Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

The info below is a direct cut and paste from the NTSB site concerning the collision between the biplane and the Slick RC model



NTSB Identification: CEN10LA487B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 14, 2010 in Brighton, CO
Aircraft: , registration:
Injuries: Unavailable

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On August 14, 2010, approximately 1100 mountain daylight time, a Shpakow SA 750 bi-plane, N28KT, was substantially damaged when it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport, Brighton, Colorado. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. The pilot and his passenger were not injured. The flight departed Centennial Airport, Denver, Colorado, approximately 1030 and was en route to Brighton, Colorado.

According to a video of the accident and multiple witnesses, the radio controlled airplane was maneuvering over runway 12. The bi-plane is seen flying from the north to south in straight and level flight when the radio controlled airplane climbs directly into the bi-planes flight path. The bi-plane was able to land without further incident. An examination of the airplane revealed that the left lower wing spar was crushed.

thailazer

Thank You for posting that, and I hope you can keep us abreast of developments as the investigation progresses.

I am very surprised that the report, even being preliminary, did not refer to an organized public event that was occurring at the airport. That would seem to be just as important as meteorological conditions at the time of the incident.

outdoorhunting

Who wants to bet,it will end up being the RCers fault? They stated," the RC plane climbs directly into the path of the biplane" IMHO,I feel the organizer is at fault, then the biplane. However, you know what they say about opinions. To be totally honest, I guess it would HAVE to be the RC's fault. When it comes to a "toy" plane or a human life there can be NO exceptions.

tommygun32

Hmmmm....I'm just wondering how long before THIS thread receives the 'Harry Potter' treatment...[sm=47_47.gif]

beepee

Don't be too quick to assume the FAA will come to the defense of the bipe pilot. They are known in the full scale world by the slogan: "We are not happen until you are not happy."

I have been watching this subject here and in full scale forums. The comments in the full scale side range across the board spreading fault, but the 'trend' (if there is one) is toward placing the fault with the organizers and flight control. I agree - for whatever that is worth. Here is a useful quote I picked up along the way:

"The event last Saturday took place at a private airfield. At a minimum they could have filed a NOTAM (Notice to Airman) alerting pilots of radio controlled operations at the airport during specific times, and if they were to allow those operations on or near the runway, the runway could have been closed," said FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer. "In all cases with regard to radio controlled aircraft interfacing with manned vehicles, the manned vehicle retains the right of way."

"Even if the pilot of the RC aircraft was at fault, there's actually no law regarding the operation of remote-control aircraft near airports, or anywhere, despite the growing popularity of giant-scale aircraft as large as eight feet in size.

The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) does have a "Safety Code" stipulating modelers shouldn't fly above 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport and to notify airports when they're in close proximity, but Kenitzer says "It should be noted that the code is suggestive and not binding by federal law."

The FAA also issued an advisory circular, but it was from 1981 and the hobby has evolved significantly in the last 29 years. The AMA, FAA, and other groups put together a list of suggestions in 2009 for how to regulate these aircraft, but it has met with resistance from some hobbyists, and the report itself includes objections from the AMA."

One point to draw out of this comment is that full scale must retain right of way over RC. There can be no other way. That does not put the blame of the RC pilot. He was there by intention and I believe the blame will be placed on the preparation for flight over an 'active runway' and lack of a safety plan and spotter (effective one anyway) to help the RC pilot give way.

Will keep watching as this develops further.

Bedford

JollyPopper

My Feedback: (6)

I guess I need to go back and watch the video again. I certainly did not get the impression that the RC pilot flew directly into the path of the bipe. I had the impression that the spotter or whoever was on that microphone told the RC pilot that the bipe was coming down the runway and the RC pilot was attempting to move out of the way.

I guess it's legal because there has been no outcry, but why in hell would the bipe pilot be making a high speed pass down the runway just a few feet off the ground with smoke on? Part of the show, I guess, but it seems extremely dangerous with people all over the place like they were.

That being said, there is no question as to which is more important. The manned aircraft has to have the right of way in every and all instances.

ira d

So far we still dont anymore than what has been known all along, However we must keep in mind there is no such thing as absolute right of way so full
scale does not always have the right of way.

If a full scale sees a model in path they have aduty to try to avoid the model no matter where the model may be flying if the model does not yeld or does
not see the full scale. Of course common sense says that a model pilot should yeld to a full scall and in 99% of the cases they do if they see the full scale
but if for somereason the model does not yeld and there is a collison it does not automatically put the model at fault.

ThomasD59

There's plenty of blame to be placed here...but one thing that sticks with me is this:  since when does a go-around include pouring on the smoke?  He was hot-dogging, and paid the price.  He's lucky he didn't get himself killed.

beepee

A couple of follow up comments ...

The application of 'right of way' does not necessarily assign fault. Full scale must always have right of way. The pilot has a 'see and avoid' obligation (so does the RC pilot for that matter), but it is darn hard to see an RC aircraft in his circumstance. He is on a fast and low fly-by, is concentrating on that (like the RC pilot on his activity), and has no reason to expect an RC aircraft over an 'active' (we don't know if that is true or not) runway. As Thomas says above, the bipe pilot was hot doggin' it and in my opinion was in no way 'part of the show.' If he was, the organizers have got some major 'splainin' to do!

FAA premise for air-space management is 'see and avoid'. That applies to everyone. That is why FAA is wrangling so with the UAVs, because they do not have the inherent ability to 'see and avoid'.

My thoughts, anyway.

Bedford

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Full Scale has the right of way. However, there is no way that the RC pilot can take his eyes off his plane.

This was an RC event being held at a private airport, so there is no doubt that the fickle finger of fate points directly to the event's Air Boss, or the pilot's caller.

SOMEONE should have been watching everything BUT the RC plane. So the bottom line is: Either the event organizers omitted this critical position, or whoever was supposed to be watching for full scale aircraft had his head up his butt.

But both pilots are blameless

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

+1.. was told to go around and did a "Don't do it Maverick" TopGun low pass,,, he's lucky to be breathing

BillyGoat

As for the part of the report that says "the radio controlled airplane climbs directly into the bi-planes flight path"... The owner of the AJ Slick was posting on another forum and said "I had the Slick right next to me, next thing I hear is punch it and basically duck !!!!!!!!"

So someone tried to get him to fly out of the way of the bipe, but ended up putting him in direct line with it instead.

beepee

Good sum-up MinnFlyer, except while the full scale pilot may be blameless for the incident, he may have problems with the FAA for executing an unsafe maneuver.

Bedford

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

This is true

thailazer

I flew at a large airshow once, and there was a NOTAM about the airport being closed during the actual demonstrations. Even so, some aircraft still got clearance to land and a few taxied right by while I was flying. I had a guy standing next to me in contact with the tower so we knew what was going on at all times.

Does anyone know if there was a NOTAM of any kind in effect there? I doubt there was. Lot's of discussion about this incident on the full scale flying forums. Check out http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?D...y=%2Findex.cfm for starters.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

No NOTAM, it was a private flying park.

I'd be shocked if that guy doesn't loose his ticket for at least a month. Missed approach, yea right.

JollyPopper

My Feedback: (6)

Is that full size pilot claiming a missed approach now?

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

What a mess this has turned into. IMHO the only guy not at fault lost a $8,000 airplane. The event sponsor or air boss owe him a plane. The full scale guy let his ego get the best of him, but his actions were not as reckless as who ever was supposed to be in charge of this.
Our club got in invited to put on a demo at a airport 30 miles from our hometown a few years back. It's a long story, but I will never do it again. When I full scale Cub thought it was funny to do touch and goes on our designated grass runway while I am flying a 1/3 scale Laser. Someone could have got hurt or killed. Then I would be the poor blankety blank who did not have the right of way. A Mac Minnelli twin would put a big hole in fabric covered Cub.

David

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Sorry, he was doing a "go-around". Full speed, smoke on, no doubt to anyone watching he was showing off when he clearly didn't understand what was going on at the airport.

Sport_Pilot

If it were a .40 sized perhaps, but this was about a third of the size of the plane that hit it!    If the airplane is 4000 feet away, then it would be about the same as a full scale from 12,000 feet away.

The problem is that the pilot flew too low and too close to people at a private airport, obviously trying to show off with his smoke.

Sport_Pilot

Keep in mind this is from a very old AC. The NTSB will keep the FARS a lot closer to heart when evaluating this.

The NTSB wil find fault with one, or the other, or both. The Air Boss had no authority and gave no information that was incorrect. His information was exactly the same as unicom information. If unicom gives you bad data and you don't clear the field and have a mid air with an aircraft, NTSB will never blame the unicom operator, though they may comment on their error. The pilot is almost allways at fault. Even when he probably should not be.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I withdraw that statement, I was not aware that the FS pilot was told to go around and thought that there was no ground-to-pilot communication.That being the case, I would say that the FS pilot was at fault

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

Get ready to be the whipping boy. lol

David

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Well, after having watched the video and read the various RC and full scale forums I have come to what I believe is the indesputable finding on who was at fault.

It has been quite clear during my review that ALL signs of blame point directly to ONE person, and only ONE person. That person is, of course, MinnFlyer.

If MinnFlyer had been properly executing his duties as an RCU moderator, he would have quickly stepped in and taken control of the clearly disorganized situation. His failure to do that resulted in a situation that remained chaotic, at best, and almost resulted in tragedy.

MinnFlyer, you are hereby publicly admonished!

Sport_Pilot

The report sayst the aircraft is a Shpakow but that is incorract. An SA750 is a Acroduster Two.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft/1.htm

The owners name is Thomas Shpakow.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N28KT.html

On another post in another thread it was said that he holds a waiver, or more accurately an Aerobatic Competency Card . But I don't see him on this list.

http://www.airshows.aero/WaiverReport/S

However I believe these waivers only allow you to do low level aerobatics at airshows that are themselves waivered with patterns and plans to preventflying aircraft frombeing too near the crowd.