Flight Nest: Planes, Aviation Industry, Stories about Flight

6 opinions for Aircraft Right of Way, Crash at Runway Intersection.

• Michael Grace
  Dec 29, 2005 at 17:37 \362\u\Thursday\u

  AC 90-66A pertains to Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices for Aeronautical Operations at Airports Without Operating Control Towers.
  “The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern. However, for those pilots who choose to executed a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in approaches.. .

  The wind favored landing on runway 15. In my opinion, the Malibu pilot was interrupting the prevailing flow of traffic at the time and had the
  greater responsibility for traffic avoidance.

• Al ODonnell
  Dec 29, 2005 at 19:27 \362\u\Thursday\u

  Looks like Michael did his homework. I also agree with his response on the assumption both pilots were on the radio and communicating.

• Dave Starr
  Jan 2, 2006 at 03:59 \1\u\Monday\u

  Hmm, the more I read this report and the more I try to map this out in my mind, the more I can’t conceive how the right wing of the Malibu could have been struck/ the right or left wing of the Aerostar could have struck the _left_ wing of the Malibu, but the _right_ wing of the Malibu would have been on the opposite side of the aircraft from the Aerostar and it’s difficult to see how the Aerostar could reach the right wing of the Malibu … without slicing completely through the left wind and the fuselage. Draw it out and you’ll see what I mean.

  However, regarding the right of way issue, FAR 91.113.d, Converging, would appear to make the Aerostar the burdened aircraft, since the Malibu was on the Aerostar’s right, the Malibu was the privileged aircraft and was required to be given the right of way. The recommended traffic pattern document referred to certainly has merit, but it is no way regulatory. However, 91.113 appears to cover this situation quite adequately.

• Mr. Flight
  Jan 2, 2006 at 04:41 \1\u\Monday\u

  I can think of a situation where the right wings of both aircraft made contact. If the Malibu noticed the Aerostar and swerved to the left at the last moment to pass behind the Aerostar, the right wings of both aircraft could have made contact.

  This also be logical from a visibility point of view. If the Aerostar reached the intersection first then it would not likely have seen the Malibu on the right. However the Malibu would have had a more forward view of the Aerostar and swerve right to go behind it.

  91.113.d does make an interesting point, however I 91.113.g might also warrant consideration. In this case it is difficult to tell which aircraft might have been lower (and when).

  I noticed too that the distance from the threshold of runway 15 to the intersection is a little longer than the threshold of runway 06 to the intersection. If both aircraft were operating at the same speed then you might suspect the Aerostar touched down first.

  But that is a a big assumption. Also looking at the performance data it appears the aerostar is a faster aircraft which would make the last point moot.

  Certainly many important questions remain…. like was anyone taking on the radio?

• Dave Starr
  Jan 2, 2006 at 07:11 \1\u\Monday\u

  Very good catch there on the right wing to right wing issue, Mr. Flight. I hadn’t envisioned that, but indeed that’s certainly a rational scenario, exactly the maneuver a pilot might make in a last ditch effort to avoid the collision.

  91.113.g indeed has some bearing on this, but note that it prohibits the favored (lower) aircraft from cutting off another aircraft and I think that once both are on the ground, no matter which one touched first, paragraph d would be the governing rule. Not a lawyer though, by any stretch of the imagination, so indeed both us might be right in some ways or both out in left field.

  I think you meant the speed difference point is moot, a mute is an accessory for a trumpet, or a person who can’t speak. As you mentioned r.e. the radio, it would seem at least one of the pilots possibly was mute or the other pilot had his speaker muted. (stop me please before this tangent goes even farther adrift ;-))

• Mr. Flight
  Jan 2, 2006 at 22:31 \1\u\Monday\u

  Good points, Dave. Something else to be considered too is the winds listed in the NTSB report were seven minutes before the accident. The airport has an ASOS so it is entirely possible that the Malibu listened to the ASOS and the winds could have favored runway 06. Maybe not probable, but possible.

  This makes me think about the airport I normally fly from where there are intersecting runways and visibility from one runway to the other is obstructed by buildings in some cases.

Have an opinion? Leave a comment:

• Use this area to discover new blogs and content in the b5media network.
• Beauty & Style
• Business
• Entertainment
• Health & Wellness
• Lifestyles
• Music
• Sports
• Team Blogs
• Technology
• Travel & Culture