What the hell are these guys doing this year???

http://www.adn.com/2011/09/02/2046284/t ... rt-of.html

Gump

What scares me are the comments made about the story. These are Alaskans? "Those little planes scares me"? "I hope that silly super cub pilot on floats knows what he's doing"

The Caravan went down and the 206 landed. Need more information.

There are some small hills north of Nightmute, but to the south where this collision happened, it is all flat and tundra. They were not competing for space in a socked in mountain pass. Bethel is like a stirred up hornet's nest most of the time, but not out at Nightmute. It's empty and quiet out there.

Just a bad deal.

Gump

Edit: ADN now says NORTH of Nightmute.

You know... there are two things that are super sad here.

First... Anchorage and its metropolis view of the world is growing. I can remember in my young life time when south of Dimond was the swamp. I have only lived up here for 23 years, and I am 32. The comments I see after every crash are appalling. I have wanted to fly since the first weeks after I moved up here and I saw 172s and Cubs cutting across the Knik River Basin as seen from Lazy Mountain. I truly do miss the days of sitting in my yard on that mountain with the view counting the airplanes fly by. There are too many people that fail to remember that flying is a part of life today like mushing was pretty recently.

Second... I am so deathly afraid of the mid air collision and those last seconds. It is terrifying and I think about it every few seconds in flight. I know it is such a rarity, but dang how many is that this year? I am sure that both of these guys and all the others did absolutely everything they could have done to avoid it. Mid air collisions are probably the least likely cause of crashing, but dang...

Fly safe,
Matt

Sad thing for sure. I don't know if this has any bearing on the accident but when I fly a GPS course between airports, I usually drift off to the right a few miles and then reset the line. Two pilots that are really good at staying on a GPS course line will eventually pass pretty close to each other. I am flying for fun most of the time and a few extra miles won't cost much.

I was doing a straight line course from Nephi to Spanish Fork one day at about 2000 AGL when I saw a Katana right in front of me. I swerved off to the right and they passed about 40 feet below where I was. We passed close enough that I saw they were talking. I don't know if they even saw me. There is a lot of air out there but it does happen.

Two thoughts come to mind. When we were developing Synthetic Vision terrain systems for Capstone in Alaska... I brought up the issue the other poster mentioned. Being "dead nuts on" course with WAAS Gps nav solutions is going to lead to running into other planes. I like the idea of a deliberate "offset" when headed to common waypoints in the area.
The other pet peeve I have is the FAA lack of common sense in distribution of frequencies for CTAF.
I have flown every state, territory and backwoods burg out there. Being assigned 122.8 or 122.7 or 123.0 just leads to announcements on the frequency that originate from many miles away at another airport. We were required to dump the old 360 channel radios at our cost. In public service and firefighting, they are being required to dump analog radios and invest in $40K plus radios that are P25 digital capable. All of this is because frequencies are in "short supply" according to the FCC. Bullshit...
They are selling off allocations to commercial users for millions a pop.
We could easily have discreet frequencies assigned to all the little airports out there... including all those in the little pink book in Alaska. The feds are not looking out for your safety.
Of course the last challenge is getting all the pilots to use the radio. We had two Bell 407's full of patients and EMT's etc. collide near Flagstaff a while back. Lots dead and millions gone.
A few short conversations, pilot to pilot on a discreet freq. fixes that. No more tuning out the chatter because it comes from miles away. Easy, cheap... quick. Can the FAA see the solution. Probably not. Remember, they don't show up at your funeral.

I always tell folks "The shit that will kill you is outside the window".
All that fancy shit in the cockpit will be right next to you when you crash.
If you want to look inside all the time, go rent a simulator.

But that's just me......

I was out playing last weekend and had 2 close calls with traffic coming up behind me. I was on the CTAF and announcing my position every few minutes as the area gets pretty busy at times. I was at the mouth of the big sue headed up to skwentna at 500' cruising along at 85 on the GPS and I had a 206 coming in from Beluga (the last report I heard from that pilot was him calling out that he was departing Beluga) cross over me at the most 150' above me. Scared the shit out of me when he zoomed through my skylight. About 10 minutes later, I had a 185 on floats cut across my nose from behind and off my right wing and pass in front of me about 200 yrds. A simple call to tell me he was coming up on me at the same altitude would have been a real nice jesture.

I was never one to spend much time reporting positions on the radio.. I just listened for traffic and kept an eye out for the ones who called out... But then I realised that there are alot more jack wagons like me who were radio silent so I decided to not add to the problem by remaning silent.

God Speed Scotty, You went west doing what you loved the most!

Flightlogic. I know that the FCC sells off frequencies by reallocation of bands from one use to another. I don't recall the reallocation of "holes" inside a given band of frequencies. We still have 108mhz to 136mhz don't we?

I think you make an excellent point though about the need for additional CTAF frequencies.

It seems to me that FAA at one time intended to put pressure on avionics manufacturers to make TCAS more affordable. Which brings up the point; were these two pilots VFR below the 1000' ceiling, or IFR without ATC? If the latter then they were traveling either an even thousand or an odd thousand depending on direction of flight. So did the Caravan "run down" the 206? Surely the Caravan had TCAS. If a pilot is operating WAAS IFR in the bush does he squawk anything? Would TCAS have even helped? Are there ATC remote communication repeaters out there? I don't think so. This is not an area of personal expertise, I'm truly asking.

Seems like the Alaska Airperson's Association had better have a big pow wow and come up with some procedures before the Frankenstein's Anti Airmen's Association comes up with a draconian fix.

Not enough information.

I do not agree. I believe that a mid-air collision is the greatest risk when I fly. I have taken evasive action to avoid a potential collision a handful of times. Perhaps other pilots have had to do the same to prevent a collision with me..?

I lost family members in a mid air collision over the Kenai River in the early 70's. All occupants of the other aircraft perished also. I believe that the sun on the horizon and the blinding effect it has contributed to that one. One factor in the snow ball effect? All I can do is speculate.

We can do things to minimize risk. The most important is to SEE AND BE SEEN.

907Pilot wrote: Mid air collisions are probably the least likely cause of crashing, but dang...

Fly safe,
Matt

907Pilot wrote:Second... I am so deathly afraid of the mid air collision and those last seconds. It is terrifying and I think about it every few seconds in flight. I know it is such a rarity, but dang how many is that this year? I am sure that both of these guys and all the others did absolutely everything they could have done to avoid it. Mid air collisions are probably the least likely cause of crashing, but dang...

Fly safe,
Matt

Matt,

This winter sometime, have a look at Hangar.Net on MRI. There are three Navajos and a Chieftan based there with enormous da-glo orange stripes pasted on them. They fly around Denali all summer on sight-sees, and I can tell you that the orange really helps visibility. That, plus they're talking when they fly. Be great if more people did that.

And re. the call for more discrete freq's, I can't say that I agree in my area. Kind of fun to overhear what's happening from Rainy Pass to Tanana, in fact, and seldom ever crowded on-freq. Quite often turns out to be a friend anyway. Now up on the big hill, there are specific frequencies and traffic patterns which have proven to be indispensable.

Fly safe, (and go get yourself those side-mount visors!)

-DP

The absolute scariest spot in Alaska for mid airs is Point McKenzie in my opinion. I have had close calls there with everything with wings……. It is a reporting point for 4 different airports on 4 different radio freq.

And, that is precisely the point when it comes to radio frequencies. We don't need more DISCRETE frequencies....we need more AREAS that are on the same frequency. Example: I take off from a rural airport, headed for another rural airport. There is NO uniform frequency for the area between airport traffic areas.

Canada has such a frequency, and requires (okay, so nobody's enforcing it that I know of) that all pilots monitor that frequency while they're outside an airport's traffic area.

THAT would be useful. Instead, we have people at airport A on one frequency, people at airport B on another frequency, and pilots at airport C on yet another frequency.

On Kodiak Island, pilots recognized this simply wasn't safe, and everyone simply defaulted to 122.8, counter to FAA recommendations. But, if I was running down the west side and saw another plane, I knew if they were from Kodiak, I could raise them on that frequency. The only problem was that "outsiders" who came from off the island weren't aware of this little arrangement, and a few "discussions" ensued about use of "proper CTAF" frequencies. Eventually, the FAA gave up and made the CTAF for all the Kodiak airports to 122.8.

A similar "unofficial" arrangement was in place last time I flew in NW Alaska. Gump??

What we need is everyone in a general AREA on the SAME frequency, not on separate frequencies. That may cause some frequency congestion, but a bit of radio discipline can fix most of that in remote parts of the world.

MTV

Then you get folks on the grond announcing there position every two minuts. Or sombody in air asking how sombodies wife's uplift or tuck worked out on 122.8

Tim

As usual, I used words too sparingly to fully explain what I was talking about. Yes, the aviation band has not been robbed, yet. That is my point. There are hundreds of available frequencies in every area of the country. They could be assigned discreetly. And by discreet, I mean for a defined area as MTV suggested. The point is, you only hear the planes in your area. Not the ones reporting to each other.... but being heard line of sight from an area 150 miles North of you. They could be printed right on the sectional chart, with boundaries defined. Re-using frequencies or double allocating would be prohibited in the general line of sight boundaries. After getting the radio help we need, then the balance is up to us. Pilots would have to USE it. Not just listen. Not yack about other bullshit on the air. Fellow pilots would have to be bold enough to tell a guy to knock it off and text his buddy if it can't wait.
In the meantime... since the FCC and FAA could give a crap about whether you crash or not... we need to use all the tools. Bright colors, strobes, talk on the unicom, TPAS devices, eyes outside...not on the fancy avionics. Alaska was the hardest for me to maintain discipline. Just not enough traffic in a given work day going by. Sometimes hours or days before seeing another plane. But, my jobs were often remote.
One more habit some might have... not going to admit who: Find out the minimum enroute altitudes assigned to IFR aircraft in your area. Fly below those and choose odds and evens. Skip the five hundred feet. You might find that you are in your own little space most of the time.

In my area, all the San Juan Island airports (4 public-use plus several private-owned) use 128.25. Makes it handy if flying through the area, no freq-hopping required. I fly into a couple private strips right near my home airport-- I use the big airport freq 123.00, not 122.9, cuz I figure all 3 privates are within the bigger public airport's unofficial traffic area.
One freq for an area (not just one airport) makes sense to me.
And I agree with Skytruck-- what you need to keep an eye out for is outside the airplane, NOT on the panel.

[quote="flightlogic"]As usual, I used words too sparingly to fully explain what I was talking about. Yes, the aviation band has not been robbed, yet. That is my point. ............ Pilots would have to USE it. Not just listen. Not yack about other bullshit on the air. Fellow pilots would have to be bold enough to tell a guy to knock it off and text his buddy if it can't wait.
quote]


kinda contradicting yourself.. I dont know about you, but we often fly in groups of 3 or 4 on our way out to another adventure. A major part of that "flying for fun" is bullshitting with your buddies on the way. The radio is the best way to do that. Smoke signals and texting from a plane are not real condusive to safe flight. You say to keep your eyes out of the plane, yet then suggest that you text instead of talk on the radio. You ever tried texting and flying? (I did last weekend and it sucked!) Texting and driving is killing people every day on the roads yet you advocate doing it in the air, BRILLIANT!!

I like listening to others on the radio as they are often bullshitting with thier buddies about the weather they are running into etc. If I am headed that way it lets me know what to expect, and perhaps choose a different route before I get stuck in a one way mountain pass with deteriorating weather. I realise I am a little spoiled with the amount of airspace up here and traffic, but you also have to realise that most of the airspace is not used, and most people are flying along the same routes going from point A to point B so it does get pretty congested even though we have a HUGE amount of space.

FAA, FCC? You're right, they don't much care. When you consider the carnage on the highways, the number of people dead each year with drunk driving involved, mid-airs pale in comparison. And there not really tackling DUI deaths very effectively either. Drive drunk - - lose your car . . . the reason many drunks drive is they think they can get away with it, that and the risk of being caught and penalty are not all that high.

What would or *should* it cost? An effective collision avoidance device requires only a low power transciever (such as a cell phone uses ), a moving map display, a GPS engine, and logic - - combined costs way less than $500, so make it $1500 per aircraft. This is what PowerFLARM costs and is just now being voluntarily adopted for gliders in the USA. FLARM has been in use for soaring for years in Europe. FLARM even warns of and displays ground obstacles like chair lift cables when flying the Alps with its obstruction data base.

Consider that gliders are difficult to see and tend to congregate where there's lift, sometimes in narrow bands such as when ridge lift is being used. Mid-airs are a major concern even though statistically they are rare. FLARM displays any threat aircraft and gives avoidance advice. It is smart enough not to alarm if the nearby threat aircraft is not potentially on a collision course. But, it only works with other FLARM equipped aircraft, so there has got to be a high percentage of adopters to make it work really well. In the US, soaring contests will require FLARM.

I only mention this as an example of what could have been done without that FAA's expensive and rediculous failsafe and testing requirements and without the legal and litigation quagmire the US enjoys.

Jaerl, great idea on adjusting course a few miles! I will start to do that.

Another thought...When flying east, does anyone fly VFR at, say, 8400 or 8600 ft instead of 8500?

akavidflyer wrote:[Smoke] signals and texting from a plane are not real condusive to safe flight. You say to keep your eyes out of the plane, yet then suggest that you text instead of talk on the radio. You ever tried texting and flying? (I did last weekend and it sucked!) Texting and driving is killing people every day on the roads yet you advocate doing it in the air, BRILLIANT!!

I was thinking about this very thing recently. There's a lot of recrimination out there just for talking on the phone while driving. Yet as pilots we're required to conduct radio conversations while flying, often during some of the busiest stages of flight. One more reason to keep alert out there.