Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mid-air Collision In Saskatchewan  
User currently offlineYXD172 From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 449 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 13796 times:

Just heard that there was a mid-air near St. Brieux, SK - about 120km NE of YXE - yesterday morning.

The two aircraft crashed into a lake near the town, with some wreckage also falling on a nearby road. The RCMP has sent a dive team to recover the bodies from the aircraft.

Reports are that the aircraft involved were a PA-28 flying to St. Brieux and a Buccaneer Amphibian flying to La Ronge, SK.

RIP to the 5 people onboard, and condolences to their families.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...y/2012/05/12/sk-planes-120512.html


Radial engines don't leak oil, they are just marking their territory!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12668 times:

This is sad news. There should be better anti collision equipment on these small planes.

User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1517 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12613 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):
There should be better anti collision equipment on these small planes.

At what cost? TCAS would cost more than both of the airframes combined. The real issue is, people need to look outside more, rather than spending time heads down.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1077 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 12445 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 2):
At what cost? TCAS would cost more than both of the airframes combined. The real issue is, people need to look outside more, rather than spending time heads down.

-DiamondFlyer

I have a Monroy Traffic Detector which cost me about 500 bucks. It gives range and altitude of the nearest transponder signal, with an aural warning at one mile. It's a heck of a lot better than nothing - because you can't scan for traffic 100% of the time.


User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1517 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12177 times:

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 3):
I have a Monroy Traffic Detector which cost me about 500 bucks. It gives range and altitude of the nearest transponder signal, with an aural warning at one mile. It's a heck of a lot better than nothing - because you can't scan for traffic 100% of the time.

Which only works when you are in an area of radar coverage. Not being familiar with Canada and their radar coverage, I can't say if this accident occurred in or out of coverage. But remember, a device as such is deceptive.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinecombatshadow From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't know the geography up there, but it would be interesting to note the directions of flight and the altitudes (steady or transistioning?).


Bob
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1077 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11640 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 4):
But remember, a device as such is deceptive.

-DiamondFlyer

Huh? Deceptive? Having flown with it for many years, I can say it is a definate safety improvement, as an addition to the Mark One Eyeball. I'm not sure about radar coverage where this most recent collision took place, but here in the U.S. it's close to 100%. A traffic detector is a tool, and more than once it has alerted and got my head back up to find the traffic. It's not as good as the TCAS I have at work obviously but well worth the money. Because you can't scan for traffic 100% of the time...as two airline crews found out over the Grand Canyon over 50 years ago.


User currently offlineBureaucromancer From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10867 times:

I don't have a Saskatchewan chart handy at the moment (stupid Nav Canada prices) but I'd be surprised if there wasn't coverage where this happened, though possibly not low altitude.

User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7478 times:

What is the relation with the device and the radar coverage? If it is recieving the signal from the other's plane's transponders with speed, altitude and position, along with the own plane position speed and altitude, there is no need of the radar coverage... or I'm missing something?

User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6931 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 2):
The real issue is, people need to look outside more, rather than spending time heads down.

Bingo.

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 6):
Huh? Deceptive? Having flown with it for many years, I can say it is a definate safety improvement, as an addition to the Mark One Eyeball.

I think he means that having that system is more likely to make you lax when it comes to visual checks, as subconsciously you feel that you have traffic covered due to the system.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6818 times:

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 5):
I don't know the geography up there, but it would be interesting to note the directions of flight and the altitudes (steady or transistioning?).

The collision took place within a few miles of the PA28's destination (some news reports said 5km), so likely it was descending into the airport. At that sort of range, I would expect that they were at or below 2000 AGL, so direction of flight rules no longer apply (only mandatory above 3000AGL).

The geography in that area (and much of the rest of Sask) is flat - really, really flat. One of the best ski hills in the province is just north of there...it is in a river valley.

For the traffic detectors, I think you would probably still get coverage at the accident location in the air from transponder replies to the YXE radar (perhaps YXE isn't seeing you, but the signal is probably still enough to trigger a reply, and it is the reply that the detectors are seeing.
The portable units are also triggered by full TCAS systems, and in spite of the relatively little traffic into YXE, there are a lot of TCAS systems over Saskatchewan at any given time...Europe to west coast US traffic + Eastern US and Can to Asia traffic. I know my transponder replies to lots of stuff no matter where I am.
So, if both had transponders, a portable detection system might have helped (maybe not either - perhaps either or both pilots had one?). From the AC types and departure points, they both most likely had Mode C, since they were based in or very near class C airspace. The PA28 was reported to have departed YYC although was not based there, which is not something one would normally opt to do without 'C'.

Note to self - go to the shop and buy the system I was looking at last year (they were sold out that day...I just have to get back there and it's only 3 km from the home).



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlineTbone354 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Curious. Speed? Would that be the target speed, converging speed? I suppose that would be ground speed in any event. And what about the altitude? Would the target aircraft need mode-C? This supposes the target aircraft even has a transponder. I was taught that in VFR conditions the best collision avoidance was looking out of the windows. Reminds me of a terrible mid air in New York a few years ago between a light plane and a chopper. It seems that everybody was looking out of the windows at the scenery. Even the pilots. Distraction can be fatal. God bless them...

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6703 times:

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 5):
I don't know the geography up there, but it would be interesting to note the directions of flight and the altitudes (steady or transistioning?).

Basically the Lake was going south to north and the PA-28 was going west to east. The PA-28 was apparently only a few miles from destination so was likely descending or going into a VFR approach.

Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 7):
I don't have a Saskatchewan chart handy at the moment (stupid Nav Canada prices) but I'd be surprised if there wasn't coverage where this happened, though possibly not low altitude.

I think given the altitude (probably less than 3000 and perhaps as low as 2000) there might not have been actual skin painting but the transponders would have been able to hit YXE.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

Different accident unfortunately:

3 dead as a DHC-2 Beaver crashes near Kelowna BC. Was apparently looking for a place to land when it abruptly went into a forest and caught fire.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ory/2012/05/14/bc-plane-crash.html

Unlucky week for gen-av in Canada.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1517 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 9):
I think he means that having that system is more likely to make you lax when it comes to visual checks, as subconsciously you feel that you have traffic covered due to the system.

Exactly, also I meant that you never know for sure when you are in or out of radar coverage. I do a majority of my flying at altitudes in which, outside of major cities, I may or may not be in radar coverage.

The Mk.1 eyeball is better at traffic detection than any technology, and as such the technology should be the secondary equipment, as far as I'm concerned.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 14):
I may or may not be in radar coverage.

True, you may be out of radar coverage, but in North America two things change the math - firstly the next 50 miles or so outside radar coverage there is probably enough signal to still cause your transponder to reply, and even if the source radar can't see that reply, a nearby detector will see it. Secondly, it is pretty hard to hide from all the TCAS systems out there querying your transponder, since a TCAS at 35,000 feet will also normally evoke a reply. Bigger risk is probably a non-transponder equipped aircraft when you ar outside of radar coverage areas.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 14):
The Mk.1 eyeball is better at traffic detection than any technology, and as such the technology should be the secondary equipment, as far as I'm concerned.

For sure all avalable methods should be used - it doesn't matter if they are considered primary or secondary. Many potential collisions (birds mostly, but also non-transponder aircraft) are not going to show up on a detector.
For this sort of thing the usefulness may even switch from Secondary to Primary depending on the immediate circumstances (consider minimum VFR conditions of 1 mile visibility,,, a detector might become the primary tool since if you see oncoming traffic at one mile you have about 15 seconds to observe, process, react, overcome the inertia of the plane, and hope the other pilot didn't see you or that they reacted opposite to you. (More realistically, consider 5 miles in haze, which is often more like 1 mile of being able to see something clearly).

Concerning Mk 1, it is very useful (duh!), but not infallible by any means, so I don't rely completely on it myself. There is a whole science involved in training observers / watch standers / lookouts, and the like to constantly scan the area they are assigned to, etc. Even learning how to change focus from near to far when staring out with no normal reference points (like watching the sky) is a skill that normally has to be taught. So as vigilant as we like to be, it is not always effective.
Next point is that there are all sorts of blind spots, like pillars, wings, engines, etc., that block the Mk I 's usefullness completely. Of course, in this case one of them was a Lake, which reduces (but not eliminates) the chances of a blindspot for any forward collision aspect (for example, it still leaves open the option of a descending PA28 catching the Lake from the aft quarter, while having the Lake obscured by the engine cowl of the PA28, for example).
Toss in any sort of distraction (landing checklist, map reading, or anything else) in the minute or so it takes to close a two mile gap at the speeds and ~90 degree aspect implied here, and something can go from barely visible / hidden to collision.

All in all - I will still look out the window, but I don't see any difference in my own situation than in this case (or similar ones I recall from Penticton and Mattawa in recent years), so I think I'll install a detector. (This is another way of me saying that it could just as easily been me, since I don't see why I should think I am better than either of them were).



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Near Mid-air Collision In Argentina? posted Tue May 8 2007 03:54:41 by EZEIZA
Mid Air Collision In Syd? posted Sun May 5 2002 18:33:18 by Hoons90
Mid-Air Collision In Florida posted Fri Dec 3 1999 19:59:48 by Dazed767
Man Killed In Mid-air Collision posted Mon Dec 19 2005 00:59:54 by EZYAirbus
Imaginary Mid-air Collision Exercise In UK posted Sun Apr 25 2004 23:23:00 by Backfire
Mid-air Collision Between 2 Small A/c In Germany posted Fri Sep 27 2002 15:30:27 by GKirk
Charkhi Dadri Mid-Air Collision: 15 Years Later posted Sat Nov 12 2011 19:44:30 by Eightball
Mid-air Collision Near PDX; 1 Dead, 2 Safe posted Tue Oct 25 2011 23:18:04 by KELPkid
CX And DJ Near Mid-air Collision posted Mon Dec 28 2009 19:46:53 by Elite
Mid-air Reported In PHX Area (C150/Cherokee 1 Fat) posted Wed Sep 9 2009 10:50:11 by Borism