Mid-air on final to same runway kills 3

[Jaba-who]

In regards to the high number of elderly deaths as pedestrians I think you will find if you could get reliable statistics on the age of all pedestrians hit compared to killed and I don't think the elderly would be overly represented BUT the elderly don't bounce so well and will be more likely to suffer a more serious injury than a younger more agile individual.At least the majority of elderly pedestrians aren't getting around with their heads buried in their mobiles and for sure they may be a little hard of hearing but no worse than someone with their ears full of earplugs playing their tunes.

While not wanting to get involved in elder bashing etc but.....for the education of the assembled masses.

 

One track is correct. The elderly are significantly over represented in the pedestrian accident statistics both in fatalities and non-fatal injuries.

 

The next nearest group are about half in incidence - that's the drunk ( or drugged ) young adults.

 

Then comes young children and lastly adults over age 30 but less than 70 years of age.

 

 

[bull]

Easy to land on top of another plane and you never see it till you hear it. The Drifter is about the best there is for vis from the front seat. Try one if you haven't , and enjoy the view. Nev

My gt500 is pretty good for vis,but it really is just a drifter on steroids

 

 

[onetrack]

I recall an incident from way back (1989 to be precise), when one C152 (VH-BFT) collided with another C152 (VH-TNO) at Jandakot when both were on final approach.

 

It was a very close thing, with the RH leading wingtip of one C152 buckling the VS of the other C152.

 

They separated immediately after contact, and both landed safely, despite the damage. There were 3 controllers in the tower, but the workload in the tower was intensive, due to heavy traffic.

 

The causes were multiple, as is quite often the case.

 

1.) Mis-identification of another aircraft in the circuit (a Piper Navajo) as the C152, VH-TNO, by a relatively green pilot in C152, VH-BFT.

 

2.) Sighting of VH-BFT by VH-TNO, and assessment by the pilot of VH-TNO, that VH-BFT was well clear of him.

 

3.) A heavy workload in the tower that led the controller to believe that all aircraft on approach had sighted and identified each other. The controller didn't understand that there was a developing collision between the two C152's, due to the mis-identification of the Navajo, until it was too late to do anything.

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/26296/aair198900238.pdf

 

 

[Garfly]

The collision near Coventry airport in 2008, killing five, also shows that even having a tower is no guarantee:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f6dd40f0b613420005b1/8-2010_G-BOLZ_G-EYES.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Tower is not a guarantee. True. But an advantage. Yes. Nev

 

 

[Hargraves]

To add even more speculation, everyones assuming they both (looked)

 

 

[facthunter]

An overloaded Tower Isn't a real one. It's a dysfunctional one. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

Garfly, in the G-EYES/G-BOLZ collision, it appears not only were there ATC failures, but it's highly likely the pilot of G-BOLZ was under the impression that G-EYES was carrying out a normal landing, instead of high-speed GA's involving instrument calibration, so he probably would have dismissed G-EYES as a collision threat, fully expecting G-EYES to be on the runway within a very short time.

 

The angle of approach of G-EYES to G-BOLZ is described as "likely to have been visible behind the trailing edge of G-BOLZ’s right wing."

 

To sight G-EYES, the pilot of G-BOLZ would have had to rotate his head more than 90 degrees. Table 4 in the report indicates the possible approach angle of G-EYES to G-BOLZ was 121 degrees (to the right), shortly before impact.

 

In addition, converging objects, even when travelling at substantially differing speeds, often appear to produce no relative movement, thus becoming virtually invisible to someone looking out for a moving object.

 

Finally, there is that curious human factor called "inattentional blindness". One looks, the eyes see, but the brain does not register the object seen.

 

In my personal observations, I believe IB becomes a more common problem, as one ages. Once you are aware of the possibility of IB, you can train yourself to be more cautious, and increase the amount of checking that you do.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

The idea of a prang like this gives me the willies. Be careful you people.

I agree Nev. I'd rather learn from the experience of others than be the guy who does something that everyone else learns a lesson from. Re "ages" and "genders" (the latter doesn't seem to have edged into the conversation but it frequently has in other such discussions), I offer a link to a scientific study about: “Impact of gender, age and experience of pilots on general aviation accidents”

 

I am not sure of the study's country of origin, but the site spells “organization” with an “s.” In the U.S. we use a “z.”

 

Impact of gender, age and experience of pilots on general aviation accidents

 

I’ve never read the report - only the Abstract and Highlights. The report is available for $41.95. I have had problems trying to convince someone to buy a copy and pass it around.

 

Note that the Abstract of this study states: “However, evidence is found that male pilots, those older than 60 years of age, and with more experience, are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident.” And the Research Highlights states: “Furthermore, it seems that the likelihood of pilots to be involved in a fatal accident increases with the pilot's experience and age.”

 

I wonder if one reason for those conclusions could be that the accidents involve more night and IFR flying and more complex aircraft than younger pilots with less experience. Putting a C150 down in a paddock due to engine failure even if it goes over on its back is a lot less likely to cause fatalities than putting a Bonanza or a C414 down on “a dark and stormy night.” Mass, velocity, and angle of impact can have a lot to do with the result regardless of pilot’s age or gender.

 

Abstract

 

General aviation (GA) accounts for more than 82% of all air transport-related accidents and air transport-related fatalities in the U.S. In this study, we conduct a series of statistical analyses to investigate the significance of a pilot's gender, age and experience in influencing the risk for pilot errors and fatalities in GA accidents. There is no evidence from the Chi-square tests and logistic regression models that support the likelihood of an accident caused by pilot error to be related to pilot gender. However, evidence is found that male pilots, those older than 60 years of age, and with more experience, are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

 

Research highlights

 

This study analyzes factors contributing to general aviation (GA) fatal and non-fatal accidents in US for about 40,000 accidents from 1983–2002. We adopt a series of statistical analyses to identify the impact of pilots’ age, gender and experience on GA accidents. ? The study shows that age and gender of pilots do not contribute to pilot errors. However, pilots’ experiences proved to be statistically significant indicating that less experienced pilots are more likely to make an error that causes an accident. ? The statistical analyses show that male pilots are more at risk of being involved in a fatal accident than female pilots. Furthermore, it seems that the likelihood of pilots to be involved in a fatal accident increases with the pilot's experience and age. ? Regression analyses identify associations between combined pilots’ ages, genders and experiences on pilots’ errors and fatal accidents. Age and gender were not identified to be significant contributing factors. However, pilots’ experiences were found to be statistically significant, suggesting that more experienced pilots are less likely to be involved in an accident caused by pilot error. ? The important managerial implication from this study is that there should be no discrimination between male and female pilots, or between young and senior pilots up to 60 years of age with respect to their safety performance, as measured by the likelihood of pilot error.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Finally, there is that curious human factor called "inattentional blindness". One looks, the eyes see, but the brain does not register the object seen.In my personal observations, I believe IB becomes a more common problem, as one ages. Once you are aware of the possibility of IB, you can train yourself to be more cautious, and increase the amount of checking that you do.

I know a very experienced commercial pilot who experienced IB when answering an incoming call at a critical moment in the flight. As a result of this mental distraction he missed, until the last moment, a glaringly obvious threat to his life. While driving I have experienced the same with a "hands-free" phone call.

The lesson seems to be AVIATE then, when the workload allows, NAVIGATE, and leave COMMUNICATE till last.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF a target stays stationary in the windscreen you will collide if nothing is done about it. This makes it harder to see also. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

Kathryn's Report: Diamond DA20-C1 Katana, Falcon Aviation Academy LLC, N85WP (and) Beechcraft F33A Bonanza, N6027K: Fatal accident occurred September 07, 2016 at West Georgia Regional Airport (KCTJ), Carrollton, Carroll County, Georgia

 

From Mastery Flight Training comes this highly relevant and statistic-based information .. the quoted paragraphs are referring to this crash ..

 

AOPA Air Safety Institute’s “Collision Avoidance Safety Advisor” tells us that 40% of all midair collisions (MACs) happen at less than 500 feet Above Ground Level in the traffic pattern. Where are you below 500 AGL in the pattern? Short final approach, right where this collision occurred. 39% occur in converging traffic [one airplane on base, the other on final] and a whopping 47% occur when a faster airplane overtakes a slower one from behind. “The majority of MACs occur in the traffic pattern.”Further, “while flight instructors comprise only 15 percent of the pilot population,” a “flight instructor was aboard one of the aircraft in more than one-fourth" of all MACs. Possible explanations? CFIs spend more time in the traffic pattern [with their students] than pilots as a whole; “their attention is often focused on teaching, instead of scanning for traffic.”

The instructor and student were apparently practising touch and go's, so there's another factor involved.

 

I haven't found any information on the length of the flight time of the Bonanza (N6027K) before the crash - but it's not unreasonable to assume that due to the lack of fire, the Bonanza tanks were on the low side, thus indicating a lengthy flight, and possible fatigue issues at the end of a lengthy solo flight.

 

Both the instructor, and the 79 yr old pilot of the Bonanza have been highly praised as dedicated pilots with rigorous and thorough attention to safety and regulations, so that is what makes the crash even more puzzling.

 

 

[Garfly]

Onetrack, yes, I agree, the fatal factor at Coventry seems to have been the unusually high speed of the C402 on final (due to its ILS calibration task). This crucial (out-of-the-ordinary) fact was not grasped by the controller who'd come on shift.

 

Anyway, as far as I can read, the outcome had little connection with what the pilot of G-BOLZ did or didn't do and nothing whatever to do with his age.

 

He was, after all, following the direction of the Aerodrome Controller, sequenced #2 to follow the PA28. In fact, he was never directly informed of the C402 established on the ILS although he would have heard the controller tell some aircraft (G-EYES) to follow him as #3. So he was entitled to assume that his right flank was more or less protected and that it was his job to make sure the landing PA28 (#1) was in sight and well clear. Of course, he should've - probably would've - instinctively 'cleared-right' visually, at least prior to turning final but, then, it never came to that. Before the turn he was directed to fly on through finals since the controller realised that his sequence plan wasn't working out. Too late, too late.

 

If an "Inattentional Blindness" issue arose, here, it might have been more with the 402 crew although the report says that the small G-BOLZ was probably hidden from the view of the Cessna's lookout pilot by the central windscreen pillar. It's also mentioned that since they were on an IFR plan, that crew's expectation might have been assured protection from VFR circuit traffic. This, though, was not technically/legally true since the whole thing was actually happening in G airspace. (As far as I know, this contradiction: tower 'control' in 'uncontrolled' airspace does not arise in Australia, at all. But then, if the UK had our system, there'd probably be precious little G airspace available there at all.)

 

Anyway, much to learn from this tragedy, for which, it seems, no individual was clearly to blame.

 

For me, one lesson is to keep one's head moving around fixed obstructions checking for the worst of threats - the hidden and/or unmoving ones. Another lesson: when doing anything in the air other-than-might-be-expected, especially near airports, let others know so they can be on guard against normal (false) assumptions.

 

But there's nothing in this report that warns me against getting old(er), especially.

 

Still it's true (G.B.Shaw said it first, I think) that whereas recreational flying is the most wonderful thing in the world, it's a shame that it's wasted on the old.

 

BTW: I note that the first commenters on Kathryn's Report (Post #37 above) jumping in about the West Georgia accident were quick to blame the oldness of the old guy. Never mind the rules of evidence ... nor defamation.

 

 

[onetrack]

So he was entitled to assume that his right flank was more or less protected

And right there is the crux of the problem. I have had it drilled into me, "Never ASSUME anything - because it makes an ASS out of U and ME."The final responsibility is on the PIC to avoid MAC's. ATC can only do so much. The statistical MAC figures are clear - only 14% of MAC's occur as head-ons, 39% occur as side-ons with converging aircraft, and a whopping 47% occur as one aircraft overtakes another.

Another factor in the MAC between G-BOLZ and G-EYES was that the pilot of G-BOLZ had only flown 3 times in the previous 12 mths.

 

You keep up to speed by getting out there regularly, and practising keeping familiar with the demands and intricacies of the tasks of flying.

 

Plenty of good and important advice here - https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Pilot-Resources/ASI/Safety-Advisors/sa15.pdf

 

 

[Yenn]

It is very easy in the circuit to miss other aircraft. You tend to concentrate on the runway and threshold rathe than look all around.

 

I was flying into a bush strip years ago in the Corby on final, when a STOL Zenith appearsd on my right doing a right base to the same strip. There had been no radio chatter, nor was it needed. I just pulled right a bit and passed the Zenith about 15m away and landed really long on the 2000m strip.

 

The Zenith pilot was a far better pilot than me, but he had not seen me approaching him, was rather surprised when I passed him.

 

His reason for the right circuit was that others were using the adjacent strip under the left circuit side or sky diving. His radio was not working.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Is there no possibility that you have the wrong vision?...I don`t think it`s the right thing to do, to call the 79 year old pilot, a "Bonanza driver."

It should have been a Bonza Pilot.

 

Alan.

 

 

[farri]

It should have been a Bonza Pilot. Alan.

Allan, Your sense of humor never ceases to amaze me and YES! The man may well have been a Bonza Pilot.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

Ahem. Bonza? For those of us across the pond, what is a Bonza Pilot? Bonza doesn't translate. I found bonser which is supposedly Australian slang for wonderful (or similar). Any help here? I'm just a naturally curious type. Thanks.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Older people are high on the pedestrian-fatalities statistics, and you have to ask why.

Listening to head-banging music? Busy playing Pokemon Go?

 

 

[Geoff13]

Bonza is the same as your bonser. It not our fault you Americans can't spell.

 

 

[facthunter]

Got a "zee" instead of an"ess". Actually a Zee is a ZED here. Bonza means good, but it's a while since I heard that word used. Pretty uncommon. "Fair dinkum" means the real McCoy, genuine, the real article no cow poo. (no bovine excrement) Nev

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

Bonza is the same as your bonser. It not our fault you Americans can't spell.

Thanks Jeff! Oops. Geoff.

 

True, we can't spell (organization, and we are separated by a common language, but we have one - perhaps only one - redeeming trait. We drive on the "right" side of the road.

 

Having spent time in your great country, as well as other great countries such as New Zealand, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Cayman Islands, Jamaica, etc, I still cannot understand how people learn to drive on the other side of the road. I finally decided just to keep the driver's side of the vehicle closest to the center of the road and ignore which side of the road I was on. Of course that didn't help in the Cayman Islands. I was riding a motorbike.

 

Back to spellings: For us, color, honor, labor. For you, colour, honour, labour (except for Australian Labor Party)? But thanks again.

 

 

[Geoff13]

You may drive on the right side of the road but we drive on the correct side.

 

I also have had the pleasure of driving in Europe but I was driving a right hand drive most of the time. That was interesting.

 

 

[facthunter]

We are probably the odd man out with this. It's silly to have both sides. The command seat on aircraft is almost universally the left side . Some choppers are the other way. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

Don't start on RHS or LHS on trains! That's an even greater c***-up!

 

And as for the Americans - in the 224 years since driving on the right was made mandatory in the U.S., they had steering on the RHS for 126 of them!

 

Henry Ford was the bloke who moved all the Ford steering wheels to the left in 1908 - and then all the other U.S. manufacturers slowly followed suit, with Pierce-Arrow still building their cars in RHD in 1920!