Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

SNF Near Misses
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

cpayne(at)joimail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

I was waiting for others to post this, but .... During the staging flight up to ZPH from LAL There were 2 serious near misses encountered by our formations. Zephyrhills is an uncontrolled field just NNW of Lakeland with cheap gas, plenty of parking, and a CTAF of 123.075. Being a local it common to hear folks broadcasting on Plant City 123.0 for ZPH. Not sure that happened during incident #1 but perhaps.



There are 2 runways, 4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left traffic on both due to skydiving ops on the SE side. GA traffic often uses 4-22 as the skydivers claim to "own" 18-36. No problems with skydive ops this year though. Wind was 340 degrees.



#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At the same time a Mooney departs NORAD on 4; you guessed it, one of our guys just about hooked left into Mooney but happened to spot the developing mid-air about 50 feet short of disaster. Said aviator drives big people haulers for a living and has great SA.



#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead (me) makes a precautionary landing on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho inbound traffic to the airport. I taxi in and monitor the airborne arguement over which runway is in use. As the 3-ship breaks for 04 and I hear and see a Cherokee turn final, he has no traffic callouts. At the same time I see my Deputy lead arc in on final on a vector that would neatly place the CJ-6 directly on the Cherokee. I call for the go-around and the Cherokee never sees (or understands) what just happened.

Prevention:



1) Stay away from busy, uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins. Use towered fields if possible.



2) Failing that, do NOT use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA folks don't know what that is. My thought is to break 90 degrees onto downwind from over the top and take interval on base-final. Another technique could be to break downfield, rather than on the Numbers so that a downwind entry is acomplished and interval set.



Craig Payne

cpayne(at)joimail.com

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Craig,



You have broached a point that has been a hot topic debate at our 08A EAA

meetings for the last 6-7 months. We have opted for the 500 ft above GA

pattern altitude and a mid field or departure end break into an uncontrolled

field. That is what Wetumpka has. We have had a real experience trying to

educate the uneducatable spam canners at 08A on overhead breaks. Not to say

that some of our do not have trouble understanding what 2 g 60 deg. Of bank

for 180 degrees means too but the Spammers really are out in left field on

the topic. Do not try to educate them on what those neat military sounding

radio calls really mean either. Like "YAK lead left Base, Gear, Pressure,

Full Stop __Runway!" Abeam the numbers and on the Perch causes their eyes to

glaze over when having discussions on overhead patterns at the EAA meetings.

Those are illegal patterns did you not know?! Only square patterns can be

flown at civilian airfields. Have you not had that lecture yet! 



The midfield or departure end break gives lead a little longer to scan the

airspace for the spammer on 3 mile downwind, final or the infamous 45 degree

downwind entry at 5 miles out. True we could stop operating out of

uncontrolled airfields, but that is not practical. We could stop doing

overheads. That would thrill the Spam Canners to no end. 



While on this subject of potential mid airs, climbing rejoins over the

airfield should probably be avoided if at all possible too. Our experience

at 08A has been the no matter how hard you try to educate the local populus

of spammers, they are continuing to pull on the runway and departing as soon

as you start to roll. So by the time you are turning back to 270 deg they

are at or just below your altitude over the departure end of the field. This

has happened on a couple of occassions. 



The infamous base turn final runway incursion is another point of contention

for the YAKs vs Spammers. Should we use 3 mile base turns as they do with

what they call "final" really being a 3 mile straight in? 



My point is Mil type Ops and Civilian square corner ops are going to be a

point of contention where ever we operate. Even at a towered airport. We

just have to us our heads. Keep them on a swivle, spend most of our

transient time from TO to the Area, and on RTB in Route or Tactical for

maximum flight SA. Consider closing it up on 2-3 mile final or do a tactical

entry into a busy airfield so all in the flight can use their eyeballs to

scan the sky and clear flight paths. I know that tactical entry stuff does

not look as neat as the 4 ship fingertip but it could keep us from being

famous in the wrong FAA way.



Bottomline is it is lead's responsibility to clear the flight path for the

entire flight. That is a daunting job for some of the neophyte flight leads.

SA comes with time and experience. It never comes to some though. After all,

we must remember our hobby is the only hobby with a self cleaning oven. 



Doc



 



  _____  



From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:47 PM

To: yak-list

Subject: SNF Near Misses



 



I was waiting for others to post this, but .... During the staging flight up

to ZPH from LAL There were 2 serious near misses encountered by our

formations. Zephyrhills is an uncontrolled field just NNW of Lakeland with

cheap gas, plenty of parking, and a CTAF of 123.075. Being a local it common

to hear folks broadcasting on Plant City 123.0 for ZPH. Not sure that

happened during incident #1 but perhaps.



 



There are 2 runways, 4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left traffic on

both due to skydiving ops on the SE side. GA traffic often uses 4-22 as the

skydivers claim to "own" 18-36. No problems with skydive ops this year

though. Wind was 340 degrees.



 



#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At the same

time a Mooney departs NORAD on 4; you guessed it, one of our guys just about

hooked left into Mooney but happened to spot the developing mid-air about 50

feet short of disaster. Said aviator drives big people haulers for a living

and has great SA.



 



#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead (me) makes

a precautionary landing on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho inbound traffic to

the airport. I taxi in and monitor the airborne arguement over which runway

is in use. As the 3-ship breaks for 04 and I hear and see a Cherokee turn

final, he has no traffic callouts. At the same time I see my Deputy lead arc

in on final on a vector that would neatly place the CJ-6 directly on the

Cherokee. I call for the go-around and the Cherokee never sees (or

understands) what just happened.



 



 



Prevention:



 



1) Stay away from busy, uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins. Use

towered fields if possible.



 



2) Failing that, do NOT use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA folks

don't know what that is. My thought is to break 90 degrees onto downwind

from over the top and take interval on base-final. Another technique could

be to break downfield, rather than on the Numbers so that a downwind entry

is acomplished and interval set.



 



Craig Payne



cpayne(at)joimail.com

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

I was not there, (WHICH IS A BIG DEAL AND I ADMIT IT)  but I have a

question and comment based on the account of this event.   

1.  At an untowered airport that is selling cheap gas in very close

proximity to a major event such as Sun & Fun (and yes, I have been to

and landed at just about every strip within 50 miles of Lakeland), why

is it necessary to enter any kind of break at all?  



2.  To Wit and more importantly: Why is it necessary to bring a 4 ship

OR a 3 ship formation into a pattern populated by the totally

uninitiated, combined with possible sky-divers at a field with two

runways that just scream for conflict?  



I stand ready to take the heat and flames from any and all involved, but

I am going to stick my big NON-FAST-CARD-QUALIFIED rear end out and say

this: "Mr. Aviator that drives big people haulers for a living and has

great SA" should not have had to exercise it in the first place.  



Second, my answer to your: "Failing THAT" statement would have been:

KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION and fly every single person in as a standard

single ship, flying into a standard airport, following standard airport

procedures so as to have a standard outcome that didn't involve the use

of OUTSTANDING SA to avoid a freaking MID-AIR COLLISION.    



One of the things any formation lead should know is not only how not to

lead his flight into a dangerous situation, but also when to kiss his

wingman off and KNOCK OFF THE FORMATION FLIGHT COMPLETELY.  



If such a situation as you just described does not meet the call to do

that, even with 20/20 hindsight, then my retired military ass does not

know what does.   



Sorry to not agree with your assessment Craig, but also respecting your

willingness to tell the story.  



Mark Bitterlich

--

KingCJ6(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Doc - some very good  points.  I assume you were joking though, about the 

legality of  overheads or non-standard patterns at GA airports -- I can't find 

any FAR's  addressing the issue.

 

Dave

#########

"Those are illegal patterns did  you not know?! Only square patterns can be 

flown at civilian airfields. Have you  not had that lecture yet! "

#########

 

In a message dated 4/25/2007 2:15:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  

viperdoc(at)mindspring.com writes:



Craig, 

You have broached a point that has been  a hot topic debate at our 08A EAA 

meetings for the last 6-7 months. We have  opted for the 500 ft above GA pattern 

altitude and a mid field or departure  end break into an uncontrolled field. 

That is what Wetumpka has. We have had a  real experience trying to educate 

the uneducatable spam canners at 08A on  overhead breaks. Not to say that some 

of our do not have trouble understanding  what 2 g 60 deg. Of bank for 180 

degrees means too but the Spammers really are  out in left field on the topic. Do 

not try to educate them on what those neat  military sounding radio calls 

really mean either. Like â€œYAK lead left Base,  Gear, Pressure, Full Stop __Runway!â€

 Abeam the numbers and on the Perch causes  their eyes to glaze over when 

having discussions on overhead patterns at the  EAA meetings. Those are illegal 

patterns did you not know?! Only square  patterns can be flown at civilian 

airfields. Have you not had that lecture  yet!  

The midfield or departure end break  gives lead a little longer to scan the 

airspace for the spammer on 3 mile  downwind, final or the infamous 45 degree 

downwind entry at 5 miles out. True  we could stop operating out of 

uncontrolled airfields, but that is not  practical. We could stop doing overheads. That 

would thrill the Spam Canners  to no end.  

While on this subject of potential mid  airs, climbing rejoins over the 

airfield should probably be avoided if at all  possible too. Our experience at 08A 

has been the no matter how hard you try to  educate the local populus of 

spammers, they are continuing to pull on the  runway and departing as soon as you 

start to roll. So by the time you are  turning back to 270 deg they are at or 

just below your altitude over the  departure end of the field. This has 

happened on a couple of occassions.   

The infamous base turn final runway  incursion is another point of contention 

for the YAKs vs Spammers. Should we  use 3 mile base turns as they do with 

what they call â€œfinalâ€ really being a 3  mile straight in?  

My point is Mil type Ops and Civilian  square corner ops are going to be a 

point of contention where ever we operate.  Even at a towered airport. We just 

have to us our heads. Keep them on a  swivle, spend most of our transient time 

from TO to the Area, and on RTB in  Route or Tactical for maximum flight SA. 

Consider closing it up on 2-3 mile  final or do a tactical entry into a busy 

airfield so all in the flight can use  their eyeballs to scan the sky and clear 

flight paths. I know that tactical  entry stuff does not look as neat as the 4 

ship fingertip but it could keep us  from being famous in the wrong FAA way. 

Bottomline is it is leadâ€™s  responsibility to clear the flight path for the 

entire flight. That is a  daunting job for some of the neophyte flight leads. 

SA comes with time and  experience. It never comes to some though. After all, 

we must remember our  hobby is the only hobby with a self cleaning oven.   

Doc 

 

  

____________________________________

 

From:  owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com  

[mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:47  PM

To: yak-list

Subject: SNF Near  Misses

 

I was waiting for others  to post this, but .... During the staging flight up 

to ZPH from LAL There were  2 serious near misses encountered by our 

formations. Zephyrhills is an  uncontrolled field just NNW of Lakeland with cheap gas, 

plenty of parking, and  a CTAF of 123.075. Being a local it common to hear 

folks broadcasting on  Plant City  123.0 for ZPH. Not sure that happened during 

incident #1 but  perhaps.

 



 

There are 2 runways,  4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left traffic on 

both due to skydiving  ops on the SE side. GA traffic often uses 4-22 as the 

skydivers claim to  "own" 18-36. No problems with skydive ops this year 

though. Wind was 340  degrees.

 



 

#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks  for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At the same 

time a Mooney departs NORAD  on 4; you guessed it, one of our guys just about 

hooked left into Mooney but  happened to spot the developing mid-air about 50 

feet short of disaster. Said  aviator drives big people haulers for a living 

and has great  SA.

 



 

#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship  breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead (me) makes 

a precautionary landing  on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho inbound traffic to 

the airport. I taxi in  and monitor the airborne arguement over which runway 

is in use. As the 3-ship  breaks for 04 and I hear and see a Cherokee turn 

final, he has no traffic  callouts. At the same time I see my Deputy lead arc in 

on final on a vector  that would neatly place the CJ-6 directly on the 

Cherokee. I call for the  go-around and the Cherokee never sees (or understands) what 

just  happened.

 



 



 

Prevention:

 



 

1) Stay away from busy,  uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins. Use 

towered fields if  possible.

 



 

2) Failing that, do NOT  use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA folks 

don't know what that is. My  thought is to break 90 degrees onto downwind from 

over the top and take  interval on base-final. Another technique could be to 

break downfield, rather  than on the Numbers so that a downwind entry is 

acomplished and interval  set.

 



 

Craig  Payne

 

_cpayne(at)joimail.com_ (mailto:cpayne(at)joimail.com) 



 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com

cpayne(at)joimail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Doc,

  

 Those are pretty much the same conclusions that I have come to. I also believe that a formation can be a safer way to enter 4 airplanes into the pattern than 4 solos. All 4 briefed together, all 4 are looking for the unexpected and understand how to sequence and space in the pattern & runway. Perhaps popping smoke in the pattern could help mark locations as well.

  

 Some eons ago, CFI's and flight schools taught tight close-in patterns in case of carb icing, etc. Always stay in glide range of the runway. Then came the 70's and a booming business in pilot starts. Instruction changed to "stabilized" approaches as ALL students were surely going to be Big Bus Drivers when those old WW-II farts retired. CFI's also needed to run up the hobbs to get paid. The result: 5 mile patterns with no hope of making the runway. CFI's started sim'ing engine out in the pattern only when abeam the numbers.

  

 Perhaps the new generation of Light Sport trainers will bring back old behaviors as these low-inertia A/C need to flown to the runway. Meanwhile, our training flight briefs need to include formation recovery procedures in more detail and pattern emergency procedures.

  

  

 Craig Payne

 cpayne(at)joimail.com (cpayne(at)joimail.com)

  

  

 

  [quote][b]

mjbjhf(at)truvista.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:50 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Craig,  This might not be the best place, but I  wanted to drop you a big THANK YOU for all of your help last week at  Sun-n-Fun.  The mount turned out perfect, I believe it might be better than  new.  Also thanks to Shane and Pappi for putting me in touch with  you.  Hope to see all of you soon for some formation training.

  

 Michael Bolton"Mighty"

 N595JF"Nanchang Nancy"

 803.427.0604

  

  

 [quote]   ---

cjpilot710(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:31 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

In a message dated 4/25/2007 9:32:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil writes:

 

 

I was there.

 

This is what happened.

 

I was number 3 in a three ship.

After briefing we departed LAL in a 3 ship takeoff from rwy  27L.   (link #1 

we forgot to brief the ZPH unicom frequency)

After 3 miles we turned north to ZPH.

Lead switched us to 123.075

#2 miss heard and dialed to 123.70 (link #2)

At check in, lead and I could only hear a static reply from #2.  What  we 

heard was frequency bleed over because we were in formation.  We both  figured #2 

was having a mike problem. (link #3)

ZPH unicom confirmed that runway 36 was in use which matched the slight  wind 

of about 5 kts.

Lead set us up for an 3 or 4 mile initial runway 36, making all the calls  

and stating intentions.  

A Cessna 172 called in bound also.  At that point he was the only  known 

traffic in the area.  (link #4)

The Cessna entered the left down wind for rwy 36.

Lead set us up for a left 4 second break.

The flight broke and lead fell in line behind the Cessna on the down  wind.

The Cessna proceeds to fly what can only be called a 747 approach  pattern.

Lead and the rest of the flight have normal spacing on the Cessna.   Plenty 

of room.

On landing the Cessna goes into a slow taxi mood right in the middle of the  

runway. (link #5)

The Cessna does not reply to a plea (from me) to clear the runway.

Lead press on until he has no option but execute a missed approach.

#2 (NORDO) seeing the lead miss does the same for the same reason.

I, #3 do the same.  At this point I am about 200 yds to the rear of  #2.

Lead starts a left turn at the departure end of the runway to reenter the  

pattern.

#2 (NORDO) starts a left turn to rejoin on lead.

At this point I notice a Moony lifting off on rwy 4, to our  left. This 

aircraft made no calls over unicom frequency what so  ever.  (link #6)

I made a radio call to #2 to watch for the traffic coming from the  left.  I, 

like lead, still assumed he could receive us.

Soon after that call, I can see the projected flight paths  of both aircraft 

are going to merge.  I make a "frantic" call for #2 to "go  down! go down! go 

down!"

I see his aircraft "respond" by diving under the Moony, not  knowing he never 

heard my call but he saw the Moony in time to  clear. 

The rest of the flight was uneventful.

Detailed debriefing ensued.

 

If this had indeed lead to an accident, you can see braking any of the  links 

above would have prevented it.  The one thing that did was SA on the  part of 

#2.

Being NORDO in a formation while damn inconvenient need not be  dangerous.  

That is part of what FAST is about.  The poor piloting  skills of the Cessna 

pilot and the total disregard of the Moony pilot (no  radio calls and not 

checking for traffic on runway 36 which is in plain  sight.) are links that could 

have not been changed on our part.  

 

I agree with Mark that at times forgoing formation 360 overhead  arrivals 

maybe wise, but in this particular case the situation didn't seem to  warrant it. 

And given with what we knew at the time, I'd most likely do it  again.  

Knowledge of procedures, practiced handling skills, attention to  equipment, SA, 

and experience (only gained at making mistakes) is what makes for  safe flight.  

But than again, I'll take all the luck I can get.

 

Jim "Pappy" Goolsby

 




MALS-14  64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>



I was not there, (WHICH IS A BIG  DEAL AND I ADMIT IT)  but I have a

question and comment based on the  account of this event.   

1.  At an untowered  airport that is selling cheap gas in very close

proximity to a major event  such as Sun & Fun (and yes, I have been to

and landed at just about  every strip within 50 miles of Lakeland), why

is it necessary to enter any  kind of break at all?  



2.  To Wit and more importantly: Why  is it necessary to bring a 4 ship

OR a 3 ship formation into a pattern  populated by the totally

uninitiated, combined with possible sky-divers at  a field with two

runways that just scream for conflict?  



I  stand ready to take the heat and flames from any and all involved, but

I am  going to stick my big NON-FAST-CARD-QUALIFIED rear end out and say

this:  "Mr. Aviator that drives big people haulers for a living and has

great SA"  should not have had to exercise it in the first place.  



Second,  my answer to your: "Failing THAT" statement would have been:

KNOCK OFF THE  FORMATION and fly every single person in as a standard

single ship, flying  into a standard airport, following standard airport

procedures so as to  have a standard outcome that didn't involve the use

of OUTSTANDING SA to  avoid a freaking MID-AIR COLLISION.    



One of the things any  formation lead should know is not only how not to

lead his flight into a  dangerous situation, but also when to kiss his

wingman off and KNOCK OFF  THE FORMATION FLIGHT COMPLETELY.  



If such a situation as you just  described does not meet the call to do

that, even with 20/20 hindsight,  then my retired military ass does not

know what does.    



Sorry to not agree with your assessment Craig, but also respecting  your

willingness to tell the story.  



Mark  Bitterlich

--

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Dave,  

That was the extact quote given at one meeting. I have since found and provided the FAA advisor letter on overhead patterns and low approaches from intial. I will have to scan it and I will post it for those that have never seen it.   

Doc  

         

  

From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KingCJ6(at)aol.com

 Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:37 PM

 To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: SNF Near Misses  

  

       

Doc - some very good points.  I assume you were joking though, about the legality of overheads or non-standard patterns at GA airports -- I can't find any FAR's addressing the issue.  

    

   

    

Dave  

    

#########  

    

"Those are illegal patterns did you not know?! Only square patterns can be flown at civilian airfields. Have you not had that lecture yet! "  

    

#########  

    

   

    

In a message dated 4/25/2007 2:15:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, viperdoc(at)mindspring.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

Craig,  

You have broached a point that has been a hot topic debate at our 08A EAA meetings for the last 6-7 months. We have opted for the 500 ft above GA pattern altitude and a mid field or departure end break into an uncontrolled field. That is what Wetumpka has. We have had a real experience trying to educate the uneducatable spam canners at 08A on overhead breaks. Not to say that some of our do not have trouble understanding what 2 g 60 deg. Of bank for 180 degrees means too but the Spammers really are out in left field on the topic. Do not try to educate them on what those neat military sounding radio calls really mean either. Like “YAK lead left Base, Gear, Pressure, Full Stop __Runway!” Abeam the numbers and on the Perch causes their eyes to glaze over when having discussions on overhead patterns at the EAA meetings. Those are illegal patterns did you not know?! Only square patterns can be flown at civilian airfields. Have you not had that lecture yet!   

The midfield or departure end break gives lead a little longer to scan the airspace for the spammer on 3 mile downwind, final or the infamous 45 degree downwind entry at 5 miles out. True we could stop operating out of uncontrolled airfields, but that is not practical. We could stop doing overheads. That would thrill the Spam Canners to no end.   

While on this subject of potential mid airs, climbing rejoins over the airfield should probably be avoided if at all possible too. Our experience at 08A has been the no matter how hard you try to educate the local populus of spammers, they are continuing to pull on the runway and departing as soon as you start to roll. So by the time you are turning back to 270 deg they are at or just below your altitude over the departure end of the field. This has happened on a couple of occassions.   

The infamous base turn final runway incursion is another point of contention for the YAKs vs Spammers. Should we use 3 mile base turns as they do with what they call “final” really being a 3 mile straight in?   

My point is Mil type Ops and Civilian square corner ops are going to be a point of contention where ever we operate. Even at a towered airport. We just have to us our heads. Keep them on a swivle, spend most of our transient time from TO to the Area, and on RTB in Route or Tactical for maximum flight SA. Consider closing it up on 2-3 mile final or do a tactical entry into a busy airfield so all in the flight can use their eyeballs to scan the sky and clear flight paths. I know that tactical entry stuff does not look as neat as the 4 ship fingertip but it could keep us from being famous in the wrong FAA way.  

Bottomline is it is lead’s responsibility to clear the flight path for the entire flight. That is a daunting job for some of the neophyte flight leads. SA comes with time and experience. It never comes to some though. After all, we must remember our hobby is the only hobby with a self cleaning oven.   

Doc  

         

  

From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne

 Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:47 PM

 To: yak-list

 Subject: SNF Near Misses  

  

     

I was waiting for others to post this, but .... During the staging flight up to ZPH from LAL There were 2 serious near misses encountered by our formations. Zephyrhills is an uncontrolled field just NNW of Lakeland with cheap gas, plenty of parking, and a CTAF of 123.075. Being a local it common to hear folks broadcasting on Plant City 123.0 for ZPH. Not sure that happened during incident #1 but perhaps.  

    

   

    

There are 2 runways, 4-22 and 18-36 that meet at the NW end. Left traffic on both due to skydiving ops on the SE side. GA traffic often uses 4-22 as the skydivers claim to "own" 18-36. No problems with skydive ops this year though. Wind was 340 degrees.  

    

   

    

#1) An RPA 4-ship breaks for 36 and Lead initiates a go-around. At the same time a Mooney departs NORAD on 4; you guessed it, one of our guys just about hooked left into Mooney but happened to spot the developing mid-air about 50 feet short of disaster. Said aviator drives big people haulers for a living and has great SA.  

    

   

    

#2) Inbound RPA 4-ship breaks up into a solo and 3-ship when Lead (me) makes a precautionary landing on 36 due to high oil temp. Mucho inbound traffic to the airport. I taxi in and monitor the airborne arguement over which runway is in use. As the 3-ship breaks for 04 and I hear and see a Cherokee turn final, he has no traffic callouts. At the same time I see my Deputy lead arc in on final on a vector that would neatly place the CJ-6 directly on the Cherokee. I call for the go-around and the Cherokee never sees (or understands) what just happened.  

    

   

    

   

    

Prevention:  

    

   

    

1) Stay away from busy, uncontrolled airfields near major fly-ins. Use towered fields if possible.  

    

   

    

2) Failing that, do NOT use a conventional 360 break as lots of GA folks don't know what that is. My thought is to break 90 degrees onto downwind from over the top and take interval on base-final. Another technique could be to break downfield, rather than on the Numbers so that a downwind entry is acomplished and interval set.  

    

   

    

Craig Payne  

    

cpayne(at)joimail.com (cpayne(at)joimail.com)  

  	
  

    

   

  



 

         

  

See what's free at AOL.com.   

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4

        [quote][b]

dhanshew(at)cinci.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Pappy,

  

 Guess who is quoted in a Forbes article  on China's endeavor to build the BIG plane. Check it out 



China's Large Aircraft Readying For  Take-Off



http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/25/boeing-airbus-china-ent-manage-cx_kw_0425whartonaircraft.html?partner=yahootix



Steve



 [quote]   ---

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

My advance apologies for this epistle,



Sorry Craig, but......   



I truly do enjoy formation flight myself, and exercise that privilege

quite a bit.  But, I submit that saying that a formation flight can be a

SAFER way to enter 4 aircraft into the pattern versus 4 solo's is a bit

of a stretch, don't you think?  You apparently disagree.   Why then do

you mandate that all members flying formation wear parachutes?  



Very clearly Craig, even though everyone on this list supports formation

flight, including myself, it is really hard to keep a straight face and

say flying in very close proximity to another aircraft is safer than

flying with much more physical separation NO MATTER HOW TALENTED THE

CREWS ARE.   



Be that as it may, I will grant you that any formation can be flown

successfully.  The problem I am trying to emphasize here is not that we

train four formation pilots to better expect the unexpected.  The

problem is that at a busy uncontrolled field you can't train everyone

else to expect anything like what you are planning to do!  You can't

train them, and you  can't predict the way they will react. Those facts

MUST be kept in mind when attempting a formation flight into an airport

where every single member sitting in an airplane, either in the air or

on the ground is not pre-briefed and ready for what is about to happen.

When doing so results in a near mid-air, it is OK to think of how to do

it better in the future, as long as that discussion also includes the

topic of whether it should have even been attempted at all.   



This is not a debate about anyone being right, or being wrong.  It is

not a discussion of what is legal or not. It is intended to be an open

forum on what is safe and what is not and inspect ways to look at issues

to keep them from being unsafe in the same way down the road with the

advantage of having 20/20 hindsight.  



Let me be perfectly candid with you and everyone else.  The fact that

you as a lead pilot continue to say words like this: "Meanwhile, our

training flight briefs need to include formation recovery procedures in

more detail and pattern emergency procedures" and don't even address one

facet of what I have written bothers me to no small extent.  Not as a

personal issue mind you, but as a professional one.  The continual

"looking down the nose" attitude towards those humble spam-canners also

tends to ring alert bells in my head.    



I have read Pappy's report on what happened, and I can clearly visualize

the events.  Pappy, I don't like pilots who fly cross country downwinds

either.  In fact they tend to make me FURIOUS.  BUT.... I hold short of

referring to their actions as "Poor Piloting Skills".  That may be our

PERSONAL opinion, but it has no legal ground to stand on.  They were

taught that way, the FAA doesn't say they are wrong, and unless a tower

says otherwise (which I rarely see them ever do) what they are doing is

LEGAL and it is incumbent upon ALL of us to make allowances for their

type of flying, and not blame them when their type of flying doesn't

merge too well with what WE might happen to want to do today as a HOBBY.

A pilot can use every bit of the airspace reserved for an airport with

the FAA's blessing and that better be kept in mind.  Further, we KNOW

these guys do this, so we should EXPECT IT.  In addition Pappy, the fact

that the Mooney made no radio calls is partially overcome by the fact

that #2 would not have heard him even if he had, don't you think?  And

Pappy, you were there, so when you say that given what you knew then,

you'd do it again given the same amount of knowledge, I will not argue

with you.  My question is: "Given what you know TODAY, would you do the

same exact thing again?"  I would hope that your answer would be "no".  



On another note:  What military agency can you point out that has EVER

taken a four ship formation into the break at an uncontrolled airfield?

And folks, I am not talking about 1940 here.  The answer is:  THEY

DON'T.  Heck, I have even seen confusion between Air Force and

Navy/Marine types on just what "THE BREAK" really is!  



It's a simple fact.  Taking a formation flight (let alone a 4 ship with

one member NORDO no less) into an uncontrolled field that has

simultaneous use by unbriefed and untrained pilots should be viewed as

an event that is fraught with danger.  If anyone didn't think so before,

they should darn well think so now.  No one broke any laws.  There is no

requirement to talk on the radio at an uncontrolled field.  There is no

requirement to get off the runway fast after landing.  There is no

requirement to fly a tight pattern.  Formation flights are legal as

well, but like everything else that day...the formation flight was

OPTIONAL.  



Just curious here, but did anyone think of calling ahead to Zephyrhills

and tell them that what was being planned?  You know, give them a chance

to get ready, etc., etc.?  No, no one is REQUIRED to do that... But, it

might have prevented this event from happening don't you think?   



#2 HAD GOOD SA?  Yep... #2 was also lucky.  Not as lucky as the poor

idiot in the Mooney though.  He never expected to be #5 in a four ship

formation.  



As for everyone thinking that #2 could receive?  Where were the hand and

arms signals?  



In the military folks, when any in-flight accident is just barely

averted there is a meeting where every event that led to the situation

is discussed and reviewed.  One of the common questions always asked is:

"Should such and such ever have been attempted to begin with, and given

what you know now, would you attempt the same thing again?"  



I don't have a FAST card, and my answer to the above is: MAYBE and NO!

(GIVEN WHAT WE ALL KNOW NOW)  



To those with the FAST cards, my question is if you don't feel the same

way, then WHY NOT?  

Mark Bitterlich 

N50YK





--

Scooter

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 155

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: SNF Near Misses

I've got a question and a comment:  Is it possible to make radio calls that a typical GA pilot will recognize while flying formation into an airport and performing an overhead break?  I think 95% of GA pilots have no idea what an overhead break is.



And someone said the following:  "I also believe that a formation can be a safer way to enter 4 airplanes into the pattern than 4 solos. All 4 briefed together, all 4 are looking for the unexpected and understand how to sequence and space in the pattern & runway".  In this case it would seem that only one pilot is "looking for the unexpected" and the other three are looking at another aircraft in the formation.  Or maybe I'm missing something?

dstroud(at)storm.ca
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Nicely said, Mark. I'm sure with you on this one. Please, Yak/Nanchang  formation 

types, understand...please read UNDERSTAND....that ALL  AVIATORS may not know 

that you EXIST, let alone that you may appear unannounced at ANY airfield. I say this 

with all respect to your endeavours and skills. Your aim is a good one, yet some 

consideration to more foresight might be in order. If you want to DO YOUR STUFF for 

your own pleasure, kindly don't lose sight of the rights of others and especially the 

potential misgivings of others or their equipment that might impede or even collide with 

your goals. More thought maybe...for outside your own box....?  I've only got about 

600 hrs of private flight, but never get amazed at the stupidity and/or stubbornness of 

some jerks in the pattern and will admit to a couple of dumb moves myself over the

years. You guys want to be special.... ? Well ...deal with it, but safely, eh Dood?

Some people are counting on you.



David Stroud   Ottawa, Canada

C-FDWS  Christavia 

Fairchild 51 under construction

and on the gear...

---

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Dead on Scotter. A TAC approach means 8 eyeballs are scanning the sky for

the flight of 4 not 2 eyeballs scanning for the 4 ship.

Doc



--

cjpilot710(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

In a message dated 4/26/2007 3:11:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  dhanshew(at)cinci.rr.com writes:

  

 How about that!.  The old guy is still in there kicking!  He  showed me a picture of the Y-10.  Because it had JT-8 engines, it reminded  me of an early 707.

  

 Jim "Pappy" Goolsby

  

  

  

 [quote]   Pappy,

    

   Guess who is quoted in a Forbes    article on China's endeavor to build the BIG plane. Check it out 



China's Large Aircraft Readying For    Take-Off



http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/25/boeing-airbus-china-ent-manage-cx_kw_0425whartonaircraft.html?partner=yahootix



Steve



   [quote]     ---

ReadeG(at)Cairnwood.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Thanks Mark, Craig, Jim and others for putting this out for analysis -

as a recently minted wingman (last year) I am processing the details

based upon how and what I was taught.  The one thing that jumps out is

that there has been no reference to HEFOE.  It seems to me that the

NORDO situation could have been addressed with what I understand is a

basic formation process (hand signals).  



Making the transition from primarily aerobatic hours in the Yak to where

it's just you getting cozy with 3 of your best friends brought the whole

process of discipline and procedure to a new level.  The precision of

competition can very nicely be adapted to formation but the process of

formation flying requires that we adhere to that process.  At least that

is the mantra I'm hearing from those who were willing to be GIBs for me

(Mike, Charlie, Steve, Marty...).  I hope I'm not oversimplifying since

it seems to me that the simplicity of the processes involved in

formation flying in and of themselves provide for a more than reasonable

safety margin.    



Reade Genzlinger

Cairnwood Cooperative Corporation

mailto:readeg(at)cairnwood.com

215.914.0370



--

dhanshew(at)cinci.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

Good God, JT8D's suck, squeeze, bang,  and blow.

 [quote]   ---

aihuabao(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

And when they did, they made a helluva noise out there

in the swamp where I was watching along with the rest

of the creatures .........

--- steve and donna hanshew <dhanshew(at)cinci.rr.com>

wrote:



[quote] Good God, JT8D's suck, squeeze, bang, and blow.

   ---

Scorch

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 2
Location: Brisvegas

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: SNF Near Misses

It seems to me that one of the near misses being discussed here (Zephyrhillshas) has less to do with formation flying and more to do with operating at an uncontrolled airfield without being up on the unicom frequency. It is very easy to say that the formation led to this happening but I beg to disagree. The 2 aircraft were off frequency for different reasons, #2, a mistake, and the mooney - who knows, but without the common frequency you've already got a recipe for disaster. If 4 aircraft had entered the circuit in close proximity as singletons (as some are suggesting as a solution), I dare say the same thing could and would have happened. 

Having said that I am an advocate of making the formation fit the local conditions. So, when you make calls - especially at uncontrolled airfields, you call 'joining deadside' not 'initial' and then 'crosswind' not 'on the break'. And if you have to extend through initial before breaking to allow for other traffic then so be it. Just as is the golden rule with leading formations, you've got to be predictable and I think in the case of 'mixing it up' with other aircraft you have to be predictable to aircraft outside the formation as well. This comes down to letting them know in plain language so they can understand what you are doing. Your formation should not be so inflexible that you cannot allow for other traffic. I know it doesn't look as good but what about splitting to 2 pairs in trail for the circuit entry? - gives all wingmen a bettter chance of seeing what's going on in the circuit, and if you have to do something radical its alot easier as a pair than a 4. There's always, of course, the random factor of some cloth ear doing something really dumb.  Sounds like it would be pretty difficult allow for what the Mooney did apart from having your head on a stick, as the guys in question obviously did. 

My 10c worth



Greg

yakplt(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: SNF Near Misses

#2 and #3 went around because lead did.   Had they not..... there would have not been a close call.    

   

  This was a formation factor.  

   

  Did Lead make a radio call when he went around?  Was that call just for himself or for the whole flight?  

   

  When the whole flight went around, did they make radio calls or not?  (Normally, they would not, and we KNOW #2 did not as he was essentially NORDO) 

   

  This is again a formation issue.  

   

  When the Mooney took off, could he have possibly have heard Leads radio call announcing his go-around and then with him clearly in sight, continued his take-off not knowing at all that 2 more aircraft were also going to go around? 

   

  Was the go-around briefed?   

   

  This appears  to be more of a formation flight issue.  It was JUST AS LEGAL for that Mooney driver to not transmit as it was for the formation flight to come in as they did.   Each issue added to the fire.  

   

  Fact: Everyone was fat dumb and happy with cloth ear" pilots flying "spam cans" at Zephyrhills all day long.  Then two formation flights showed up.  Soon after that things went to crap.  

   

  Clearly, it was the cloth ear pilots and spam cans fault, and had very little to do with the arrival of the formation flights?   Sorry, I have to disagree

   

  Mark Bitterlich 

  N50YK

   

  



Scorch <greshell(at)bigpond.net.au> wrote:

  [quote]--> Yak-List message posted by: "Scorch"  



It seems to me that one of the near misses being discussed here (Zephyrhillshas) has less to do with formation flying and more to do with operating at an uncontrolled airfield without being up on the unicom frequency. It is very easy to say that the formation led to this happening but I beg to disagree. The 2 aircraft were off frequency for different reasons, #2, a mistake, and the mooney - who knows, but without the common frequency you've already got a recipe for disaster. If 4 aircraft had entered the circuit in close proximity as singletons (as some are suggesting as a solution), I dare say the same thing could and would have happened. 

Having said that I am an advocate of making the formation fit the local conditions. So, when you make calls - especially at uncontrolled airfields, you call 'joining deadside' not 'initial' and then 'crosswind' not 'on the break'. And if you have to extend through initial before breaking to allow for  other traffic then so be it. Just as is the golden rule with leading formations, you've got to be predictable and I think in the case of 'mixing it up' with other aircraft you have to be predictable to aircraft outside the formation as well. This comes down to letting them know in plain language so they can understand what you are doing. Your formation should not be so inflexible that you cannot allow for other traffic. I know it doesn't look as good but what about splitting to 2 pairs in trail for the circuit entry? - gives all wingmen a bettter chance of seeing what's going on in the circuit, and if you have to do something radical its alot easier as a pair than a 4. There's a!

lways, of course, the random factor of some cloth ear doing something really dumb. Sounds like it would be pretty difficult allow for what the Mooney did apart from having your head on a stick, as the guys in question obviously did. 

My 10c worth



Greg





Read this [quote][b]

cjpilot710(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: SNF Near Misses

In a message dated 4/29/2007 3:01:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  yakplt(at)yahoo.com writes:

  

 I think a little common sense is needed here.

  	  Quote: 	
		     #2 and #3 went around because lead  did.  

	
  No.  #2 & #3 went around because the Cessna was still on the  runway.



  

  	  Quote: 	
		     Had they not..... there would have not been a close    call.  

	
 There would not have been a close call if the Mooney had not taken  off.  From the approach end of runway 4 (the run up area) the entire  length of 36 is in view.

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   This was a formation factor.  

	
  

 This not formation factor.

  

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   Did Lead make a radio call when he went around?   

	
 Yes made the call for himself.  I didn't hear #2 because he was  NORDO.  I made a call also.

  	  Quote: 	
		     Was that call just for himself or for the whole flight?     

	
  

 See above.  Don't forget we at this point we are separate  aircraft. 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   When the whole flight went around, did they make radio calls or    not?  (Normally, they would not, and we KNOW #2 did not as he was    essentially NORDO) 

    

   This is again a formation issue.  

    

   When the Mooney took off, could he have possibly have heard Leads radio    call announcing his go-around and then with him clearly in sight, continued    his take-off not knowing at all that 2 more aircraft were also going to go    around? 

    

   Was the go-around briefed?   

	
 Go-around are SOPs.  Do you brief the go around for each pattern you  fly, each time you fly?  

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   This appears to be more of a formation flight issue.  It was    JUST AS LEGAL for that Mooney driver to not transmit as it was for the    formation flight to come in as they did.   Each issue added to the    fire.  

	
 So being "legal" is excuse for recklessness?    You'll  please remember, we had broke into the down wind behind the Cessna.  We  were no different than three other aircraft (Piper, Cessna, Mooney) in the  down wind at that point.  Lead and I made calls 'base to final, 3 greens  and pressure'. 

  	  Quote: 	
		     Fact: Everyone was fat dumb and happy with cloth ear" pilots flying "spam    cans" at Zephyrhills all day long.  Then two formation flights showed    up.  Soon after that things went to crap.  

	
  

 You don't know that.  There were 20 Yaks and CJs up there.  None  of the other flights had any problems other than ours and one other.  The  rest of the so called "spam-cans" were operating pretty much SOP.   Departure out of there was not a problem at all.  

  

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   Clearly, it was the cloth ear pilots and spam cans fault, and had very    little to do with the arrival of the formation flights?      Sorry, I have to disagree

	
  

 It seem to me you have an issue with formation flying.  Like us  'civilians' shouldn't be allowed to do it?  But that's our privilege (not  our right).  The fact that we go out and train and practice and take a  flight check put us up one notch above the guy who don't.  It not a matter  of "playing fighter pilot".  But a lot of ex fighter jocks,  like the comrade ship of the group.  

  

 99% of the time we go into non-controlled airports with no problem at  all.  This particular day, we ran into a Cessna pilot with poor  skills.  There was no need to confront him on the ground.  He had to  have seen the aircraft going around over him.  The Mooney pilot is another  story.  Using or not using a radio may have been "legal" but to not  visually clear and check traffic is reckless operation.

  

 Mediocrity thy name is Spam Can.  If it seem us warbird types decry  Cessna, Piper, or Mooney pilots as possible Piraeus, let's look at the  numbers.  Let us assume that in every pilot group, 10% are really "du  fuses".  With over 30,000 Pipers, Cessna, or Mooney aircraft hopping around  that means there maybe 3,000 jerks airborne.  If the warbird group has  (guessing 1,000 aircraft flying) that means 100 pilots.  If we run into a  piss poor pilot guess what type of aircraft he will most likely be flying?   It's just numbers and common sense.  No need to get bent out of  shape.

  

 At the chance of sounding arrogant, our formation went the way it should  have.  If #2 had not been NORDO, he would have caught my first call on the  Mooney and never came near him.  If the Cessna had cleared the runway in a  normal expeditious manner, we would not have had to go around.  If the  Mooney had been listening up on the frequency and visually checked the area, he  would not have taken off when he did.

  

 To blame this whole thing on the fact we were flying formation to began  with?  BS.

  

 Jim "Pappy" Goolsby

  

  

  

  

  

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   Mark Bitterlich 

   N50YK

    

   

 

    	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		   	
	
	
 

  



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum