Towplane-Baron accident

This federal district court report provides some detailed discussions and the legal outcome of this accident. The United States was found at fault; the CAP tow and glider pilots were on an Air Force assigned mission and thus covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act. https://www.scribd.com/document/3563...-United-States

There is mitigating background to this matter:

The local airport authority (political appointees) had, for years, created a hostile operating environment for glider flying at KLGC. It began with attempting to restrict glider operations to weekend days only, along with other nitnoy demands like gliders could not be assembled in a grass area off to the side of seldom used taxiway (rather, they wanted us to assemble in the middle of the refueling area tarmac in the way of taxiing/refueling traffic). Then the club received a letter from the airport manager demanding that the club permanently relocate elsewhere.

The club refused the relocation notice, knowing that the airport had accepted federal funds on numerous occasions and thus was obliv

Your reply was cut off, and I definitely want to hear the rest of the story..

I found the court's account quite educational from a safety standpoint, yet riveting from a personal standpoint. Reading through the court's account of how to decide the pre-impact pain and suffering--the thoughts and feelings that must have been in their minds those few seconds--sent a chill down my spine.

I'm sorry for all involved. What a tragedy.

Troy

Sorry, must have prematurely hit the send button...

Continued:

....and thus KLGC was obligated to support all forms of aviation activity.

For decades, LaGrange, GA, was the ad hoc headquarters for the regional textile manufacturing business, that had all but been transferred overseas by the early 2000s. In its heyday, however, it was not uncommon for KLGC to have corporate bizjet sorties, along with the traffic conflicts that mixing jets and gliders periodically causes. The money, politics, and power wielded by the local textile companies continuously caused the glider flying to be considered as an undesirable nuisance at best and a safety threat at worst.

The glider club's stance that it had a right to operate at KLGC on an equal basis with every other aviation activity caused the airport authority to hire an aviation attorney. The lawyer counseled the airport authority that glider flying at KLGC could not be restricted.

That should have been the end of story. Yet, from this the airport aurhority enacted a set of glider operating rules (still posted at the KLGC website) to include the requirement for a "spotter" to be stationed at the intersection of the runways to verify there was no conflicting traffic prior to a towplane/glider launch. In essence, causing a degree of traffic pattern control at a FAA designated uncontrolled airport, to be done by an untrained/unqualified person. A usurpation of FAA standardized uncontrolled airport operating procedures and confusing established inflight right-of-way rules..

An public airport authority cannot mandate anything that is contrary to FAA regulations, and has no "authority" to enact any rules of flight. In essence, the KLGC airport authority attempted to introduce a degree of traffic pattern control at a designated uncontrolled airport to be performed by an untrained/unqualified person. This usurps FAA standardized uncontrolled airport operating procedures and confuses right-of-way rules.

A few other points to consider: 1) One airport authority board member would frequently attempt to control the traffic pattern using the CTAF, 2) Another board member is a local real estate broker with listings to sell vacated textile warehouses on the airport premises. At the time, KLGC was in the running for the KIA auto production plant eventually built in nearby West Point, GA, 3) Ironically, the airport authority had used glider sorties to count towards the traffic numbers it needed to procure federal funding, 4) ANY aviation activity utilizing the non-ILS runway had the potential to create a flight conflict at the intersecting runways; however, only the glider operators had to post a "spotter"?

IMO, the "legal" judgment ignores the fact that 1) Codefied FAA regulations clearly mandate that IF there was a flight conflict at, or near, intersecting runways, that the powered aircraft is supposed to give way to the towplane/glider combination, and 2) A public airport authority's "authority" is limited. A local airport authority cannot enact rules affecting flight operation--only the FAA can do that. Attempting to do so confuses universally applicable standard operating procedures to the detriment of the very flight safety those universal procedure were enacted to ensure.

I do hope the government's defense attorney made these points in court.

In hindsight, perhaps the glider club and the CAP should have pooled their resources to formally invalidate the unauthorized, conflictive local operating rules. Ignoring such a circumstance, no matter how obviously obtuse such local airport rules are to an aviator's sense of regulatory "legality", may have nonsensical consequences in an ill adept court of law.

Ray Cornay

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 7:50:49 PM UTC-7, Jp Stewart wrote:
Odd circumstance: http://www.lagrangenews.com/news/hom...llaway-Airport

JP

A question that has come to mind that I haven't seen discussed yet is one of visibility. How is a civilian airport even allowed to operate where two intersecting runways are in place where you can't see one from the other? I'm no expert here, but that just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen (which it did, in this case). Also (not a radio expert here) is the CTAF one that needs "line of sight" for the signal to be transmitted, or can the radio waves bend around land obstructions? Could it be that the land that obscures the view of the end of the other intersecting runway, could also obscure the transmission of radio waves, thus explaining why no one at the FBO or that both aircraft didn't hear each other's radio transmissions?

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 7:50:49 PM UTC-7, Jp Stewart wrote:
Odd circumstance: http://www.lagrangenews.com/news/hom...llaway-Airport

JP

A question that has come to mind that I haven't seen discussed yet is one of visibility. How is a civilian airport even allowed to operate where two intersecting runways are in place where you can't see one from the other? I'm no expert here, but that just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen (which it did, in this case). Also (not a radio expert here) is the CTAF one that needs "line of sight" for the signal to be transmitted, or can the radio waves bend around land obstructions? Could it be that the land that obscures the view of the end of the other intersecting runway, could also obscure the transmission of radio waves, thus explaining why no one at the FBO or that both aircraft didn't hear each other's radio transmissions?

Radio communications are not 100% reliable. Pilots may be on the wrong frequency, have the squelch turned up, the volume down or step on each other. If you want to be sure, you must receive an affirmative reply. This was not done in this case, with tragic results.

Tom

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
A question that has come to mind that I haven't seen discussed yet is one of visibility.
How is a civilian airport even allowed to operate where two intersecting runways are in
place where you can't see one from the other? I'm no expert here, but that just sounds
like a disaster waiting to happen (which it did, in this case).

I would wager that a high percentage of airports with intersecting runways are like this.
At my airport, Inyokern (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KIYK), if one is at the departure end of 20, neither end of 33/15 is visible. One due to hangars, the other due to brush. We can see aircraft on approach, but not on the ground.

Many airports have a hump in the center of the runway, so one can't see the other end. In calm wind conditions it's possible to have two aircraft arriving/departing in opposite directions. Just gotta do the best to maintain situation awareness, and be prepared for anything.

Tom

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 6:50:49 PM UTC-8, Jp Stewart wrote:
Odd circumstance: http://www.lagrangenews.com/news/hom...llaway-Airport

JP

Gliding operations and General Aviation are so different that they are difficult to mix safely at one airport. It can be done. A successful example is Lasham in the UK.