An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
10-16-2010 | 12:03 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lacona, NY
An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
By Rich Hanson, AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative
On Saturday August 14 there was an unfortunate mishap involving a full-scale, home-built biplane and a 43% radio controlled model aircraft. There was a number of accounts of this incident on YouTube and several of Internet forums. Much of the information was largely speculative and to some extent inaccurate. AMA does not routinely investigate model aircraft mishaps, but this was a very unusual incident with implications that could significantly affect the hobby. Within days, as AMA’s government and regulatory Affairs representative, I was on-site to gather the facts and to interview the participants. As they say, the following is the rest of the story…
Incident background
This incident occurred at a small private airport in the Denver, Colorado, area. The airfield is designed as a residence airpark and is owned and operated by a homeowners association (HOA). On the date of the incident the association hosted a by-invitation-only full-scale fly-in as a fundraiser for a local children’s hospital, and the local model aircraft club was invited to participate by exhibiting its members’ aircraft and putting on a midday RC flight demonstration. Coincidentally, the local AMA club had a community event of its own scheduled for the same day, and it was decided to send a portion of the club members to the HOA event while leaving the remaining members to participate in the club’s “Kids Fly Free Day” at the local flying site.
The president of the HOA is an inactive modeler and past member of AMA and served as the event director and air boss for the flight demonstrations. During the course of the event it was decided to allow concurrent full-scale and model aircraft operations. At least one of the modelers present cautioned against allowing concurrent ops; nevertheless, the air boss elected to proceed by communicating with the full-scale aircraft through the use of a handheld transceiver while standing at the runway’s edge, to verbally communicate with the RC pilots during the flight demonstrations.
The RC aircraft involved was a 43% AJ Slick powered by a Fox 200cc gas engine. The RC pilot was asked to provide a 3-D flight demonstration, and on this occasion the flight demo was performed without a dedicated spotter; the air boss was relied on to provide separation from any full-scale aircraft in the area.
3D Hobbies’ 126-inch AJ Slick w/Fox 200cc Gas Engine
The full-scale aircraft was a home-built Acroduster Too SA750 biplane based at the airpark. It had been flown to another event earlier in the day and was returning to base at the time of the incident.
Acroduster Too SA750 – N28KT (Lycoming IO-540)
What happened that day
At approximately 11:00a.m., the SA750 arrived at the airpark and made a low pass down the runway. The RC pilot was performing a demonstration flight at the time and was directed to move his model away from the runway as the biplane made its low pass. The biplane then flew around the traffic pattern and was presumably setting up for a landing. The RC pilot brought his aircraft back to the runway and continued his 3-D (hover) demonstration. As the biplane came around, the pilot apparently aborted his approach and decided to make a second smoke-on, low pass down the runway.
Not realizing the biplane’s intention, the air boss was unable to warn the RC pilot until moments before impact. The RC pilot hovered his model farther down the runway and increased his altitude to approximately 30-50 feet. At the last moment the biplane pilot attempted to turn right but was unable to avoid the model airplane. The biplane struck the model with its left lower wing, causing damage to the wing’s leading edge. The RC aircraft was severed between the cockpit and the empennage, fell to the ground, and was completely destroyed. The biplane pilot was able to recover his aircraft and return for a landing without injury or further damage. The RC pilot later stated that he did not hear the air boss and was unaware that the biplane was making a second pass.
Investigation
In reviewing the incident, a number of questions arise regarding the actions and decisions of the full-scale pilot; nonetheless, these are probably best addressed and resolved by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, in terms of the RC activity there are number of lessons to be learned and a few takeaway items that can be applied to improving the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
The single largest contributing factor in this mishap was the decision to allow concurrent full-scale and RC operations. There are few, if any, benefits in allowing concurrent ops, because the risks can be substantial. That’s not to say you can’t have both full-scale and RC airplanes participating in the same event. However, the flight operations should be separated into blocks of time for the RC activity and for the full-scale activity. There should also be clear coordination and positive communication with the air boss/event director at all times.
The decision to perform the RC flight demonstration without a dedicated spotter also played a significant role in this mishap. General Item #2 of the 2010 AMA Safety Code states, “I will yield the right-of-way to man-carrying aircraft and will see and avoid all aircraft, utilizing a spotter when appropriate.”
Lessons for all
A strong argument can be made that this was clearly a situation where the use of a spotter was appropriate. In this instance the noisy environment created by the hovering RC model and sole reliance
on the air boss to maintain separation between the aircraft resulted in the RC pilot being unaware of the approaching full-scale traffic.
Another contributing factor in this incident was the absence of a delegated lead to manage the aeromodeling activity. The fly-in was not sanctioned, so there was no designated Contest Director. The club did not assign a lead individual to oversee the RC operations, and the overall aeromodeling activity was placed under the direction of the HOA president. Had there been a designated leader overseeing aeromodeling activity, the decision to allow concurrent operations may have been reconsidered.
There has been a fair amount of finger-pointing as a result of this incident; however, there’s little to be gained by assigning blame. It’s extremely fortunate that the outcome of this incident was not more severe, and it’s important that we learn from this experience and apply the lessons toward ensuring the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
Oh boy, here we go again.
Pete
By Rich Hanson, AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative
On Saturday August 14 there was an unfortunate mishap involving a full-scale, home-built biplane and a 43% radio controlled model aircraft. There was a number of accounts of this incident on YouTube and several of Internet forums. Much of the information was largely speculative and to some extent inaccurate. AMA does not routinely investigate model aircraft mishaps, but this was a very unusual incident with implications that could significantly affect the hobby. Within days, as AMA’s government and regulatory Affairs representative, I was on-site to gather the facts and to interview the participants. As they say, the following is the rest of the story…
Incident background
This incident occurred at a small private airport in the Denver, Colorado, area. The airfield is designed as a residence airpark and is owned and operated by a homeowners association (HOA). On the date of the incident the association hosted a by-invitation-only full-scale fly-in as a fundraiser for a local children’s hospital, and the local model aircraft club was invited to participate by exhibiting its members’ aircraft and putting on a midday RC flight demonstration. Coincidentally, the local AMA club had a community event of its own scheduled for the same day, and it was decided to send a portion of the club members to the HOA event while leaving the remaining members to participate in the club’s “Kids Fly Free Day” at the local flying site.
The president of the HOA is an inactive modeler and past member of AMA and served as the event director and air boss for the flight demonstrations. During the course of the event it was decided to allow concurrent full-scale and model aircraft operations. At least one of the modelers present cautioned against allowing concurrent ops; nevertheless, the air boss elected to proceed by communicating with the full-scale aircraft through the use of a handheld transceiver while standing at the runway’s edge, to verbally communicate with the RC pilots during the flight demonstrations.
The RC aircraft involved was a 43% AJ Slick powered by a Fox 200cc gas engine. The RC pilot was asked to provide a 3-D flight demonstration, and on this occasion the flight demo was performed without a dedicated spotter; the air boss was relied on to provide separation from any full-scale aircraft in the area.
3D Hobbies’ 126-inch AJ Slick w/Fox 200cc Gas Engine
The full-scale aircraft was a home-built Acroduster Too SA750 biplane based at the airpark. It had been flown to another event earlier in the day and was returning to base at the time of the incident.
Acroduster Too SA750 – N28KT (Lycoming IO-540)
What happened that day
At approximately 11:00a.m., the SA750 arrived at the airpark and made a low pass down the runway. The RC pilot was performing a demonstration flight at the time and was directed to move his model away from the runway as the biplane made its low pass. The biplane then flew around the traffic pattern and was presumably setting up for a landing. The RC pilot brought his aircraft back to the runway and continued his 3-D (hover) demonstration. As the biplane came around, the pilot apparently aborted his approach and decided to make a second smoke-on, low pass down the runway.
Not realizing the biplane’s intention, the air boss was unable to warn the RC pilot until moments before impact. The RC pilot hovered his model farther down the runway and increased his altitude to approximately 30-50 feet. At the last moment the biplane pilot attempted to turn right but was unable to avoid the model airplane. The biplane struck the model with its left lower wing, causing damage to the wing’s leading edge. The RC aircraft was severed between the cockpit and the empennage, fell to the ground, and was completely destroyed. The biplane pilot was able to recover his aircraft and return for a landing without injury or further damage. The RC pilot later stated that he did not hear the air boss and was unaware that the biplane was making a second pass.
Investigation
In reviewing the incident, a number of questions arise regarding the actions and decisions of the full-scale pilot; nonetheless, these are probably best addressed and resolved by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, in terms of the RC activity there are number of lessons to be learned and a few takeaway items that can be applied to improving the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
The single largest contributing factor in this mishap was the decision to allow concurrent full-scale and RC operations. There are few, if any, benefits in allowing concurrent ops, because the risks can be substantial. That’s not to say you can’t have both full-scale and RC airplanes participating in the same event. However, the flight operations should be separated into blocks of time for the RC activity and for the full-scale activity. There should also be clear coordination and positive communication with the air boss/event director at all times.
The decision to perform the RC flight demonstration without a dedicated spotter also played a significant role in this mishap. General Item #2 of the 2010 AMA Safety Code states, “I will yield the right-of-way to man-carrying aircraft and will see and avoid all aircraft, utilizing a spotter when appropriate.”
Lessons for all
A strong argument can be made that this was clearly a situation where the use of a spotter was appropriate. In this instance the noisy environment created by the hovering RC model and sole reliance
on the air boss to maintain separation between the aircraft resulted in the RC pilot being unaware of the approaching full-scale traffic.
Another contributing factor in this incident was the absence of a delegated lead to manage the aeromodeling activity. The fly-in was not sanctioned, so there was no designated Contest Director. The club did not assign a lead individual to oversee the RC operations, and the overall aeromodeling activity was placed under the direction of the HOA president. Had there been a designated leader overseeing aeromodeling activity, the decision to allow concurrent operations may have been reconsidered.
There has been a fair amount of finger-pointing as a result of this incident; however, there’s little to be gained by assigning blame. It’s extremely fortunate that the outcome of this incident was not more severe, and it’s important that we learn from this experience and apply the lessons toward ensuring the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
Oh boy, here we go again.
Pete
10-18-2010 | 09:21 AM
#3
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
ORIGINAL: Oberst
An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
By Rich Hanson, AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative
On Saturday August 14 there was an unfortunate mishap involving a full-scale, home-built biplane and a 43% radio controlled model aircraft. There was a number of accounts of this incident on YouTube and several of Internet forums. Much of the information was largely speculative and to some extent inaccurate. AMA does not routinely investigate model aircraft mishaps, but this was a very unusual incident with implications that could significantly affect the hobby. Within days, as AMA’s government and regulatory Affairs representative, I was on-site to gather the facts and to interview the participants. As they say, the following is the rest of the story…
Incident background
This incident occurred at a small private airport in the Denver, Colorado, area. The airfield is designed as a residence airpark and is owned and operated by a homeowners association (HOA). On the date of the incident the association hosted a by-invitation-only full-scale fly-in as a fundraiser for a local children’s hospital, and the local model aircraft club was invited to participate by exhibiting its members’ aircraft and putting on a midday RC flight demonstration. Coincidentally, the local AMA club had a community event of its own scheduled for the same day, and it was decided to send a portion of the club members to the HOA event while leaving the remaining members to participate in the club’s “Kids Fly Free Day” at the local flying site.
The president of the HOA is an inactive modeler and past member of AMA and served as the event director and air boss for the flight demonstrations. During the course of the event it was decided to allow concurrent full-scale and model aircraft operations. At least one of the modelers present cautioned against allowing concurrent ops; nevertheless, the air boss elected to proceed by communicating with the full-scale aircraft through the use of a handheld transceiver while standing at the runway’s edge, to verbally communicate with the RC pilots during the flight demonstrations.
The RC aircraft involved was a 43% AJ Slick powered by a Fox 200cc gas engine. The RC pilot was asked to provide a 3-D flight demonstration, and on this occasion the flight demo was performed without a dedicated spotter; the air boss was relied on to provide separation from any full-scale aircraft in the area.
3D Hobbies’ 126-inch AJ Slick w/Fox 200cc Gas Engine
The full-scale aircraft was a home-built Acroduster Too SA750 biplane based at the airpark. It had been flown to another event earlier in the day and was returning to base at the time of the incident.
Acroduster Too SA750 – N28KT (Lycoming IO-540)
What happened that day
At approximately 11:00a.m., the SA750 arrived at the airpark and made a low pass down the runway. The RC pilot was performing a demonstration flight at the time and was directed to move his model away from the runway as the biplane made its low pass. The biplane then flew around the traffic pattern and was presumably setting up for a landing. The RC pilot brought his aircraft back to the runway and continued his 3-D (hover) demonstration. As the biplane came around, the pilot apparently aborted his approach and decided to make a second smoke-on, low pass down the runway.
Not realizing the biplane’s intention, the air boss was unable to warn the RC pilot until moments before impact. The RC pilot hovered his model farther down the runway and increased his altitude to approximately 30-50 feet. At the last moment the biplane pilot attempted to turn right but was unable to avoid the model airplane. The biplane struck the model with its left lower wing, causing damage to the wing’s leading edge. The RC aircraft was severed between the cockpit and the empennage, fell to the ground, and was completely destroyed. The biplane pilot was able to recover his aircraft and return for a landing without injury or further damage. The RC pilot later stated that he did not hear the air boss and was unaware that the biplane was making a second pass.
Investigation
In reviewing the incident, a number of questions arise regarding the actions and decisions of the full-scale pilot; nonetheless, these are probably best addressed and resolved by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, in terms of the RC activity there are number of lessons to be learned and a few takeaway items that can be applied to improving the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
The single largest contributing factor in this mishap was the decision to allow concurrent full-scale and RC operations. There are few, if any, benefits in allowing concurrent ops, because the risks can be substantial. That’s not to say you can’t have both full-scale and RC airplanes participating in the same event. However, the flight operations should be separated into blocks of time for the RC activity and for the full-scale activity. There should also be clear coordination and positive communication with the air boss/event director at all times.
The decision to perform the RC flight demonstration without a dedicated spotter also played a significant role in this mishap. General Item #2 of the 2010 AMA Safety Code states, “I will yield the right-of-way to man-carrying aircraft and will see and avoid all aircraft, utilizing a spotter when appropriate.”
Lessons for all
A strong argument can be made that this was clearly a situation where the use of a spotter was appropriate. In this instance the noisy environment created by the hovering RC model and sole reliance
on the air boss to maintain separation between the aircraft resulted in the RC pilot being unaware of the approaching full-scale traffic.
Another contributing factor in this incident was the absence of a delegated lead to manage the aeromodeling activity. The fly-in was not sanctioned, so there was no designated Contest Director. The club did not assign a lead individual to oversee the RC operations, and the overall aeromodeling activity was placed under the direction of the HOA president. Had there been a designated leader overseeing aeromodeling activity, the decision to allow concurrent operations may have been reconsidered.
There has been a fair amount of finger-pointing as a result of this incident; however, there’s little to be gained by assigning blame. It’s extremely fortunate that the outcome of this incident was not more severe, and it’s important that we learn from this experience and apply the lessons toward ensuring the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
Oh boy, here we go again.
Pete
An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
By Rich Hanson, AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative
On Saturday August 14 there was an unfortunate mishap involving a full-scale, home-built biplane and a 43% radio controlled model aircraft. There was a number of accounts of this incident on YouTube and several of Internet forums. Much of the information was largely speculative and to some extent inaccurate. AMA does not routinely investigate model aircraft mishaps, but this was a very unusual incident with implications that could significantly affect the hobby. Within days, as AMA’s government and regulatory Affairs representative, I was on-site to gather the facts and to interview the participants. As they say, the following is the rest of the story…
Incident background
This incident occurred at a small private airport in the Denver, Colorado, area. The airfield is designed as a residence airpark and is owned and operated by a homeowners association (HOA). On the date of the incident the association hosted a by-invitation-only full-scale fly-in as a fundraiser for a local children’s hospital, and the local model aircraft club was invited to participate by exhibiting its members’ aircraft and putting on a midday RC flight demonstration. Coincidentally, the local AMA club had a community event of its own scheduled for the same day, and it was decided to send a portion of the club members to the HOA event while leaving the remaining members to participate in the club’s “Kids Fly Free Day” at the local flying site.
The president of the HOA is an inactive modeler and past member of AMA and served as the event director and air boss for the flight demonstrations. During the course of the event it was decided to allow concurrent full-scale and model aircraft operations. At least one of the modelers present cautioned against allowing concurrent ops; nevertheless, the air boss elected to proceed by communicating with the full-scale aircraft through the use of a handheld transceiver while standing at the runway’s edge, to verbally communicate with the RC pilots during the flight demonstrations.
The RC aircraft involved was a 43% AJ Slick powered by a Fox 200cc gas engine. The RC pilot was asked to provide a 3-D flight demonstration, and on this occasion the flight demo was performed without a dedicated spotter; the air boss was relied on to provide separation from any full-scale aircraft in the area.
3D Hobbies’ 126-inch AJ Slick w/Fox 200cc Gas Engine
The full-scale aircraft was a home-built Acroduster Too SA750 biplane based at the airpark. It had been flown to another event earlier in the day and was returning to base at the time of the incident.
Acroduster Too SA750 – N28KT (Lycoming IO-540)
What happened that day
At approximately 11:00a.m., the SA750 arrived at the airpark and made a low pass down the runway. The RC pilot was performing a demonstration flight at the time and was directed to move his model away from the runway as the biplane made its low pass. The biplane then flew around the traffic pattern and was presumably setting up for a landing. The RC pilot brought his aircraft back to the runway and continued his 3-D (hover) demonstration. As the biplane came around, the pilot apparently aborted his approach and decided to make a second smoke-on, low pass down the runway.
Not realizing the biplane’s intention, the air boss was unable to warn the RC pilot until moments before impact. The RC pilot hovered his model farther down the runway and increased his altitude to approximately 30-50 feet. At the last moment the biplane pilot attempted to turn right but was unable to avoid the model airplane. The biplane struck the model with its left lower wing, causing damage to the wing’s leading edge. The RC aircraft was severed between the cockpit and the empennage, fell to the ground, and was completely destroyed. The biplane pilot was able to recover his aircraft and return for a landing without injury or further damage. The RC pilot later stated that he did not hear the air boss and was unaware that the biplane was making a second pass.
Investigation
In reviewing the incident, a number of questions arise regarding the actions and decisions of the full-scale pilot; nonetheless, these are probably best addressed and resolved by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, in terms of the RC activity there are number of lessons to be learned and a few takeaway items that can be applied to improving the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
The single largest contributing factor in this mishap was the decision to allow concurrent full-scale and RC operations. There are few, if any, benefits in allowing concurrent ops, because the risks can be substantial. That’s not to say you can’t have both full-scale and RC airplanes participating in the same event. However, the flight operations should be separated into blocks of time for the RC activity and for the full-scale activity. There should also be clear coordination and positive communication with the air boss/event director at all times.
The decision to perform the RC flight demonstration without a dedicated spotter also played a significant role in this mishap. General Item #2 of the 2010 AMA Safety Code states, “I will yield the right-of-way to man-carrying aircraft and will see and avoid all aircraft, utilizing a spotter when appropriate.”
Lessons for all
A strong argument can be made that this was clearly a situation where the use of a spotter was appropriate. In this instance the noisy environment created by the hovering RC model and sole reliance
on the air boss to maintain separation between the aircraft resulted in the RC pilot being unaware of the approaching full-scale traffic.
Another contributing factor in this incident was the absence of a delegated lead to manage the aeromodeling activity. The fly-in was not sanctioned, so there was no designated Contest Director. The club did not assign a lead individual to oversee the RC operations, and the overall aeromodeling activity was placed under the direction of the HOA president. Had there been a designated leader overseeing aeromodeling activity, the decision to allow concurrent operations may have been reconsidered.
There has been a fair amount of finger-pointing as a result of this incident; however, there’s little to be gained by assigning blame. It’s extremely fortunate that the outcome of this incident was not more severe, and it’s important that we learn from this experience and apply the lessons toward ensuring the safety of future aeromodeling operations.
Oh boy, here we go again.
Pete
How can one render this report and maintain the above position is hard to reconcile IMO.
10-18-2010 | 10:40 AM
#4
My Feedback: (102)
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Go to the NTSB website and look at the preliminary report issued by the investigator and you can tell which way this is going to go.
the report states "the R/C airplane flew up directly into the path" of the full scale plane. This will not go well with the FAA, and my guess is when the final report is issued, look for a lawsuit to follow. The AMA and the R/C pilot are going to get hit for substanial damage to the aircraft.
Certainly will make one think twice before flying an environment litke that, at least it will for me.
the report states "the R/C airplane flew up directly into the path" of the full scale plane. This will not go well with the FAA, and my guess is when the final report is issued, look for a lawsuit to follow. The AMA and the R/C pilot are going to get hit for substanial damage to the aircraft.
Certainly will make one think twice before flying an environment litke that, at least it will for me.
10-18-2010 | 11:03 AM
#5
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
I don't see how you can say the report shows how the investigation will go.To methe report was completly factual as the model did fly in front of the full scale aircraft.But, the full scale pilot had the primary responsibility of maintaing 500 foot seperation between his aicraft and the people, because he was not landing or taking off. IMO the AMA report is correct as well. However I think the AMA would be wise not to say anything till the NTSB report is done. Unless the report is done but is not yet public.
10-18-2010 | 11:18 AM
#6
My Feedback: (102)
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Perhaps I am not clairvoyant, but when I read a statement that says..."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." ....and there is nothing in the prelimanry report that states a full scale rule was broken....in fact it says...
"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."
Now it appears to me that the FS pilot is saying he was performing a go around, and witnesses are saying that the model pulled up into his path. I have seen the video, and from the report by the AMA, they are saying it was poor coordination by the "ATC/spotter". I don't see any other way this report will be finalized, do you? I mean the AMA is saying that full scale aviation always has the right of way, and the modeler was not doing everything in his power to avoid a collision (by not having a personal spotter, other than the guy with the radio who evidently was not doing his job). So if witnesses and video show to the FAA investigator that the model "flew into" the path of the full scale plane, who do you think they are going to fault? How will this be played in court to the modeler's advantage?
"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."
Now it appears to me that the FS pilot is saying he was performing a go around, and witnesses are saying that the model pulled up into his path. I have seen the video, and from the report by the AMA, they are saying it was poor coordination by the "ATC/spotter". I don't see any other way this report will be finalized, do you? I mean the AMA is saying that full scale aviation always has the right of way, and the modeler was not doing everything in his power to avoid a collision (by not having a personal spotter, other than the guy with the radio who evidently was not doing his job). So if witnesses and video show to the FAA investigator that the model "flew into" the path of the full scale plane, who do you think they are going to fault? How will this be played in court to the modeler's advantage?
10-18-2010 | 11:30 AM
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Has there been any actual quote from the FS pilot
as to what he was doing a dozen yards above folks standing on the runway?
Cause the way it sounds in the OP text, it was the FS pilots second time over the runway, so how could he NOT see the crowd of folks standing there... was his intent to just buzz them a dozen yards up to scare them off the runway?
Well, lets all just agree to not care what the FS was doing and radioing,
and then its easy to point fingers at the RC guy being to blame
as to what he was doing a dozen yards above folks standing on the runway?
Cause the way it sounds in the OP text, it was the FS pilots second time over the runway, so how could he NOT see the crowd of folks standing there... was his intent to just buzz them a dozen yards up to scare them off the runway?
Well, lets all just agree to not care what the FS was doing and radioing,
and then its easy to point fingers at the RC guy being to blame
10-18-2010 | 01:37 PM
#10
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Now it appears to me that the FS pilot is saying he was performing a go around,
"the biplane came around, the pilot apparently aborted his approach and decided to make a second smoke-on, low pass down the runway."
That is not a go around, and because there were people near the airfield and the FS plane was not landing or taking off, it broke the FARs.
IMO the FS pilot, the RC pilot, and theair bosswere at fault. I understood that the RC pilot thought the air boss was his spotter. But, obviously he was too busy talking on the radio to be a good spotter.
10-18-2010 | 01:42 PM
#11
My Feedback: (102)
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Sport Pilot....read what I wrote....I said there is a conflict in the reports, the NTSB site is saying, and I quote, for the second time...."it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport, Brighton, Colorado."
now whether or not that is the direct word of the pilkot or not I cannot say, but my experience with NTSB investigators is that they are usually pretty good about not "assuming" things in their reports. They are probably waiting the on the written report from the FS pilot and witnesses before finalizing. Like I pointed out however the preliminary report is always amendable.
Irregardless of whatyou ro I think, the FAA will take its time on putting out the final draft, and they won't give a hog's pattooty whatthe AMA says, which in and of itself is pretty damning if you ask me.
now whether or not that is the direct word of the pilkot or not I cannot say, but my experience with NTSB investigators is that they are usually pretty good about not "assuming" things in their reports. They are probably waiting the on the written report from the FS pilot and witnesses before finalizing. Like I pointed out however the preliminary report is always amendable.
Irregardless of whatyou ro I think, the FAA will take its time on putting out the final draft, and they won't give a hog's pattooty whatthe AMA says, which in and of itself is pretty damning if you ask me.
10-18-2010 | 01:50 PM
#12
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
which in and of itself is pretty damning if you ask me.
10-18-2010 | 01:55 PM
#13
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Anytown
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Another thing to note is that, if you watched the video, and I have many tmies, there was plenty of time to dump the model when it became obvious (smoke on)that the FS was going to make the pass. The RC pilot stayed in a hover and tried to manuever out of the way and got high enough to get hit.
Two lives at risk (possibly more on the ground)and you don't dump it?Tsk Tsk.
Two lives at risk (possibly more on the ground)and you don't dump it?Tsk Tsk.
10-18-2010 | 02:09 PM
#14
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Two lives at risk (possibly more on the ground)and you don't dump it?Tsk Tsk.
IMO the FAA letter implies that the RC pilot never saw the full scale plane. I doubt you would take your eyes off of a hovering model. That is it never became obvious to the RC pilot till it was too late.
Note the AMA puts the primary blame on those that allowed concurrent full-scale and RC operations at this event.
10-18-2010 | 02:13 PM
#15
My Feedback: (102)
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
What I see is two different types of reports. The AMA probably sent an investigator out, in an attempt to make sure that everything was documented from their standpoint in case of a suit. The FAA does not care one way or another. They will probably fault the FS pilot in the report as well, but I bet the blame or at the least the fallout from it will be centered around the modeler. The AMA's report is pretty much what one would exepct, and more likely closer to the truth. It shows there was a lot of errors that led up to the incident with lots of blame to go around.
10-18-2010 | 02:21 PM
#16
My Feedback: (11)
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
I disagree Bob. Not that there wasn't enough time from watching the video, there clearly was. But instead of watching down the runway for approaching planes, he was (and rightly so) concentrating on flying his plane. Again, a dedicated spotter would have likely saved some greif here.
10-18-2010 | 03:35 PM
#17
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
They will probably fault the FS pilot in the report as well, but I bet the blame or at the least the fallout from it will be centered around the modeler.
10-18-2010 | 05:00 PM
#18
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Two lives at risk (possibly more on the ground) and you don't dump it? Tsk Tsk.
it over and over plays out that he didnt know till it was an emergency
and the way you get outta dodge from a hover is to punch it to foward flight and skeedaddle.
I doubt any 3d pilots first instinct reaction is 'Dump it onto the runway'
when someone yells "Incoming! Clear the Runway NOW!"
The theme of 'aborted landing' comes up a lot,
is the plan to dump a chunky pile of 40% onto a runway while a FS is trying to land on that runway?
"tsk tsk" is that nobody told him there was a FS coming in hot & low till it was too late.
10-18-2010 | 05:05 PM
#19
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
So right there most of the fallout is NOT on the modeler.
but aint nobody should come outta this one clean.
A whole lotta bad choices from a lotta folks added up to what happened
10-18-2010 | 05:14 PM
#20
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: newbury,
OH
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
I dont know who is gonna come outta this one the dirtiest,
10-18-2010 | 06:40 PM
#22
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: FrederickMD
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
I initially thought there was plenty of blame to go around between all three parties involved, but if Rich Hanson's account is factually accurate, I believe the FS pilot is going to come out of it pretty clean. The event organizers are going to have a harder time of it, and the poor RC pilot will probably be pilloried. Here is my reasoning:
The paragraph on "What happened that day" clearly indicates the biplane made an initial pass over the runway. It then went around. I don't care if he was setting up for a landing, doing a smoke on pass, or putting brownies in the oven. At that point, those most familiar with RC model operations (the event organizers, the "air boss" and the RC pilot) should have recognized that there was full scale traffic in the area, and that model operations should cease immediately. According to the AMA report, there was an intentional decision to conduct model and FS operations simultaneously, without identifying how those operations would be coordinated and controlled. That error indicates negligence to me. Whether it was intentionally negligent or just ignorance doesn't really matter.
What was most interesting to me is that much of what was posted on various forums didn't mention any of the facts that Rich was able to draw out. Those facts are crucial to understanding the event, and I think Rich did a very good job of summarizing.
Brad
The paragraph on "What happened that day" clearly indicates the biplane made an initial pass over the runway. It then went around. I don't care if he was setting up for a landing, doing a smoke on pass, or putting brownies in the oven. At that point, those most familiar with RC model operations (the event organizers, the "air boss" and the RC pilot) should have recognized that there was full scale traffic in the area, and that model operations should cease immediately. According to the AMA report, there was an intentional decision to conduct model and FS operations simultaneously, without identifying how those operations would be coordinated and controlled. That error indicates negligence to me. Whether it was intentionally negligent or just ignorance doesn't really matter.
What was most interesting to me is that much of what was posted on various forums didn't mention any of the facts that Rich was able to draw out. Those facts are crucial to understanding the event, and I think Rich did a very good job of summarizing.
Brad
10-18-2010 | 07:08 PM
#23
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: newbury,
OH
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
Thank You Mongo,
We do have our days but as far as I know we haven't drawn any blood...
Has anyone else noticed something I saw when I looked at the video? The RC pilot looked like he was already kneeling down as the camera panned past him, sort of like he knew the biplane was coming? His reactions didn't indicate he knew anything was coming, but it did look a bit odd...
We do have our days but as far as I know we haven't drawn any blood...
Has anyone else noticed something I saw when I looked at the video? The RC pilot looked like he was already kneeling down as the camera panned past him, sort of like he knew the biplane was coming? His reactions didn't indicate he knew anything was coming, but it did look a bit odd...
10-18-2010 | 07:19 PM
#24
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
To me there is a cascading blame chain.
#1 is the "Air Boss" for deciding it was fine to have models and full size operating simultaneously.
#2 is the RC pilot for not saying "What!! Are you crazy?!" And then for not realizing HE was crazy for not landing after the first pass.
#3 (distant) is the bipe pilot who perhaps should have seen the RC plane on his first pass (it was reportedly in the air) and for not yelling "LAND that plane NOW!!"
Bad decisions lead to bad consequences every time!!
#1 is the "Air Boss" for deciding it was fine to have models and full size operating simultaneously.
#2 is the RC pilot for not saying "What!! Are you crazy?!" And then for not realizing HE was crazy for not landing after the first pass.
#3 (distant) is the bipe pilot who perhaps should have seen the RC plane on his first pass (it was reportedly in the air) and for not yelling "LAND that plane NOW!!"
Bad decisions lead to bad consequences every time!!
10-18-2010 | 07:29 PM
#25
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St. Joseph,
MO
RE: An Incident with Lessons for All of Us
<span lang="EN">
This past Tuesday night our RC club voted to allow lite sport planes to use our (up until now) RC only run way if they would call ahead. We have already had one close call were three ultra lights tried to land and one RC plane was already using runway. One of the ultra lights landed in the parking lot behind the field.</p>
It seems that the AMA and EAA have been getting cozy lately. I’m not sure this has anything to do with anything.
jship</p></span>
This past Tuesday night our RC club voted to allow lite sport planes to use our (up until now) RC only run way if they would call ahead. We have already had one close call were three ultra lights tried to land and one RC plane was already using runway. One of the ultra lights landed in the parking lot behind the field.</p>
It seems that the AMA and EAA have been getting cozy lately. I’m not sure this has anything to do with anything.
jship</p></span>
