Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: NTSB Ruling (ERA14FA459B/59A) regarding midair collision accident out of BQR

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    90

    NTSB Ruling (ERA14FA459B/59A) regarding midair collision accident out of BQR

    I hate to bring this up again because of the two fatalities. Here is the probable cause ruling from the NTSB:

    The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
    • The pilot’s failure to maintain an adequate visual lookout for known traffic in the fly-in event traffic pattern, which resulted in a midair collision.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    90
    Here is the rest of the report:


    NTSB Identification: ERA14FA459A
    14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
    Accident occurred Saturday, September 27, 2014 in Lancaster, NY
    Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/25/2016
    Aircraft: CESSNA 172M, registration: N9679H
    Injuries: 2 Fatal, 2 Uninjured.
    NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

    The accident airplanes, a Cessna and an experimental amateur-built Searey, were two of several airplanes participating in a volunteer event designed to provide the opportunity for young people to fly in a general aviation airplane. A route of flight for the event was established and briefed, and the pilots were instructed to make position reports over the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency at certain landmarks along the route of flight; however, no procedures were in place to account for the disparate operating characteristics and speeds of the aircraft participating in the event. Radar and GPS data showed that the Cessna overtook and descended to the altitude of the Searey as the Searey climbed slowly. During the last moments before impact, both airplanes were depicted at the same altitude and in close lateral proximity. The Searey pilot was unaware that his airplane had collided with the Cessna, but upon experiencing control difficulty, performed a forced landing to an area of thick vegetation. The Searey was substantially damaged during the landing. Immediately after the collision, the Cessna entered a descending spiral to ground contact.
    A performance radar and cockpit visibility study determined that the Searey would have remained a relatively small and stationary object in the Cessna’s windscreen, appearing below the horizon and just above the engine cowling, for several minutes before the impact. The study also determined that the Searey may have been difficult to distinguish against the background of terrain. Additionally, since the airplanes were on a converging course, the Searey would have presented little relative motion to the other pilot, making detection more difficult. The Cessna would not have been visible to the Searey pilot because it approached from an area that was obstructed by the airplane’s structure.




    The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
    •The pilot’s failure to maintain an adequate visual lookout for known traffic in the fly-in event traffic pattern, which resulted in a midair collision.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    Unfortunately what will be lost on the public is that with such determination the Lancaster Airport will take an exonerated position of saying the airport is safe, that the accident and death was related to pilot error and that this will hopefully open the door for further airport expansion.

    Airport management will most likely (if they haven’t already) approach the town board for their blessing to get the remaining $6,000 owed them in the illegal $15 million expansion/improvement to the once near defunct airport under the guise of wanting further airport expansion to allow for increased traffic volume.

    Any attempt by the airport to get the board to file a resolution that in anyway opens up the door to further airport traffic – small jets and aircraft with up to 79 foot wing spans – should be denied.

    The Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) and their increasing support numbers have made it well known how past boards have played a part in allowing the expansion to occur when/despite:

    • The airport violated the zoning codes set decades ago in expanding beyond the 25 acre limitation (140 acres)

    • Gave the permits and documentation support necessary to get the $15,000 federal and state aid grants – and denied it

    • Two no longer serving board members failed in their attempt to coerce the town planning board into making a code language change that would allow those jets and large aircraft airport usage and thereby add to the hazards of an airport and to the adverse quality of life impact of the neighbors living in the flight paths.

    I have to believe this board well knows the negative impact further airport expansion would bring to the town and will not consider taking up the airport cause. If they would, it would be political suicide and a slap in the face to taxpayers who pay millions in property taxes and where the airport currently pays somewhere in the $50 thousand category for a property that has a for-profit commercial enterprise sitting on 140 acres of land.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Finally the determination came in. Let it be known that during that event the FAA was present conducting a "safety" seminar. Even though there were ample FAA officials on site, this tragic event still occurred.

    In addition to Lee's summary, the projects already completed we're done without a SEQR process.

    Lastly, in our recent occurrence where a big jet which came out of Oklahoma, conducted visual flight patterns over our area at low altitude, made a sleeping giant wake up along with a larger group of concern homeowners.

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    The Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) and their increasing support numbers have made it well known how past boards have played a part in allowing the expansion to occur when/despite:

    • The airport violated the zoning codes set decades ago in expanding beyond the 25 acre limitation (140 acres)

    • Gave the permits and documentation support necessary to get the $15,000 federal and state aid grants – and denied it

    • Two no longer serving board members failed in their attempt to coerce the town planning board into making a code language change that would allow those jets and large aircraft airport usage and thereby add to the hazards of an airport and to the adverse quality of life impact of the neighbors living in the flight paths.

    I have to believe this board well knows the negative impact further airport expansion would bring to the town and will not consider taking up the airport cause. If they would, it would be political suicide and a slap in the face to taxpayers who pay millions in property taxes and where the airport currently pays somewhere in the $50 thousand category for a property that has a for-profit commercial enterprise sitting on 140 acres of land.
    I agree with all the above.

    But the fatal accident, I believe was just that, an accident that shouldn't be held against the airport.

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by DebLemaster View Post
    Here is the rest of the report:


    NTSB Identification: ERA14FA459A
    14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
    Accident occurred Saturday, September 27, 2014 in Lancaster, NY
    Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/25/2016
    Aircraft: CESSNA 172M, registration: N9679H
    Injuries: 2 Fatal, 2 Uninjured.
    NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

    The accident airplanes, a Cessna and an experimental amateur-built Searey, were two of several airplanes participating in a volunteer event designed to provide the opportunity for young people to fly in a general aviation airplane. A route of flight for the event was established and briefed, and the pilots were instructed to make position reports over the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency at certain landmarks along the route of flight; however, no procedures were in place to account for the disparate operating characteristics and speeds of the aircraft participating in the event. Radar and GPS data showed that the Cessna overtook and descended to the altitude of the Searey as the Searey climbed slowly. During the last moments before impact, both airplanes were depicted at the same altitude and in close lateral proximity. The Searey pilot was unaware that his airplane had collided with the Cessna, but upon experiencing control difficulty, performed a forced landing to an area of thick vegetation. The Searey was substantially damaged during the landing. Immediately after the collision, the Cessna entered a descending spiral to ground contact.
    A performance radar and cockpit visibility study determined that the Searey would have remained a relatively small and stationary object in the Cessna’s windscreen, appearing below the horizon and just above the engine cowling, for several minutes before the impact. The study also determined that the Searey may have been difficult to distinguish against the background of terrain. Additionally, since the airplanes were on a converging course, the Searey would have presented little relative motion to the other pilot, making detection more difficult. The Cessna would not have been visible to the Searey pilot because it approached from an area that was obstructed by the airplane’s structure.




    The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
    •The pilot’s failure to maintain an adequate visual lookout for known traffic in the fly-in event traffic pattern, which resulted in a midair collision.
    Take note of the NTSB statement "however, no procedures were in place to account for the disparate operating characteristics and speeds of the aircraft participating in the event." Think about it. All of the aircraft participating in this event. with young children in their aircraft. were flying the same flight pattern, but at different speeds, including faster aircraft flying behind slower ones. This is like having two trains on the same track wherein the one in front is a slow train and the one behind it is a faster train. A collision then will occur unless an evasive action is taken, or the trains are spaced far enough apart that the faster one will not overtake the slower one before the trains reaches it's destination first. IMHO the organizers of this young eagles event, and the airport hosting this event, should not have allowed aircraft to fly the same flight pattern without timing the takeoffs so that the faster aircraft could not overtake the slower ones, in addition to requiring continuous radio contact, and parhaps radar monitoring by the Buffalo Niagara International Airport tower. That is going beyond relying on the initiative and diligence of the individual pilots (which clearly failed), but with young children in their aircraft IMHO taking all precautions was called for. For this the management of the young eagles event, and the Lancaster Airport management, failed the children participating in this event, IMHO. In my mind, the tragic accident that occurred is proof enough that this event was not managed as well as it should have been, and the precautions that could have prevented it from happening are not hard to conceive of. Had this mid-air collision occurred about a minute or so later, over Westwood Park while many children were playing soccer games etc with families present, the tragedy could have been even worse...

  7. #7
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancaster Resident View Post
    Take note of the NTSB statement "however, no procedures were in place to account for the disparate operating characteristics and speeds of the aircraft participating in the event." Think about it. All of the aircraft participating in this event. with young children in their aircraft. were flying the same flight pattern, but at different speeds, including faster aircraft flying behind slower ones. This is like having two trains on the same track wherein the one in front is a slow train and the one behind it is a faster train. A collision then will occur unless an evasive action is taken, or the trains are spaced far enough apart that the faster one will not overtake the slower one before the trains reaches it's destination first. IMHO the organizers of this young eagles event, and the airport hosting this event, should not have allowed aircraft to fly the same flight pattern without timing the takeoffs so that the faster aircraft could not overtake the slower ones, in addition to requiring continuous radio contact, and parhaps radar monitoring by the Buffalo Niagara International Airport tower. That is going beyond relying on the initiative and diligence of the individual pilots (which clearly failed), but with young children in their aircraft IMHO taking all precautions was called for. For this the management of the young eagles event, and the Lancaster Airport management, failed the children participating in this event, IMHO. In my mind, the tragic accident that occurred is proof enough that this event was not managed as well as it should have been, and the precautions that could have prevented it from happening are not hard to conceive of. Had this mid-air collision occurred about a minute or so later, over Westwood Park while many children were playing soccer games etc with families present, the tragedy could have been even worse...
    Bear in mind what shortstuff wrote;
    Let it be known that during that event the FAA was present conducting a "safety" seminar. Even though there were ample FAA officials on site, this tragic event still occurred.
    How do other airports handle an event such as this? Maybe, they can learn from other airports procedures during this type of event.

    Georgia L Schlager

  8. #8
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    The event was organized by the Experimental Aircraft Association not the BLA.
    Apparently these rallys have been done a few times around the country
    YOUNG EAGLES®
    Founded in 1992, the Young Eagles program has dedicated nearly 25 years to giving youth ages 8–17 their first free ride in an airplane.

    It’s the only program of its kind, with the sole mission to introduce and inspire kids in the world of aviation.

    Today, the Young Eagles program has flown nearly 2 million kids with the help of EAA’s network of volunteer pilots and ground volunteers.

    Our goal is to celebrate the 2 millionth Young Eagle flown during AirVenture Oshkosh 2016.

    Join us in offering every child, tween, and teen the chance to experience the Spirit of AviationTM.

    Total Young Eagles Flown: 2,000,001 - Stats as of July 28, 2016

    Georgia L Schlager

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    This is how I see things, in as much as the Young Eagles have provided a service to young adults, this tragic incident could have been avoided. Other airports do not (typically) have the challenges this airport had faced in the past several decades. They are in a place that is in close proximity to International, they are extremely close in proximity to the train tracks, they violated their own towns zoning laws, they acquired grant monies by providing misleading information on the grant (used opposite direction for flight pattern) and has poor management/business model that had failed them & the community.

    This accident is tragic and our community will never forget that.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    This is how I see things, in as much as the Young Eagles have provided a service to young adults, this tragic incident could have been avoided. Other airports do not (typically) have the challenges this airport had faced in the past several decades. They are in a place that is in close proximity to International, they are extremely close in proximity to the train tracks, they violated their own towns zoning laws, they acquired grant monies by providing misleading information on the grant (used opposite direction for flight pattern) and has poor management/business model that had failed them & the community.

    This accident is tragic and our community will never forget that.

    So how could this have been avoided ? The way it could have been avoided was both pilots to continuously look for other traffic. The airport management issues, train tracks etc had nothing to do with this accident, they are issues related to airport owners and citizens who either want or don't want the airport there.

    Too late unfortunately for those involved but I believe by 2020 or so, all airplanes will be mandated to have the ability to see other aircraft with an onboard instrument like most commercial aircraft have now

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Roman View Post
    So how could this have been avoided ? The way it could have been avoided was both pilots to continuously look for other traffic. The airport management issues, train tracks etc had nothing to do with this accident, they are issues related to airport owners and citizens who either want or don't want the airport there.

    Too late unfortunately for those involved but I believe by 2020 or so, all airplanes will be mandated to have the ability to see other aircraft with an onboard instrument like most commercial aircraft have now

    1. Both pilots being professionals in their field -- YES --- should have been observant since they were flying children.
    2. The FAA should have been observant as they were present at the time to monitor the traffic that was in the air.
    3. If the management was skilled, they would have not allowed so much aircraft at one time in the air creating a congested airspace.
    4. The management & the FAA should have made sure that the Tower was used in this case where the show/activity was occurring.

    I feel not only was the management responsible as well as the pilots--the FAA had a responsibility here too.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •