Small craft midair collision near APA

hayzel777 · Thu May 13, 2021 3:03 am

trnswrld wrote:
Absolutely incredible! I cannot for the life of me figure out how that damage was done to the Metroliner and didn’t take out the entire tail section. I’d love to see exactly what orientation that Cirrus was in to be able to carve out a chunk like that, but manage to leave the tail mostly untouched.

Cirrus exhibits very little if any damage to the actual structure based on the close up (the tail is broken off but that appears to be from hitting the ground first) but appears to be missing the fixed gear (seen from the CAPS video). I suspect the plane was in a right base to final turn when the right main nicked the fuselage and the left main nicked the tail.

In that right bank, the pilot would have lost sight of the metroliner (unless he can see through the wing).

hayzel777 · Thu May 13, 2021 4:12 am

Here’s a video with better pictures of the Cirrus and a picture of the pilot+pax standing off to the side. No damage to either wing is observed.

https://youtu.be/0TExYqoN7x8

Winterapfel · Thu May 13, 2021 6:05 am

trnswrld wrote:
Absolutely incredible! I cannot for the life of me figure out how that damage was done to the Metroliner and didn’t take out the entire tail section. I’d love to see exactly what orientation that Cirrus was in to be able to carve out a chunk like that, but manage to leave the tail mostly untouched.

I'm assuming slight right bank? Cirrus gear taking out the fuselage, left wing tip just striking the tail and taking a bit off?

I'm wondering, the Metroliner pilot reported right engine failure. That would be the bang of the hit combined with the yaw/yerk of the hit, and the awfull noise and vibrations afterwards?

zeke · Thu May 13, 2021 6:46 am

trnswrld wrote:
I cannot for the life of me figure out how that damage was done to the Metroliner and didn’t take out the entire tail section.

Obviously because they had their anti-collision lights on

zeke · Thu May 13, 2021 11:34 am

trnswrld wrote:
Absolutely incredible! I cannot for the life of me figure out how that damage was done to the Metroliner and didn’t take out the entire tail section.

They had their anti-collision lights on

BryanG · Thu May 13, 2021 3:25 pm

Joe Patroni needs to tap that Metroliner on the belly and say "nice goin' sweetheart..."

And the pilot should definitely send a thank-you note to Mr. Swearingen...

Cubsrule · Thu May 13, 2021 3:39 pm

Winterapfel wrote:
trnswrld wrote:
Absolutely incredible! I cannot for the life of me figure out how that damage was done to the Metroliner and didn’t take out the entire tail section. I’d love to see exactly what orientation that Cirrus was in to be able to carve out a chunk like that, but manage to leave the tail mostly untouched.

I'm assuming slight right bank? Cirrus gear taking out the fuselage, left wing tip just striking the tail and taking a bit off?

I'm wondering, the Metroliner pilot reported right engine failure. That would be the bang of the hit combined with the yaw/yerk of the hit, and the awfull noise and vibrations afterwards?

I think that's right. Presumably the pilot doesn't have a lot of experience with what midairs feel like. And the exact cause of the problem was - and probably should have been - pretty far down his priority list. Fly the plane is obviously the first priority and within the radio call, the emergency declaration and accurate statement of his intentions were far and away the most important components.

phatfarmlines · Thu May 13, 2021 4:22 pm

So is this one of the few instances of a midair collision resulting in no fatalities?

And that Metroliner tail, wow. Anyone catch the registration of that Key Lime Air and know how old the plane is?

smokeybandit · Thu May 13, 2021 5:20 pm

phatfarmlines wrote:
So is this one of the few instances of a midair collision resulting in no fatalities?

And that Metroliner tail, wow. Anyone catch the registration of that Key Lime Air and know how old the plane is?

1978 SWEARINGEN SA226TC
Fixed wing multi engine
(22 seats / 2 engines)

hivue · Thu May 13, 2021 5:28 pm

hayzel777 wrote:
Blankbarcode wrote:
Murdoughnut wrote:
Listened to the recording. Cirrus was cleared to 17R - Metro was on another tower frequency for 17L. West controller gave Cirrus a traffic advisory for the Metro and they called "in-sight". Controller was asking him not to overshoot final right before he saw the chute deploy. Looks like the SR-22 took it too wide.

Got a source on the recording?

It's on LiveATC. Just listen to KAPA Tower (Primary) and KAPA Tower (Secondary #1) between 1600-1630Z. Should start around the 22-23 minute mark.

APA runs two frequencies when the pattern gets busy (controller was clearing someone #5 for touch and go); one for the short 17R and one for the long 17L used by departures and IFR/jet arrivals. You can hear the 17R controller warn the Cirrus "do not overshoot the final" before he suddenly asks if they require any assistance. People overshooting the final at APA has been an ongoing issue; I guess it finally resulted in an accident.

N416DJ is under Independence Aviation out of KAPA...based on the track, it looks like they went North for a discovery flight along the mountains. 6DJ is one of the planes included in their discovery flight promos.
https://flywithia.com/discovery-flight

The Cirrus was advised on his freq of traffic x 2 (Skyhawk and Metroliner) but it isn't clear from the CIrrus's ambiguous acknowledgements that he saw both. It does not sound like the Metroliner was advised on his freq of the Cirrus, only of the Skyhawk on short final, which he acknowledged he was looking for. Maybe just a couple of the holes lined up in this Swiss cheese.

qf772 · Fri May 14, 2021 2:01 am

BryanG wrote:
Joe Patroni needs to tap that Metroliner on the belly and say "nice goin' sweetheart..."

And the pilot should definitely send a thank-you note to Mr. Swearingen...

The instruction book said that was impossible.

Aesma · Sun May 16, 2021 8:10 am

hivue wrote:
The Cirrus was advised on his freq of traffic x 2 (Skyhawk and Metroliner) but it isn't clear from the CIrrus's ambiguous acknowledgements that he saw both. It does not sound like the Metroliner was advised on his freq of the Cirrus, only of the Skyhawk on short final, which he acknowledged he was looking for. Maybe just a couple of the holes lined up in this Swiss cheese.

I'm not a pilot but I found the controller wasn't very clear when mentioning "traffic". At one point he says "traffic in front of you" but we don't know what plane he's talking about, and the Cirrus pilot acknowledges, probably seeing the Cessna not the Metro.

If commercial airliners landing on // runways are supposed to be stacked, maybe that should also be the case there ?

IAHFLYR · Sun May 16, 2021 1:00 pm

Aesma wrote:
If commercial airliners landing on // runways are supposed to be stacked, maybe that should also be the case there ?

Please explain this comment.

I understand the reason for two separate tower frequencies, but with runways that closely spaced apart I'm sure this isn't the first time they've had an overshoot of the centerline. With only one local controller working both runways it could have provided a greater level of situational awareness (SA) for everyone. Yes, I know they split the locals due to the amount of traffic, but SA is huge to a pilot as well as controllers and having worked local control at a busy large airport working two runways and sometime three runways while having to get departures out between arrivals on one of them you get busy and deal with it.

There are of course many factors that play into this accident and just so happy it ended in the manner it did with no loss of life or injuries.

Aesma · Sun May 16, 2021 1:17 pm

Ensuring one is clearly in front/behind the other.

IAHFLYR · Sun May 16, 2021 1:23 pm

Aesma wrote:
Ensuring one is clearly in front/behind the other.

Forgive me, but that does not sound like "stacking" more in-trail of one another though with your use of "//" you possibly are saying staggering the traffic on parallel runways. Sorry for not understanding.

NearMiss · Sun May 16, 2021 1:55 pm

What caught my attention in the ATC recordings was that the Metroliner pilot reported an engine failure. I thought a midair collision would feel more violent.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun May 16, 2021 2:01 pm

Aesma wrote:
hivue wrote:
The Cirrus was advised on his freq of traffic x 2 (Skyhawk and Metroliner) but it isn't clear from the CIrrus's ambiguous acknowledgements that he saw both. It does not sound like the Metroliner was advised on his freq of the Cirrus, only of the Skyhawk on short final, which he acknowledged he was looking for. Maybe just a couple of the holes lined up in this Swiss cheese.

I'm not a pilot but I found the controller wasn't very clear when mentioning "traffic". At one point he says "traffic in front of you" but we don't know what plane he's talking about, and the Cirrus pilot acknowledges, probably seeing the Cessna not the Metro.

If commercial airliners landing on // runways are supposed to be stacked, maybe that should also be the case there ?

VFR towers do NOT apply IFR separation, merely traffic advisories and landing priority.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun May 16, 2021 2:03 pm

NearMiss wrote:
What caught my attention in the ATC recordings was that the Metroliner pilot reported an engine failure. I thought a midair collision would feel more violent.

Having been in one, not as much impact as you’d guess. Head-on, the two of us at 250 knots, barely felt the forces, just a fireball.

IAHFLYR · Sun May 16, 2021 3:35 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
VFR towers do NOT apply IFR separation, merely traffic advisories and landing priority.

In most cases yes, unless the controlling IFR facility (i.e., TRACON/Center) authorizes it in a letter of agreement though normally that would be used for initial departure separation such as course divergence. However, as you know relative to this thread it is as you mentioned, see and be seen and landing sequence.

SuseJ772 · Sun May 16, 2021 8:59 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
NearMiss wrote:
What caught my attention in the ATC recordings was that the Metroliner pilot reported an engine failure. I thought a midair collision would feel more violent.

Having been in one, not as much impact as you’d guess. Head-on, the two of us at 250 knots, barely felt the forces, just a fireball.

Now there’s a story I’d like to hear

GalaxyFlyer · Sun May 16, 2021 9:47 pm

Two A-10s, wrong place at the wrong time at about 500’ above the trees, too. It really was—flying an airplane one moment, pulling the ejection handles out of fireball the next. 12 seconds from impact to hanging in a tree. Other plane flew thru me at about the gear pod to the opposite engine in a high banked turn, never saw each other. I’ve lost two friends in A-10 mid-airs.

kbmiflyer · Sun May 16, 2021 10:07 pm

hivue wrote:

The Cirrus was advised on his freq of traffic x 2 (Skyhawk and Metroliner) but it isn't clear from the CIrrus's ambiguous acknowledgements that he saw both. It does not sound like the Metroliner was advised on his freq of the Cirrus, only of the Skyhawk on short final, which he acknowledged he was looking for. Maybe just a couple of the holes lined up in this Swiss cheese.

Agree there is no acknowledgement from the Cirrus that he had both planes.

The Cirrus should have been behind the Metroliner, there was no need to advise the Metroliner of this traffic. It is interesting that two runways only 700 feet apart use different tower frequencies.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun May 16, 2021 11:05 pm

There was no requirement for the Cirrus to be behind the Metro under visual flight rules, just to not cross the centerline of the assigned runway.

Aesma · Mon May 17, 2021 8:42 am

I'm not saying the rules weren't followed, I'm saying something might need to be done. You can say the Cirrus pilot made a mistake, yes he probably did (if we assume the metro was where it was supposed to be), but it's not that big a mistake either, yet the consequences are one aircraft down, one miraculously made the runway...

IAHFLYR wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Ensuring one is clearly in front/behind the other.

Forgive me, but that does not sound like "stacking" more in-trail of one another though with your use of "//" you possibly are saying staggering the traffic on parallel runways. Sorry for not understanding.

You're right, wrong term on my part. In IFR the aircraft have to make the last turn much further away from the runway, right ?

GalaxyFlyer · Mon May 17, 2021 12:55 pm

Aesma wrote:
I'm not saying the rules weren't followed, I'm saying something might need to be done. You can say the Cirrus pilot made a mistake, yes he probably did (if we assume the metro was where it was supposed to be), but it's not that big a mistake either, yet the consequences are one aircraft down, one miraculously made the runway...

IAHFLYR wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Ensuring one is clearly in front/behind the other.

Forgive me, but that does not sound like "stacking" more in-trail of one another though with your use of "//" you possibly are saying staggering the traffic on parallel runways. Sorry for not understanding.

You're right, wrong term on my part. In IFR the aircraft have to make the last turn much further away from the runway, right ?

I’m not sure you’re getting the idea—it’s not ATC IFR separation, under VFR pilots are responsible for separation. The Cirrus was responsible to maintain his flight path and not cross the centerline, as a pilot, it might be a practice to stagger your flight path so you are not directly abeam the aircraft on the other runway, but not required. It the pilot cannot meet the standard of being on centerline, how do you expect him to do that and stagger?

IAHFLYR · Mon May 17, 2021 1:26 pm

Aesma wrote:
In IFR the aircraft have to make the last turn much further away from the runway, right ?

Since I won't guess at your exact question I will say this:

1. "In IFR" meaning IFR weather at the airport then yes the controller will vector the aircraft no closer than 2 NM outside the approach gate (which is 1 NM outside the final approach fix) so basically 3 NM from the final approach fix.

2. "In IFR" meaning IFR flight plan, but airport is conducting visual approaches then the turn to final may be farther away or closer depending on traffic and what the letter of agreement states with the control tower.

Hope that helps. And yes there are many variables as you are finding out.

Aesma · Tue May 18, 2021 8:44 am

Thanks. So, GalaxyFlyer/others, you think nothing will be changed with ops at this airport after this accident ?

Note that this wasn't, from my understanding, a training flight, but it seems the airport has significant training activity. Training goes with mistakes...

DashTrash · Tue May 18, 2021 10:36 am

Aesma wrote:
Thanks. So, GalaxyFlyer/others, you think nothing will be changed with ops at this airport after this accident ?

Note that this wasn't, from my understanding, a training flight, but it seems the airport has significant training activity. Training goes with mistakes...

I’m not exactly sure what could be changed at that airport. During busy times it’s fifty pounds of stuff in a ten pound bag. Multiple aircraft in the pattern for the short runway, high performance aircraft departing and arriving off the longer one.

Whoever mentioned the Cirrus having TCAS, RAs would have been inhibited at that altitude with TCAS-II. What’s important to all of us who fly aircraft with the capability is to use an extended centerline even in VFR conditions and not violate it, especially during simultaneous or parallel runway arrivals.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ATCtower · Tue May 18, 2021 2:14 pm

I’m surprised it isn’t mentioned much here, but as a pilot and controller the shocking aspect for me was the Cirrus’ ground speed.

Is it normal for a Cirrus to be turning base to final only 500’ up to be doing +190 ground speed? I know they’re maneuverable but having flown this pattern at this airport many times (I have done 80% of my flight training at APA. I know you’re supposed to stay East of I25 which makes it a tight turn base to final.

Seems to me at that speed it would be difficult to ‘not’ overshoot the centerline of 17R.

Luke1994 · Tue May 18, 2021 3:07 pm

ATCtower wrote:
I’m surprised it isn’t mentioned much here, but as a pilot and controller the shocking aspect for me was the Cirrus’ ground speed.

Is it normal for a Cirrus to be turning base to final only 500’ up to be doing +190 ground speed? I know they’re maneuverable but having flown this pattern at this airport many times (I have done 80% of my flight training at APA. I know you’re supposed to stay East of I25 which makes it a tight turn base to final.

Seems to me at that speed it would be difficult to ‘not’ overshoot the centerline of 17R.

I generally turn final at around 500’ or so. It usually puts me right on a 2 red 2 white glide path most of the time.

190 knot GS is another story. No explanation for that.

FX1816 · Tue May 18, 2021 4:02 pm

ATCtower wrote:
I’m surprised it isn’t mentioned much here, but as a pilot and controller the shocking aspect for me was the Cirrus’ ground speed.

Is it normal for a Cirrus to be turning base to final only 500’ up to be doing +190 ground speed? I know they’re maneuverable but having flown this pattern at this airport many times (I have done 80% of my flight training at APA. I know you’re supposed to stay East of I25 which makes it a tight turn base to final.

Seems to me at that speed it would be difficult to ‘not’ overshoot the centerline of 17R.

190kts is absolutely ridiculous, if it is true, then clearly the Cirrus was flying the pilot. The fastest I ever had a Cirrus on final was about 150kts. This guy was crazy though, he'd go that fast in the pattern at POC and then touchdown well above landing speed. One time he even rolled right off the end of 26R in to the dirt, made a right turn and went straight to the hangar. Never saw him again after that.

Back to the incident though, that Metro is a beast to survive that kind of impact.

kbmiflyer · Tue May 18, 2021 4:15 pm

ATCtower wrote:
I’m surprised it isn’t mentioned much here, but as a pilot and controller the shocking aspect for me was the Cirrus’ ground speed.

Is it normal for a Cirrus to be turning base to final only 500’ up to be doing +190 ground speed? I know they’re maneuverable but having flown this pattern at this airport many times (I have done 80% of my flight training at APA. I know you’re supposed to stay East of I25 which makes it a tight turn base to final.

Seems to me at that speed it would be difficult to ‘not’ overshoot the centerline of 17R.

Agree with this, 190 ground speed in a busy pattern that is know for a high volume of training aircraft and a narrow area between parallel runways is ridiculous and unsafe.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue May 18, 2021 5:45 pm

Aesma wrote:
Thanks. So, GalaxyFlyer/others, you think nothing will be changed with ops at this airport after this accident ?

Note that this wasn't, from my understanding, a training flight, but it seems the airport has significant training activity. Training goes with mistakes...

I agree with DashTrash, not sure what can be usefully changed at a VFR operation like KAPA, for that matter, KSDL, KDVT, KBJC (also in Denver), KVNY, and KSNA all very similar in layout and VFR traffic count. Certainly, increased midair awareness training, the COPA might get involved as the type club for Cirrus owners has been very good in safety training. Carrying 190 knots of ground speed indicates loss of situational awareness. I’ve operated “heavy” bizjets at all of them and it can be a bit concerning at times, especially trying to spot a Cessna just off the parallel runway as you’re getting airborne and passing them or cleared to land with a plane on base for the parallel.

Here’s an article on COPA.

https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/08/wha ... us-pilots/

jetmatt777 · Tue May 18, 2021 5:57 pm

It was mentioned up thread that they were running two tower frequencies, one for each runway. Their plate only shows one frequency for tower. Do they have an unofficial frequency they use during busier times?

GalaxyFlyer · Tue May 18, 2021 6:40 pm

Certainly not “unofficial” but is unpublished.

hivue · Tue May 18, 2021 7:13 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Cirrus was responsible to maintain his flight path and not cross the centerline

Is there actually a regulation to the effect that on a visual approach you can't cross the center line? I realize that a skilled airman flying right traffic will not want to look clumsy by getting even a little bit to the left of center line on final, but is there a rule dictating this?

GalaxyFlyer · Tue May 18, 2021 7:20 pm

hivue wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Cirrus was responsible to maintain his flight path and not cross the centerline

Is there actually a regulation to the effect that on a visual approach you can't cross the center line? I realize that a skilled airman flying right traffic will not want to look clumsy by getting even a little bit to the left of center line on final, but is there a rule dictating this?

There cannot be a rule for every flying evolution, unless you like “Do not crash”. No, I know of no such rule to maintain centerline, but not having a rule doesn’t absolve the Pilot to operate the plane safely, in accordance with the ATC clearance or instruction.

AIM 4-3-5,

There have been several incidents in the vicinity of controlled airports that were caused primarily by aircraft executing unexpected maneuvers. ATC service is based upon observed or known traffic and airport conditions. Controllers establish the sequence of arriving and departing aircraft by requiring them to adjust flight as necessary to achieve proper spacing. These adjustments can only be based on observed traffic, accurate pilot reports, and anticipated aircraft maneuvers. Pilots are expected to cooperate so as to preclude disrupting traffic flows or creating conflicting patterns. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft.

FX1816 · Tue May 18, 2021 8:56 pm

hivue wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Cirrus was responsible to maintain his flight path and not cross the centerline

Is there actually a regulation to the effect that on a visual approach you can't cross the center line? I realize that a skilled airman flying right traffic will not want to look clumsy by getting even a little bit to the left of center line on final, but is there a rule dictating this?

Be careful using a term like visual approach. The SR22 was in the pattern, they were not cleared for an approach to the airport. As GalaxyFlyer said, there is not a rule for every such event that has or could potentially happen in air traffic. Common sense must be used to some degree and in this situation the SR22 should have stayed in their own lane.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue May 18, 2021 9:05 pm

True that...a visual approach has a specific IFR definition; while flying a traffic pattern, necessarily under VMC, has its own meaning and standards.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net