Towplane-Baron accident

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:50:49 PM UTC-5, Jp Stewart wrote:
Odd circumstance: http://www.lagrangenews.com/news/hom...llaway-Airport



JP

ironically that was the last thing he asked me, "did you schedule a lesson for sunday" i didnt go to that lesson on that sunday but im starting back today, got 6 hours before my checkride. I know my mom will not like me flying but i love it too much, like you said, and i wont let this event ground me.

JP,

My father, a highly competitive soaring pilot, died in a sailplane accident in 1978 during the US Nationals at Minden. I was told during his funeral that I would probably not take up flying My response has always been that events in the lives of other people are not restrictions on my life, but that there are always things to learn from tragic circumstances. Unfortunately, in my father's case, there has never been a clear explanation of the cause, (But JJ's article "Don't Smack the Mountain" is probably the best guess)

In spite of that, I've been flying since 1985, now with more than 5500 hours (more than three times my father's hours) and while I've had my share of close calls, I've enjoyed flying.

As noted above, each time we step into an aircraft we increase our risks. Some time in the future we may encounter a fatal error, perhaps not of our own making. In the mean time I'm delighted to be able to fly and experience the feelings it gives me.

I understand your loss, look for joy in the rest of life.

Mike

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

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:26:19 AM UTC+12, wrote:
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.

I'm quite troubled that the court ruled it's too much to expect a licensed pilot to be able to successfully execute a go-around without stalling and crashing.

I am with Bruce.
Go arounds/balked landings are part of flying, trained reguarly. All very sad but the main cause of the accident was not the tow combination being in the way although it was a factor.
Tom

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:55:00 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:26:19 AM UTC+12, wrote:
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.

I'm quite troubled that the court ruled it's too much to expect a licensed pilot to be able to successfully execute a go-around without stalling and crashing.

The decision was assignment of liability for the accident's cause, not a test of the deceased pilot's emergency responses. The judge considered this and rejected it. What it boiled down to is the Baron had the right-of-way. It is like someone ran a red light and you hit him. The other guy can argue that you might not have hit him if you had swerved, or applied your brakes sooner and more aggressively, but he will lose in court.

Tom

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...crashes-n36371

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 8:37:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
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