excuse! :-)

Matt

[john smith]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Would filling out these forms help counsel these pilots in better operations
> at uncontrolled fields? How many pilots read the ASRS reports? Why don't the
> big magazines such as AOPA Pilot, Flying, etc summarize them on a regular
> basis to help the rest of us? While they may be an undertilized safety
> resource, I suspect the forms are of little practical utility since their
> submission is voluntary, and frequently used as the "get out of jail free"
> card to avoid enforcement action.

According to the ASRS website, there are 85k subscribers to CALLBACK.
Compare that to 610k pilots in the US, yielding 17% readers.
FLYING magazine does use the reports. Peter Garrison writes two columns,
one on aviation technology, the other on accident analysis. Richard
Collins also often cites ASRS data and compares it to AOPA's Aviation
Safety organizations numbers.
Quite the contrary, I believe. It does depend on the situation reported,
but the researchers may go into great depth of study to analyze the
information gleaned not only from the original report but also followup
telephone calls and other correspondence.

[Sylvain]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Let's not forget the really, really stupid ones that yack on the radio but
> don't know what the windows on their airplanes are for. Give me a stupid
> one looking out the window over a smart one yacking but not looking any day.

....or the ones who religiously announce their position in a
calm and professional sounding voice, which would be real
nice, except for them being nowhere near what they announced! :-)

--Sylvain

[Brien K. Meehan]

Well, my point is that everyone seems quick to blame the 210 pilot for
failing to announce something. You can't really blame him for not
doing something that he's not necessarily supposed to do.

You can, on the other hand, blame the 152 pilot for using a runway that
was already in use.

The 152 pilot (and every pilot) isn't supposed to rely on someone
else's radio announcement. He's supposed to account for NORDO traffic
himself, and visually confirm that it's safe to proceed. If he didn't
bother looking for the (effectively NORDO) 210 at the other end of the
runway, what else didn't be bother looking for? The NORDO planes in
the pattern? The NORDO plane on final for 9? The NORDO plane on final
for 27?

I suspect the 210 was using 27 because he thought the winds favored it,
and the 152 was using 9 because it was closer to the restaurant. He
was in a hurry and not looking out his windows. This is the good
example of the bad idea.