20 ms·

Midair Collision over Denver

413 points by lunchbreak 5y ago

gresrun 5y ago
ATC comms with visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc
- ordu 5y ago
  The pilot is speaking about failed engine after the collision, like it is nothing. Fascinating. I'd be shouting something obscene in such a situation. For half an hour at least, I think.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    This what separates professionals from the chaff
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - goodcanadian 5y ago
    He might not have been aware of the full extent of the damage. He is on final; the plane is flying; he's lost an engine; he's going to land it. There is no time for anything else.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      I think it’s amazing planes can fly sort of straight with only one engine providing thrust though.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        He was on final. The engine was providing little more than idle thrust. If he were taking off some serious rudder input would have been required.
        mannykannot 5y ago
        ... and that rudder input would have put additional stress on the weakened fuselage.
      - ertemplin 5y ago
        Engine failure is the most important thing you are trained for when you transition from flying single-engine airplanes to multi-engine. Most multi-engine airplanes can even take-off and climb with only a single engine functioning. You would never do it intentionally, but sometimes engines fail shortly after takeoff when you are 50 feet above the runway.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      He might not have been aware of the full extent of the damage. This is likely true. He was the only person onboard the plane, so he would not have been able to get up and look. Unlikely he could see the extent of damage from his seat. And as noted, on final approach, he doesn't have time for much to change plans. Even if he knew the extent of the damage, the choices are roughly the same - land as planned, or go around. That said, he did exactly what he should. Aviate, navigate, communicate. He controlled the plane, made a decision, and communicated that to ATC. Well done.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    When people encounter emergency situations in domains they are familiar with they tend to do a pretty good job of rolling with it.
    - lbriner 5y ago
      Exactly. You either panic and run around screaming and then you die or you could try and take control and you might live. It's no different than most of us driving a car. If a tyre blows out, most of us wouldn't scream and close our eyes, we would try and steer to safety.
      - ordu 5y ago
        > You either panic and run around screaming and then you die or you could try and take control and you might live. It is not so black and white. One might (and normal person should) feel a stress reaction with rising levels adrenaline and suchlike in his bloodstream, and it is normal, it might even be beneficial, if one was trained to benefit from this mind state. I become more resolute from this, more concentrated than usual, sometimes even more concentrated than it is good for me because I might miss some important detail. > If a tyre blows out, most of us wouldn't scream and close our eyes, we would try and steer to safety. I never was in this situation with a blown tyre, but I was in some other situations when there was a danger to my life (or I believed that it was) I become extremely concentrated, almost silent (except for occasional curses), but when I needed to communicate, I did it loudly and with a good deal of swearing. I think that communication for me in these situations is like a distracting hindrance, so if I need to do it, I'll do it in a way that will make it unnecessary to repeat it. The communication of the pilot have not a hint of his emotions. My mind was blown not because of his perfect actions (I expect perfect actions from a professional), not even because the lack of swearing. It is the tone of his voice, it is completely composed, almost relaxed. I can imagine myself in this situation restraining from shouting and from swearing, but my emotional tension would leak through my voice, I wouldn't even try to hide it.
  - neom 5y ago
    Trusted his training. Very good pilot.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - phkahler 5y ago
    >> The pilot is speaking about failed engine after the collision, like it is nothing. Fascinating. I'd be shouting something obscene in such a situation. For half an hour at least, I think. When you get your medical clearance, one of the things they look for is signs of psychological issues or instability. Not saying that's you, and I bet you'd do better than you think. Pilot training also IMHO makes you better at that stuff.
  - js2 5y ago
    I thought he sounded just a little rattled after he was on the ground. As calm as his demeanor was right after the collision, there had to have been some adrenaline going in landing that plane.
xattt 5y ago
It’s amazing there were no casualties. The novelty of the report is the use of a rescue parachute by the Cirrus plane.
_s 5y ago
Private Pilot here - just thought I'd chime in quickly; Many aviation enthusiasts / pilots first go to is to have a look at the flight data - usually available on FlightAware / FlightRadar24 and a few other websites, plus LiveATC usually can provide recordings of the flights communications to towers as well. We should refrain from using just those data points to draw conclusions to the cause; the NTSB (and other orgs) will perform an investigation and the report will be made public (both interim, and final ones), and changes are almost always made to processes / systems, and often to the virtual or physical items that led to this incident. There are a few more photos and insights from various folks that were there at the time and captured a few moments on the reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/nauck8/mid_air_just_north_of_kapa_all_parties_ok/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/nauck8/mid_air_just... Note - it's incredibly rare for a midair not to result in fatalities so an incredible amount of luck all around.
- sundvor 5y ago
  Thanks, that does seem incredibly lucky indeed. Also, I like the headline including "all parties ok".
- sokoloff 5y ago
  It’s not incredibly rare. Around 2 in 5 midair mishaps result in no fatalities. https://iflyamerica.org/midairs.asp https://iflyamerica.org/midairs.asp This one was incredibly lucky, especially for the Key Lime aircraft.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Interesting - that's higher than I would have expected, but apparently explaind by most collisions being in the pattern or otherwise near an airport (makes sense now that I think about it.) At least in the pattern, for most of the time, everyone is going in approximately the same direction (even this case.)
  - lbriner 5y ago
    My guess would be that only in the worst scenarios does a collision involve a full-impact. In most cases I would expect either or both pilots to be taking avoiding action so that you might get some more minor scrapes which allow you to limp home.
nitrogen 5y ago
No injuries reported. Kind of fascinating to read.
ardit33 5y ago
Spoiler: No one died, so it has a happy ending
nickcw 5y ago
Just in case anyone (like me) is thinking - wait did that aeroplane have a parachute? From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Sy... The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is a whole-plane ballistic parachute recovery system designed specifically for Cirrus Aircraft's line of general aviation light aircraft including the SR20, SR22 and SF50. The design became the first of its kind to become certified with the FAA, achieving certification in October 1998, and as of 2014 was the only aircraft ballistic parachute used as standard equipment by an aviation company.
- maweki 5y ago
  I was wondering whether there was a mix-up in the crew count, as one pilot with a parachute saves two people and a one-person crew lands the plane. This mostly clears it up.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    My less charitable reading was that the pilot abandoned the Cirrus on a parachute, but then it seemed like the plane landed…
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      Pilots of planes with CAPS are (now) taught to pull the chute if anything goes wrong inside the profile (low enough speed, far enough above ground) where the chute is designed to work. The aeroplane is insured, you can buy a new one. Even if the pilot and all passengers are insured you can't buy new ones. They changed this because it turns out that the same phenomenon that leads to private pilots taking undue risks in the rest of flight ("Get-there-itis") also makes them reluctant to pull the chute even when it's clearly their best option. Pilots who clearly couldn't reach a safe landing spot, yet had working CAPS would dig themselves (and their passengers) a grave rather than just pull the handle. So teaching them to start by assuming they'll pull the chute and only then considering whether there are other options reduces the fatality rate.
onion2k 5y ago
I find it slightly incredible that two planes ever hit each other given the size of planes compared to the volume of space they fly in. I understand that it's simple probability (small planes, big volume, but lots of flights) but it's still amazing that it happens at all.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >I find it slightly incredible that two planes ever hit each other given the size of planes compared to the volume of space they fly in. The space can be constrained though. There are "airways" (jet routes) for flights, and not that much of a volume/size ratio when the volume concerns areas near airports -- where many planes approach, exit, are asked to circle in a holding pattern, etc. So it's not like the whole sky is their domain...
- freetime2 5y ago
  Less incredible in this case since it was two planes landing on parallel runways at the same time.
- t0mas88 5y ago
  The probability is much higher in terminal airspace because all planes are going to or coming from the airport so they are on converging paths by definition. And better GNSS based navigation equipment is now making it more likely than 20 years ago. The historical accuracy was such that planes where often a bit offset left or right off the route giving extra separation. Now the accuracy is so good that planes going opposite direction on the same route are passing exactly bang in the middle on top/below each other.
  - throwawaygimp 5y ago
    Yea, this is a really good point that isn't well known. We've improved GNSS significantly, but the technology to avoid collisions hasn't been widely deployed, even though it's orders of magnitude less complicated than high accuracy GNSS on the whole So... a random dilution of precision generator could... save lives? ha.
franciscop 5y ago
No deaths nor injuries involved, which I feel like this should be in the headline. I came in expecting to see at least a commercial flight was involved (how does it make to #1 on HN otherwise?) but was very relieved to see it was two small aircrafts with 1 and 2 pilots respectively and everyone survived safely.
- OJFord 5y ago
  > I came in expecting to see at least a commercial flight was involved (how does it make to #1 on HN otherwise?) The Metroliner (one with the fuselage ripped through) is commercial, [0] but apparently carrying cargo only in this case. [1] Surely a mid-air collision even between two hobby Cessnas say is rare/interesting enough to make it? [0] - https://www.keylimeair.com/ https://www.keylimeair.com/ [1] - https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/may/12/colorado-midair-injures-none https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/may/12/col...
- t0mas88 5y ago
  The Metroliner isn't really a small (private) aircraft, it's more a commuter type aircraft, 19 seats. But in this case it was only carrying cargo so the place of impact didn't have any people in it. Another lucky point is that it was at low altitude and at slow speed (preparing to land). Higher up it would have been much more likely to break up due to way higher speed and larger pressure difference between the cabin and outside.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Other inches-from-death aspects: there was no-one in the aft of the cabin; the collision missed the pilot; it missed the empennage; it missed the wings; it missed the control cables; and possibly (I'm speculating wildly here) it left the cabin floor intact, without which, I doubt the tail would have stayed on.
- benatkin 5y ago
  If there were two commercial passenger flights involved and it were 300 miles south, it would be life imitating art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABQ_(Breaking_Bad)#Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABQ_(Breaking_Bad)#Plot
FatalLogic 5y ago
It's strange that the planes were supposed to be flying parallel and yet the damage to both planes in the photos suggests a collision at right angles Remarkable that the Metroliner held together, despite that terrible damage, and they landed it safely edit: interesting photo of the landing from the Reddit thread linked elsewhere https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0 https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0
- t0mas88 5y ago
  The Cirrus overshot the centerline of the runway it was supposed to land on. The common way for these situations is for the plane to be on an intercept angle towards the centerline. That's a max 30 degree angle for an instrument approach, but this was a visual approach so it could have been a sharper angle. All it takes to make this mistake in a Cirrus (and other G1000 avionics type small airplanes) is to forget 1 button on the autopilot mode. If it isn't set to capture the final approach track (either GPS or ILS) it will continue straight ahead which in this case means into the side of another airplane. One thing that makes it more likely is that US air traffic control makes heavy use of visual approaches, and then it's allowed to point two aircraft at collision courses on the same altitude because they can see each other. The European way to do this is to have them intercept at different altitudes so if one overshoots they pass over/under. But it results in lower capacity per runway than the US system.
  - azalemeth 5y ago
    Indeed. Something else I'd like to point out is that it might seem easy to 'blame the Cirrus' pilot or them call out for inattention, but doing so by itself isn't helpful. Aviation is so safe partly because it has managed to turn a culture of blame into a culture of continuous improvement and shared learning: I'd be very surprised if the airport's procedures came out of this unmodified, for example.
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      I’ve probably mentioned this book on HN a hundred times but “Black Box Thinking” discusses the aviation culture of avoiding blame and making sure a problem isn’t repeated and how other industries (like medicine) would benefit hugely from a similar approach. It’s really interesting.
throwawaygimp 5y ago
@dang "Mid air just north of KAPA- all parties OK" is the more appropriate headline on reddit. As an aviator my stress levels are only just coming down now from seeing this headline and clicking expecting there to be deaths.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  What is KAPA and do people know what it means?
  - mnw21cam 5y ago
    It's the code for the particular airport they were about to land at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Airport
  - t0mas88 5y ago
    The ICAO airport code as used for navigation. They're different from the IATA 3 letter codes that most passengers know. US airports start with K, European with E (e.g. EF for Europe-France). Often for large airports the code is very similar to the IATA code for passengers, e.g. KJFK for JFK and KSFO for San Francisco. But not always, as in EGLL for London Heathrow which is LHR in passenger codes.
    - Denvercoder9 5y ago
      > Often for large airports the code is very similar to the IATA code for passengers This is mostly only the case in the United States, since it has a single-letter K prefix, so they can append the 3-letter IATA code to make a valid 4-letter ICAO code. In the rest of the world the second letter of the ICAO code is used to designate countries, so the 3-letter IATA code cannot be appended.
    - papercrane 5y ago
      > European with E (e.g. EF for Europe-France). EF is Finland actually. The first letter is region code, and Europe is divided into multiple regions. Northern Europe is E, Southern Europe is mostly L (so France is LF). Wikipedia has a nice map showing the different boundarys on it's ICAO airport codes page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code#/media/File:ICAO_FirstLetter.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code#/media/File:...
na85 5y ago
I was camping near Whistler a few years ago and heard a bang. Looked up and saw falling debris and bodies. A wing landed not far from our campsite. Turns out a glider (low-wing monoplane) was descending and the tow plane (high wing monoplane) was climbing. They were each in each other's blind spots :( Glad to see no fatalities here; I'm an aerospace engineer in the field of airworthiness and technical risk management so my work sees a lot of accident reports and flight safety incidents. I can say with certainty these folks (esp. the metroliner crew) are very fortunate.
- azalemeth 5y ago
  I'm sorry to hear that you witness a mid-air collision -- I hope it wasn't completely fatal. In the UK, all glider pilots wear parachutes and the overwhelming majority have standardised on a collision avoidance system known as FLARM that is "glider friendly" (unlike GNSS) and can differentiate thermalling from colliding. It's just an internal 16 channel GPS receiver with an external antenna and an altimeter that predicts the flight path and then transmits it - including a unique identifier - as low-power digital burst signals at one-second intervals. Other aircraft also equipped with FLARM receive that, compare it with their own flight path prediction, and also check for collision information with known data on obstacles, including electric power lines, radio masts and cable cars, etc. If a proximity warning is generated to one or more aircraft or obstacles, it bleeps like anything and generates bright LEDs that point in the direction of the threat. The display also gives indication of the threat level, plus the horizontal and vertical bearing to the threat -- and there are three warnings (iirc ~30s, ~15s, ~6s) -- it warns by time and not distance. I remember the thing going off a few times; it's quite helpful and draws your attention to a region of sky immediately, including behind, above and below you. It's also dirt cheap† and is a battery-powered self-contained box with (I suspect) a microcontroller and glorified smartphone innards inside. †(by aviation standards)
- upofadown 5y ago
  Probably this: * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pemberton-b-c-mid-air-crash-caused-by-blind-spot-tsb-1.2770887 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pemberton-b-... Whenever there is a collision involving light aircraft the question of anti-collision systems comes up. Unfortunately the powers that be have completely failed to come up with a workable standard for such aircraft. The glider people eventually just gave up on waiting and now use a proprietary system called FLARM which has fairly good adoption. There is more than one system of that type available for light powered aircraft with not very good adoption. Each system is entirely incompatible with each other, including the standardized ones used in heavy commercial aviation.
0xFFFE 5y ago
Comms between tower and the planes involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc
zed88 5y ago
Metroliner, often jokingly called as "flying sewer pipe" is one hell of a sturdy plane it seems. Glad to see both parties okay, but this makes me think if BRS should be made standard by FAA on GA planes given the lives saved by the technology so far.
gkanai 5y ago
Commercial pilot Juan Browne covers this on his channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w
cmckn 5y ago
I've spent a decent amount of time at Centennial; it's one of the busiest general aviation airports in the country. There's a great restaurant on site that you can watch the runways from. After this incident, the restaurant is probably as close as I'd get to a Cirrus. :)
- toast0 5y ago
  I don't see how this incident would make or break your impression of the Cirrus. From the picture, the plane at rest is pretty messed up, but all occupants are safe, and pending investigation, there doesn't seem to be a sign of mechanical error involved. Flying in (or near) small planes has a lot of risk, but I don't see how this incident would change your impression of this one manufacturer's planes.
  - cmckn 5y ago
    Oh no, my point was just that I’d be wary of getting in a small plane, and Cirrus was the craft mentioned in the article. I remember seeing a lot of them at this airport (though they’re probably outnumbered by Cesna’s, lots of small-time fliers there).
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  It's really close to the city too. I'm sure the chances of a collision outside of the airport is absolutely basically zero, but these small planes fly really low over my house and the downtown area all the time. They get pretty low and close for touring over the big buildings for photos and stuff, see photos on reddit all the time..
bartread 5y ago
Bloody hell: the state of that Metroliner. Surprised it held together with that amount of damage, and huge kudos to the pilots for getting it on the ground safely. For such a serious accident this seems about the best possible outcome for the crew of both aircraft. I'm not an expert so I'm not going to comment on root cause or blame here, but simply glad to read that at least everybody survived.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dkarras 5y ago
Video of the cirrus chuting down: https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/1392560583950561281 https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/1392560583950561281 A photo of the airborne metroliner with fuselage blown open: https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0 https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0
- londons_explore 5y ago
  The plane flying missing half the fuselage suggests to me that fuselage was excessively strong (and therefore heavy and expensive). A tube is only strong when complete. Cut away half the tube and bending resistance probably goes down ~10x.
  - cesarb 5y ago
    > The plane flying missing half the fuselage suggests to me that fuselage was excessively strong (and therefore heavy and expensive). It's probably the opposite: that the fuselage was only strong enough to resist the air pressure differential, and that the real structural component was the cabin floor. And that, luckily, the control cables for the tail were routed through the cabin floor, instead of through the top of the cabin.
    - stevehawk 5y ago
      It's not the cabin floor. it's what the cabin floor is attached to. Most fuselages have all of their longitudinal strength in their stringers, which are usually run along the floor. If the Cirrus had ripped through the bottom of that plane and not the top then that jet would have torn apart.
      - hyperbovine 5y ago
        Nit: SA-226 is a turboprop not a jet.
      - londons_explore 5y ago
        Stringers in a plane seem akin to stringers in a car frame... Cars have moved away to unibody designs (where the shell of the car is also the structure) because it is stronger, lighter and cheaper. Unibody designs have been the norm for almost 100 years now.
mdip 5y ago
Wow, that's incredible. Goes to show that people do walk away from plane crashes with some regularity. My father was a pilot[0]. He sold his plane about 15 years ago (to a group of owners, one of which was a priest, I'm sure there's a joke in there). A few of winters later, he was called out to Romeo Airport; the pilot flying the plane that was formerly his had crashed the aircraft a few miles short of the runway in bad weather[1]. He was traveling with his daughter, a friend and, I think, his wife. He died, but his daughter was able to get free and make her way to a nearby farm to call for help. Looking at the plane, the fact that anyone survived at all let alone walked to a nearby house with minor injuries is pretty miraculous. It's hard to impress upon folks who have never been in a small plane like that just how ... yeah ... how much it feels like you're hanging onto a kite. I have no idea the kinds of structural technologies are involved in the aircraft but I know his plane was made in the 70s and was light enough that he only had a pole which attached to the front landing gear to pull it out of the hangar. The weight is so critical that the 7-seat plane can realistically only seat 4-5 adults. I remember being shocked that they had to weigh the paint they applied when he had the plane re-painted. [0] I'll spare the details as I have left many comments in the past about his experiences. [1] https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/43894 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/43894 - "Pilot Error"; I recall my Dad saying "all plane crashes are pilot error" [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-32_Cherokee_Six https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-32_Cherokee_Six
- qayxc 5y ago
  > The weight is so critical that the 7-seat plane can realistically only seat 4-5 adults. I think you overlooked an important factor there. The plane was indeed designed to realistically seat 7 adults. The issue is that in the 50 years since the plane was originally designed, the average weight of adults (in the US) increased by about 18% [0] and the average adult woman today weighs as much as the average adult man in the 1960s. [0] https://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/ https://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/20...
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I find it very hard to agree that a PA-32 was "designed to realistically seat 7 adults". I don't think they even imagined 6 adults as a typical cabin load, but rather a max of 4 adults and 2 kids and a typical of 2 adults and 2-4 kids. It is one of the more roomy cabins among light singles, but every one of them that I see for listed for sale right now is configured with seating for only 6, which is great for 2 adults and a few kids.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
Glad no one was injured or killed. Sounds like the Metroliner pilot did very well. I really think that we should not have flying cars until we have true autopilot (hands off the wheel, meatbag!). The thought of the "Hey y'all! Lookit this!" knuckleheads that regularly open up, roaring past my house, in three dimensions, is chilling. They are bad enough with just two. I'll bet that the advent of true driverless tech will also be the advent of illegal aftermarket "mod kits." I can see it now...the "Hold My Beer™" line of manual override modules...
- simonswords82 5y ago
  Reality is that you won't have the type of idiots that roar past your house flying cars/planes or anything of that nature unless it is fully automated because most of them aren't smart enough to pass the tests required to be a pilot.
martyvis 5y ago
As always, Juan Browne has great reporting and analysis of this incident https://youtu.be/_Ph7OR6C90w https://youtu.be/_Ph7OR6C90w
vertis 5y ago
This[0] youtube video has good explanation with the air traffic control audio. The metroliner pilot was cool as a cucumber after being hit. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w
- throw0101a 5y ago
  See also VASAviation's recreation of radar plot, which is referenced in the above video: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc
HHalvi 5y ago
I felt erilly familiar with the details of this accident after reading the details. I dug up my browsing history and realized I watched the ATC exchange of this very collision yesterday not realizing that this had happened the very same day the video was uploaded[0]. Also props to the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS), hope this gets implemented in more smaller (or homemade) aircrafts. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc
wiedehopf 5y ago
Exact tracks of both aircraft with timestamps: press K to enable labels https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a4eabe,a2cee7&lat=39.635&lon=-104.856&zoom=13.0&showTrace=2021-05-12&startTime=16:20&endTime=16:30 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a4eabe,a2cee7&lat=39.63...
shockeychap 5y ago
The picture of the Metroliner reminds me of the Aloha Airlines incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 It's amazing that the hull can survive in the air for any time with that much torn away.
MobileVet 5y ago
Wow, the 'can opener' effect is intense. Insane that the plane held together, so much structural loss. Reminds me of the Aloha Flight 243. My mom's cousin was the pilot and hearing his first hand account was pretty crazy. Fun fact, he got to be an extra in the made for TV movie of the event. https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/robert-l-schornstheimer/ https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/robert-l-schornstheime...
EricE 5y ago
Juan Browne of the blancolirio YouTube channel did his usual excellent overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w
schoen 5y ago
I remember seeing some Internet post a couple of decades ago where someone asserted that the goal of ATC was to prevent midair collisions and that U.S. ATC had met this goal perfectly, with no midair collisions between aircraft that were under the control of ATC at the time. I think the claim was qualified in some way like "collision between civilian flights that were both flying an ATC-assigned clearance at the time". (So some kinds of flights and some kinds of airspace don't require ATC clearance, and if one of them were involved in a collision, it wouldn't be ATC's responsibility, in some sense.) My question at the moment is: is this claim plausible if you qualify or restrict it enough? Do you have to tack on additional conditions? Is there any useful sense in which this collision was a first for U.S. aviation history?
- mlac 5y ago
  > "The Cirrus descended through 6400 feet about 3nm north of the threshold of runway 17R, but overshot the centerlines of both runways 17R and 17L" It looks like the Cirrus wasn't flying to what the ATC cleared...
FabHK 5y ago
I wonder how many mid air collisions we would expect to see if see-and-avoid where entirely ineffectual, or pilots would not look outside ever except to land. I have the impression the accident numbers would not be much worse than they are. In other words, my hypothesis is that the fact that there are few mid-airs is owed to ATC, technology (TCAS, TAS) and “big sky”, rather than vigilant pilots.
- ericpauley 5y ago
  Agreed. It can be hard to spot traffic even if you know where the other plane is! With this in mind ADS-B/TIS-B seems like such an essential tool for GA pilots.

413 points by lunchbreak 5y ago

gresrun 5y ago

ATC comms with visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc

ordu 5y ago
The pilot is speaking about failed engine after the collision, like it is nothing. Fascinating. I'd be shouting something obscene in such a situation. For half an hour at least, I think.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  This what separates professionals from the chaff
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- goodcanadian 5y ago
  He might not have been aware of the full extent of the damage. He is on final; the plane is flying; he's lost an engine; he's going to land it. There is no time for anything else.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    I think it’s amazing planes can fly sort of straight with only one engine providing thrust though.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      He was on final. The engine was providing little more than idle thrust. If he were taking off some serious rudder input would have been required.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        ... and that rudder input would have put additional stress on the weakened fuselage.
    - ertemplin 5y ago
      Engine failure is the most important thing you are trained for when you transition from flying single-engine airplanes to multi-engine. Most multi-engine airplanes can even take-off and climb with only a single engine functioning. You would never do it intentionally, but sometimes engines fail shortly after takeoff when you are 50 feet above the runway.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    He might not have been aware of the full extent of the damage. This is likely true. He was the only person onboard the plane, so he would not have been able to get up and look. Unlikely he could see the extent of damage from his seat. And as noted, on final approach, he doesn't have time for much to change plans. Even if he knew the extent of the damage, the choices are roughly the same - land as planned, or go around. That said, he did exactly what he should. Aviate, navigate, communicate. He controlled the plane, made a decision, and communicated that to ATC. Well done.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  When people encounter emergency situations in domains they are familiar with they tend to do a pretty good job of rolling with it.
  - lbriner 5y ago
    Exactly. You either panic and run around screaming and then you die or you could try and take control and you might live. It's no different than most of us driving a car. If a tyre blows out, most of us wouldn't scream and close our eyes, we would try and steer to safety.
    - ordu 5y ago
      > You either panic and run around screaming and then you die or you could try and take control and you might live. It is not so black and white. One might (and normal person should) feel a stress reaction with rising levels adrenaline and suchlike in his bloodstream, and it is normal, it might even be beneficial, if one was trained to benefit from this mind state. I become more resolute from this, more concentrated than usual, sometimes even more concentrated than it is good for me because I might miss some important detail. > If a tyre blows out, most of us wouldn't scream and close our eyes, we would try and steer to safety. I never was in this situation with a blown tyre, but I was in some other situations when there was a danger to my life (or I believed that it was) I become extremely concentrated, almost silent (except for occasional curses), but when I needed to communicate, I did it loudly and with a good deal of swearing. I think that communication for me in these situations is like a distracting hindrance, so if I need to do it, I'll do it in a way that will make it unnecessary to repeat it. The communication of the pilot have not a hint of his emotions. My mind was blown not because of his perfect actions (I expect perfect actions from a professional), not even because the lack of swearing. It is the tone of his voice, it is completely composed, almost relaxed. I can imagine myself in this situation restraining from shouting and from swearing, but my emotional tension would leak through my voice, I wouldn't even try to hide it.
- neom 5y ago
  Trusted his training. Very good pilot.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> The pilot is speaking about failed engine after the collision, like it is nothing. Fascinating. I'd be shouting something obscene in such a situation. For half an hour at least, I think. When you get your medical clearance, one of the things they look for is signs of psychological issues or instability. Not saying that's you, and I bet you'd do better than you think. Pilot training also IMHO makes you better at that stuff.
- js2 5y ago
  I thought he sounded just a little rattled after he was on the ground. As calm as his demeanor was right after the collision, there had to have been some adrenaline going in landing that plane.

xattt 5y ago

It’s amazing there were no casualties. The novelty of the report is the use of a rescue parachute by the Cirrus plane.

_s 5y ago

Private Pilot here - just thought I'd chime in quickly; Many aviation enthusiasts / pilots first go to is to have a look at the flight data - usually available on FlightAware / FlightRadar24 and a few other websites, plus LiveATC usually can provide recordings of the flights communications to towers as well. We should refrain from using just those data points to draw conclusions to the cause; the NTSB (and other orgs) will perform an investigation and the report will be made public (both interim, and final ones), and changes are almost always made to processes / systems, and often to the virtual or physical items that led to this incident. There are a few more photos and insights from various folks that were there at the time and captured a few moments on the reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/nauck8/mid_air_just_north_of_kapa_all_parties_ok/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/nauck8/mid_air_just... Note - it's incredibly rare for a midair not to result in fatalities so an incredible amount of luck all around.

sundvor 5y ago
Thanks, that does seem incredibly lucky indeed. Also, I like the headline including "all parties ok".
sokoloff 5y ago
It’s not incredibly rare. Around 2 in 5 midair mishaps result in no fatalities. https://iflyamerica.org/midairs.asp https://iflyamerica.org/midairs.asp This one was incredibly lucky, especially for the Key Lime aircraft.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  Interesting - that's higher than I would have expected, but apparently explaind by most collisions being in the pattern or otherwise near an airport (makes sense now that I think about it.) At least in the pattern, for most of the time, everyone is going in approximately the same direction (even this case.)
- lbriner 5y ago
  My guess would be that only in the worst scenarios does a collision involve a full-impact. In most cases I would expect either or both pilots to be taking avoiding action so that you might get some more minor scrapes which allow you to limp home.

nitrogen 5y ago

No injuries reported. Kind of fascinating to read.

ardit33 5y ago

Spoiler: No one died, so it has a happy ending

nickcw 5y ago

Just in case anyone (like me) is thinking - wait did that aeroplane have a parachute? From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Sy... The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is a whole-plane ballistic parachute recovery system designed specifically for Cirrus Aircraft's line of general aviation light aircraft including the SR20, SR22 and SF50. The design became the first of its kind to become certified with the FAA, achieving certification in October 1998, and as of 2014 was the only aircraft ballistic parachute used as standard equipment by an aviation company.

maweki 5y ago
I was wondering whether there was a mix-up in the crew count, as one pilot with a parachute saves two people and a one-person crew lands the plane. This mostly clears it up.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  My less charitable reading was that the pilot abandoned the Cirrus on a parachute, but then it seemed like the plane landed…
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Pilots of planes with CAPS are (now) taught to pull the chute if anything goes wrong inside the profile (low enough speed, far enough above ground) where the chute is designed to work. The aeroplane is insured, you can buy a new one. Even if the pilot and all passengers are insured you can't buy new ones. They changed this because it turns out that the same phenomenon that leads to private pilots taking undue risks in the rest of flight ("Get-there-itis") also makes them reluctant to pull the chute even when it's clearly their best option. Pilots who clearly couldn't reach a safe landing spot, yet had working CAPS would dig themselves (and their passengers) a grave rather than just pull the handle. So teaching them to start by assuming they'll pull the chute and only then considering whether there are other options reduces the fatality rate.

onion2k 5y ago

I find it slightly incredible that two planes ever hit each other given the size of planes compared to the volume of space they fly in. I understand that it's simple probability (small planes, big volume, but lots of flights) but it's still amazing that it happens at all.

coldtea 5y ago
>I find it slightly incredible that two planes ever hit each other given the size of planes compared to the volume of space they fly in. The space can be constrained though. There are "airways" (jet routes) for flights, and not that much of a volume/size ratio when the volume concerns areas near airports -- where many planes approach, exit, are asked to circle in a holding pattern, etc. So it's not like the whole sky is their domain...
freetime2 5y ago
Less incredible in this case since it was two planes landing on parallel runways at the same time.
t0mas88 5y ago
The probability is much higher in terminal airspace because all planes are going to or coming from the airport so they are on converging paths by definition. And better GNSS based navigation equipment is now making it more likely than 20 years ago. The historical accuracy was such that planes where often a bit offset left or right off the route giving extra separation. Now the accuracy is so good that planes going opposite direction on the same route are passing exactly bang in the middle on top/below each other.
- throwawaygimp 5y ago
  Yea, this is a really good point that isn't well known. We've improved GNSS significantly, but the technology to avoid collisions hasn't been widely deployed, even though it's orders of magnitude less complicated than high accuracy GNSS on the whole So... a random dilution of precision generator could... save lives? ha.

franciscop 5y ago

No deaths nor injuries involved, which I feel like this should be in the headline. I came in expecting to see at least a commercial flight was involved (how does it make to #1 on HN otherwise?) but was very relieved to see it was two small aircrafts with 1 and 2 pilots respectively and everyone survived safely.

OJFord 5y ago
> I came in expecting to see at least a commercial flight was involved (how does it make to #1 on HN otherwise?) The Metroliner (one with the fuselage ripped through) is commercial, [0] but apparently carrying cargo only in this case. [1] Surely a mid-air collision even between two hobby Cessnas say is rare/interesting enough to make it? [0] - https://www.keylimeair.com/ https://www.keylimeair.com/ [1] - https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/may/12/colorado-midair-injures-none https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/may/12/col...
t0mas88 5y ago
The Metroliner isn't really a small (private) aircraft, it's more a commuter type aircraft, 19 seats. But in this case it was only carrying cargo so the place of impact didn't have any people in it. Another lucky point is that it was at low altitude and at slow speed (preparing to land). Higher up it would have been much more likely to break up due to way higher speed and larger pressure difference between the cabin and outside.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  Other inches-from-death aspects: there was no-one in the aft of the cabin; the collision missed the pilot; it missed the empennage; it missed the wings; it missed the control cables; and possibly (I'm speculating wildly here) it left the cabin floor intact, without which, I doubt the tail would have stayed on.
benatkin 5y ago
If there were two commercial passenger flights involved and it were 300 miles south, it would be life imitating art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABQ_(Breaking_Bad)#Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABQ_(Breaking_Bad)#Plot

FatalLogic 5y ago

It's strange that the planes were supposed to be flying parallel and yet the damage to both planes in the photos suggests a collision at right angles Remarkable that the Metroliner held together, despite that terrible damage, and they landed it safely edit: interesting photo of the landing from the Reddit thread linked elsewhere https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0 https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0

t0mas88 5y ago
The Cirrus overshot the centerline of the runway it was supposed to land on. The common way for these situations is for the plane to be on an intercept angle towards the centerline. That's a max 30 degree angle for an instrument approach, but this was a visual approach so it could have been a sharper angle. All it takes to make this mistake in a Cirrus (and other G1000 avionics type small airplanes) is to forget 1 button on the autopilot mode. If it isn't set to capture the final approach track (either GPS or ILS) it will continue straight ahead which in this case means into the side of another airplane. One thing that makes it more likely is that US air traffic control makes heavy use of visual approaches, and then it's allowed to point two aircraft at collision courses on the same altitude because they can see each other. The European way to do this is to have them intercept at different altitudes so if one overshoots they pass over/under. But it results in lower capacity per runway than the US system.
- azalemeth 5y ago
  Indeed. Something else I'd like to point out is that it might seem easy to 'blame the Cirrus' pilot or them call out for inattention, but doing so by itself isn't helpful. Aviation is so safe partly because it has managed to turn a culture of blame into a culture of continuous improvement and shared learning: I'd be very surprised if the airport's procedures came out of this unmodified, for example.
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    I’ve probably mentioned this book on HN a hundred times but “Black Box Thinking” discusses the aviation culture of avoiding blame and making sure a problem isn’t repeated and how other industries (like medicine) would benefit hugely from a similar approach. It’s really interesting.

throwawaygimp 5y ago

@dang "Mid air just north of KAPA- all parties OK" is the more appropriate headline on reddit. As an aviator my stress levels are only just coming down now from seeing this headline and clicking expecting there to be deaths.

Grustaf 5y ago
What is KAPA and do people know what it means?
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  It's the code for the particular airport they were about to land at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Airport
- t0mas88 5y ago
  The ICAO airport code as used for navigation. They're different from the IATA 3 letter codes that most passengers know. US airports start with K, European with E (e.g. EF for Europe-France). Often for large airports the code is very similar to the IATA code for passengers, e.g. KJFK for JFK and KSFO for San Francisco. But not always, as in EGLL for London Heathrow which is LHR in passenger codes.
  - Denvercoder9 5y ago
    > Often for large airports the code is very similar to the IATA code for passengers This is mostly only the case in the United States, since it has a single-letter K prefix, so they can append the 3-letter IATA code to make a valid 4-letter ICAO code. In the rest of the world the second letter of the ICAO code is used to designate countries, so the 3-letter IATA code cannot be appended.
  - papercrane 5y ago
    > European with E (e.g. EF for Europe-France). EF is Finland actually. The first letter is region code, and Europe is divided into multiple regions. Northern Europe is E, Southern Europe is mostly L (so France is LF). Wikipedia has a nice map showing the different boundarys on it's ICAO airport codes page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code#/media/File:ICAO_FirstLetter.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code#/media/File:...

na85 5y ago

I was camping near Whistler a few years ago and heard a bang. Looked up and saw falling debris and bodies. A wing landed not far from our campsite. Turns out a glider (low-wing monoplane) was descending and the tow plane (high wing monoplane) was climbing. They were each in each other's blind spots :( Glad to see no fatalities here; I'm an aerospace engineer in the field of airworthiness and technical risk management so my work sees a lot of accident reports and flight safety incidents. I can say with certainty these folks (esp. the metroliner crew) are very fortunate.

azalemeth 5y ago
I'm sorry to hear that you witness a mid-air collision -- I hope it wasn't completely fatal. In the UK, all glider pilots wear parachutes and the overwhelming majority have standardised on a collision avoidance system known as FLARM that is "glider friendly" (unlike GNSS) and can differentiate thermalling from colliding. It's just an internal 16 channel GPS receiver with an external antenna and an altimeter that predicts the flight path and then transmits it - including a unique identifier - as low-power digital burst signals at one-second intervals. Other aircraft also equipped with FLARM receive that, compare it with their own flight path prediction, and also check for collision information with known data on obstacles, including electric power lines, radio masts and cable cars, etc. If a proximity warning is generated to one or more aircraft or obstacles, it bleeps like anything and generates bright LEDs that point in the direction of the threat. The display also gives indication of the threat level, plus the horizontal and vertical bearing to the threat -- and there are three warnings (iirc ~30s, ~15s, ~6s) -- it warns by time and not distance. I remember the thing going off a few times; it's quite helpful and draws your attention to a region of sky immediately, including behind, above and below you. It's also dirt cheap† and is a battery-powered self-contained box with (I suspect) a microcontroller and glorified smartphone innards inside. †(by aviation standards)
upofadown 5y ago
Probably this: * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pemberton-b-c-mid-air-crash-caused-by-blind-spot-tsb-1.2770887 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pemberton-b-... Whenever there is a collision involving light aircraft the question of anti-collision systems comes up. Unfortunately the powers that be have completely failed to come up with a workable standard for such aircraft. The glider people eventually just gave up on waiting and now use a proprietary system called FLARM which has fairly good adoption. There is more than one system of that type available for light powered aircraft with not very good adoption. Each system is entirely incompatible with each other, including the standardized ones used in heavy commercial aviation.

0xFFFE 5y ago

Comms between tower and the planes involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc

zed88 5y ago

Metroliner, often jokingly called as "flying sewer pipe" is one hell of a sturdy plane it seems. Glad to see both parties okay, but this makes me think if BRS should be made standard by FAA on GA planes given the lives saved by the technology so far.

gkanai 5y ago

Commercial pilot Juan Browne covers this on his channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w

cmckn 5y ago

I've spent a decent amount of time at Centennial; it's one of the busiest general aviation airports in the country. There's a great restaurant on site that you can watch the runways from. After this incident, the restaurant is probably as close as I'd get to a Cirrus. :)

toast0 5y ago
I don't see how this incident would make or break your impression of the Cirrus. From the picture, the plane at rest is pretty messed up, but all occupants are safe, and pending investigation, there doesn't seem to be a sign of mechanical error involved. Flying in (or near) small planes has a lot of risk, but I don't see how this incident would change your impression of this one manufacturer's planes.
- cmckn 5y ago
  Oh no, my point was just that I’d be wary of getting in a small plane, and Cirrus was the craft mentioned in the article. I remember seeing a lot of them at this airport (though they’re probably outnumbered by Cesna’s, lots of small-time fliers there).
dillondoyle 5y ago
It's really close to the city too. I'm sure the chances of a collision outside of the airport is absolutely basically zero, but these small planes fly really low over my house and the downtown area all the time. They get pretty low and close for touring over the big buildings for photos and stuff, see photos on reddit all the time..

bartread 5y ago

Bloody hell: the state of that Metroliner. Surprised it held together with that amount of damage, and huge kudos to the pilots for getting it on the ground safely. For such a serious accident this seems about the best possible outcome for the crew of both aircraft. I'm not an expert so I'm not going to comment on root cause or blame here, but simply glad to read that at least everybody survived.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dkarras 5y ago

Video of the cirrus chuting down: https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/1392560583950561281 https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/1392560583950561281 A photo of the airborne metroliner with fuselage blown open: https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0 https://imgur.com/gallery/yKPOWR0

londons_explore 5y ago
The plane flying missing half the fuselage suggests to me that fuselage was excessively strong (and therefore heavy and expensive). A tube is only strong when complete. Cut away half the tube and bending resistance probably goes down ~10x.
- cesarb 5y ago
  > The plane flying missing half the fuselage suggests to me that fuselage was excessively strong (and therefore heavy and expensive). It's probably the opposite: that the fuselage was only strong enough to resist the air pressure differential, and that the real structural component was the cabin floor. And that, luckily, the control cables for the tail were routed through the cabin floor, instead of through the top of the cabin.
  - stevehawk 5y ago
    It's not the cabin floor. it's what the cabin floor is attached to. Most fuselages have all of their longitudinal strength in their stringers, which are usually run along the floor. If the Cirrus had ripped through the bottom of that plane and not the top then that jet would have torn apart.
    - hyperbovine 5y ago
      Nit: SA-226 is a turboprop not a jet.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      Stringers in a plane seem akin to stringers in a car frame... Cars have moved away to unibody designs (where the shell of the car is also the structure) because it is stronger, lighter and cheaper. Unibody designs have been the norm for almost 100 years now.

mdip 5y ago

Wow, that's incredible. Goes to show that people do walk away from plane crashes with some regularity. My father was a pilot[0]. He sold his plane about 15 years ago (to a group of owners, one of which was a priest, I'm sure there's a joke in there). A few of winters later, he was called out to Romeo Airport; the pilot flying the plane that was formerly his had crashed the aircraft a few miles short of the runway in bad weather[1]. He was traveling with his daughter, a friend and, I think, his wife. He died, but his daughter was able to get free and make her way to a nearby farm to call for help. Looking at the plane, the fact that anyone survived at all let alone walked to a nearby house with minor injuries is pretty miraculous. It's hard to impress upon folks who have never been in a small plane like that just how ... yeah ... how much it feels like you're hanging onto a kite. I have no idea the kinds of structural technologies are involved in the aircraft but I know his plane was made in the 70s and was light enough that he only had a pole which attached to the front landing gear to pull it out of the hangar. The weight is so critical that the 7-seat plane can realistically only seat 4-5 adults. I remember being shocked that they had to weigh the paint they applied when he had the plane re-painted. [0] I'll spare the details as I have left many comments in the past about his experiences. [1] https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/43894 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/43894 - "Pilot Error"; I recall my Dad saying "all plane crashes are pilot error" [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-32_Cherokee_Six https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-32_Cherokee_Six

qayxc 5y ago
> The weight is so critical that the 7-seat plane can realistically only seat 4-5 adults. I think you overlooked an important factor there. The plane was indeed designed to realistically seat 7 adults. The issue is that in the 50 years since the plane was originally designed, the average weight of adults (in the US) increased by about 18% [0] and the average adult woman today weighs as much as the average adult man in the 1960s. [0] https://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/ https://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/20...
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I find it very hard to agree that a PA-32 was "designed to realistically seat 7 adults". I don't think they even imagined 6 adults as a typical cabin load, but rather a max of 4 adults and 2 kids and a typical of 2 adults and 2-4 kids. It is one of the more roomy cabins among light singles, but every one of them that I see for listed for sale right now is configured with seating for only 6, which is great for 2 adults and a few kids.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

Glad no one was injured or killed. Sounds like the Metroliner pilot did very well. I really think that we should not have flying cars until we have true autopilot (hands off the wheel, meatbag!). The thought of the "Hey y'all! Lookit this!" knuckleheads that regularly open up, roaring past my house, in three dimensions, is chilling. They are bad enough with just two. I'll bet that the advent of true driverless tech will also be the advent of illegal aftermarket "mod kits." I can see it now...the "Hold My Beer™" line of manual override modules...

simonswords82 5y ago
Reality is that you won't have the type of idiots that roar past your house flying cars/planes or anything of that nature unless it is fully automated because most of them aren't smart enough to pass the tests required to be a pilot.

martyvis 5y ago

As always, Juan Browne has great reporting and analysis of this incident https://youtu.be/_Ph7OR6C90w https://youtu.be/_Ph7OR6C90w

vertis 5y ago

This[0] youtube video has good explanation with the air traffic control audio. The metroliner pilot was cool as a cucumber after being hit. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w

throw0101a 5y ago
See also VASAviation's recreation of radar plot, which is referenced in the above video: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc

HHalvi 5y ago

I felt erilly familiar with the details of this accident after reading the details. I dug up my browsing history and realized I watched the ATC exchange of this very collision yesterday not realizing that this had happened the very same day the video was uploaded[0]. Also props to the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS), hope this gets implemented in more smaller (or homemade) aircrafts. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tb2dVWJqc

wiedehopf 5y ago

Exact tracks of both aircraft with timestamps: press K to enable labels https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a4eabe,a2cee7&lat=39.635&lon=-104.856&zoom=13.0&showTrace=2021-05-12&startTime=16:20&endTime=16:30 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a4eabe,a2cee7&lat=39.63...

shockeychap 5y ago

The picture of the Metroliner reminds me of the Aloha Airlines incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 It's amazing that the hull can survive in the air for any time with that much torn away.

MobileVet 5y ago

Wow, the 'can opener' effect is intense. Insane that the plane held together, so much structural loss. Reminds me of the Aloha Flight 243. My mom's cousin was the pilot and hearing his first hand account was pretty crazy. Fun fact, he got to be an extra in the made for TV movie of the event. https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/robert-l-schornstheimer/ https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/robert-l-schornstheime...

EricE 5y ago

Juan Browne of the blancolirio YouTube channel did his usual excellent overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ph7OR6C90w

schoen 5y ago

I remember seeing some Internet post a couple of decades ago where someone asserted that the goal of ATC was to prevent midair collisions and that U.S. ATC had met this goal perfectly, with no midair collisions between aircraft that were under the control of ATC at the time. I think the claim was qualified in some way like "collision between civilian flights that were both flying an ATC-assigned clearance at the time". (So some kinds of flights and some kinds of airspace don't require ATC clearance, and if one of them were involved in a collision, it wouldn't be ATC's responsibility, in some sense.) My question at the moment is: is this claim plausible if you qualify or restrict it enough? Do you have to tack on additional conditions? Is there any useful sense in which this collision was a first for U.S. aviation history?

mlac 5y ago
> "The Cirrus descended through 6400 feet about 3nm north of the threshold of runway 17R, but overshot the centerlines of both runways 17R and 17L" It looks like the Cirrus wasn't flying to what the ATC cleared...

FabHK 5y ago

I wonder how many mid air collisions we would expect to see if see-and-avoid where entirely ineffectual, or pilots would not look outside ever except to land. I have the impression the accident numbers would not be much worse than they are. In other words, my hypothesis is that the fact that there are few mid-airs is owed to ATC, technology (TCAS, TAS) and “big sky”, rather than vigilant pilots.

ericpauley 5y ago
Agreed. It can be hard to spot traffic even if you know where the other plane is! With this in mind ADS-B/TIS-B seems like such an essential tool for GA pilots.