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

TBM Accident

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

wnorth(at)sdccd.edu
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: TBM Accident

Well,



I would personally like to thank Jeff for his comments. As one who works

under Mike, aka Susie Q, this accident was one of those rare things that was

just that, an accident.



Go ahead write a boat load of rules and changes and policies and you will

still have a few accidents. Which by the way this year was the first time in

a few that we've had fatalities on field, which I think is a good record

given what we do.



I hate to be callous but get over it, the war birds are here to stay and we

want them. They cause the public gate to at least triple from what it would

be were they not here. That income is needed for this event to happen.



Make bigger taxi ways, it won't do squat. In a 1000' it's entirely possible

(as in I've seen it many times) for both planes to be in wiggle phase and

not be able to see each other if they are close. And who is going to make

bigger taxiways at every airport the TBM lands at?



Go ahead put wing walkers out there, that way the TBM will have more targets

to run over and kill. 



RE control towers, guess what the only legal obligation of a control tower

for vfr traffic is to provide sequencing. Get over it, that's been tested in

court many times. They are not obligated nor able to provide separation

services in any vfr environment, particualrly on the gorund at Oshkosh.



And the TBM is taking a risk when it taxi's but that risk is no different

then the same risk you take when you taxi. I've seen little kids run out in

front of various aircraft, fortunately none I've seen were hurt. But by some

of this logic put forth we should outlaw kids and any airplane that might

run them over. Yes we have rules to help reduce those risks, but that said

all they do is reduce the risk, they never prevent entirely.



The two airplanes did not, and apparently could not see each other, that is

the cause of most aircraft collisions and to date no rule has ever fixed

that. I'm pretty certain no new rules will help things any.



If you are little and worried get a rearview mirror.



Or better yet give up flying, stop driving, avoid earthquake and volcano

country and don't eat at McDonald's any more.



The bottom line is that our emotional response to tragic events in aviation

is to cast a cause out there in the hopes of future prevention. This is one

of those cases where the accident chain wasn't broken and so it occured. But

any of the proposed fixes just make room for alternative chains without

really reducing the overall risk much.



You want to talk about safety, let's talk about the fact that an hour before

this happended the controllers were launching aircraft into 35 kt tailwind

takeoffs with rain in an effort to oblige the many who wanted to depart

pre-hurricane.  They finally got it and closed the airport. But that closure

put even more pressure on the limited time slot for departures pre-airshow

after the WX system passed. So guess what, it's partly God's fault,

therefore I would suggest we write a rule forbidding God from having short

term hurricanes at Oshkosh.



And while we're at it the simplest fix would be to not allow RV's to come to

Oshkosh as that will eliminate about 2/3 of the overall traffic which will

greatly reduce the number of accidents.



In fact there's some good data to support this fix as RV's (and Bonanzas)

tend to be involved in many of the incidents that happen at Oshkosh.



So, yes I feel horrible about this, as I do about the Europa, and the Cub,

and the few others who perished coming to or from Oshkosh. And I feel bad

about those who perished just flying that week as I do about the estimated

98000 people who die each year from boo boos that happen in US hospitals.

That's almost twice the number of people who die in auto accidents and I'll

bet most of you didn't even know that statistic.



Get a life, be happy that you are alive, go fly your airplane and celebrate

those who can longer join us for that ride.



W

- The Matronics RV-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: TBM Accident

 	  Quote: 	
		  The bottom line is that our emotional response to tragic events in aviation

is to cast a cause out there in the hopes of future prevention. This is one

of those cases where the accident chain wasn't broken and so it occured. But

any of the proposed fixes just make room for alternative chains without

really reducing the overall risk much.


	




The fact that a warbird ran over an RV and killed someone sounds like

a broken accident chain to me.  As far as "getting over it" I can think of

two families who probably won't be able to easily.



Ron Lee



 	  Quote:

- The Matronics RV-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:31 pm Post subject: TBM Accident

Wheeler,



I'm with you about new rules and policies in general. However, if a

procedural change can be made to address the cause, it might not be an

entirely bad thing. 



The real problem was that the TBM pilot didn't know what airplane he was

following. He thought he was following the Tundra and hung back far

enough to see it, but was not even aware that there was an RV behind the

Tundra. When the Tundra pulled off, he thought he was clear ahead and

tried to move up and take station on whatever airplane was ahead of the

Tundra. He stated that he had 100 yards of clear pavement ahead. He

never once saw the RV. 



The RV pilot said he didn't know the guy was behind him. He said that he

was directed to enter the taxiway by aircraft marshallers. That means

that either he pulled into the gap in front of the TBM while he was

already following the Tundra or the TBM pulled out behind him after he

taxied past. Either way, the Avenger driver never saw the RV. The

Lancair pilot behind the TBM (who chose not to pull out in front of the

big airplane even though aircraft marshallers were gesturing to him to

do so) said that he didn't see the TBM S-turning before he hit the RV.

I'm supposing here that he didn't feel that S-turns were necessary

because he could see the airplane he thought he was following - the

Tundra.



Maybe the accident chain would have been broken if the marshaller who

(possibly) directed the RV onto the taxiway ahead of the TBM had made a

point to inform the larger plane of who was in front of him as he

passed. Yeah, I know, he would have to run in behind the guy's wing and

it wouldn't be easy to make himself heard. Or maybe a handheld radio

could have been used to inform the taildragger pilot. If the TBM was

sequenced onto the taxi way after the RV, maybe that marshaller should

have informed him of who he was going to be following. It may be that

marshallers shouldn't be directing small airplanes into the queue ahead

of aircraft with bad forward visibility. If you can't see ahead and you

leave space so you can see who you're following, having that space fill

up like the freeway at rush hour makes it more likely that something

like this will happen again.



When we approach these large airshows for landing, we are identified by

type and color and told to follow an aircraft by type and color. Maybe

something like this should be done on the taxiway at least for aircraft

with limited visibility. We are already told to monitor a ground

frequency so theoretically everybody should be listening. It could go

something like this: "Avenger on taxiway P1 wiggle your ailerons, Roger

you are following a white RV who is behind a green and white Tundra".

Once he was thus sequenced, care would have to be taken not to run in

anybody else in front of him and it would still be incumbent on him to

occasionally verify that no new airplanes had snuck in on him. A radio

call might need to be made at several points along the taxiway.



Pax,



Ed Holyoke



--

- The Matronics RV-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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