The Van’s RV-12 was inbound for landing at the airport in Bayport, N.Y., and had joined a 45° approach to the left base leg for the runway.
The Chipmunk had taxied to the end of the runway to conduct an engine run-up.
The RV-12 pilot said that he made a radio call on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) while he was on the base leg and during his turn to final. The Chipmunk pilot stated that he made a radio call on the CTAF stating his intention to depart.
Both pilots said that they did not hear any traffic on the CTAF, nor did they see any traffic in the pattern or on the ground.
The RV-12 pilot stated that the front half of the Chipmunk came into his view as the RV-12 was in its landing flare.
Subsequently, the propeller of the RV-12 struck the rudder and vertical stabilizer of the Chipmunk, causing substantial damage and causing the RV-12 to lose thrust.
A portion of the propeller blade tip from the RV-12 and a lead rudder balance weight from the Chipmunk were later discovered on the west half of the runway.
The Chipmunk continued with the takeoff and landed shortly after at a nearby airport. The RV-12 landed safely immediately after the collision.
Examination of the airport environment revealed that, depending on the angle and altitude of inbound aircraft and the position of aircraft on the ground, trees surrounding the approach end of the runway could block a pilot’s view of arriving or departing aircraft.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the failure of both pilots to see and avoid each other, which resulted in a collision.
NTSB Identification: ERA14LA181A
This April 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
I thought that the landing aircraft has the right of way so the fault should be on the Chipmunk pilot for not yielding to a landing aircraft. Note: radio calls, while a huge safety device, are voluntary. They likely transmitted simultaneously and stepped on each other. Multiple calls are necessary to ensure at least one gets thru.
Gee, I can see traffic all the way to threshold on landing…suppose an animal crossed onto runway….just land?
Unfortunate set of circumstances. The pattern entry for runway 36 is on the left base at 600msl due to jet traffic at nearby Islip airport. From looking at a satellite map, it looks like an airplane near the far south end of the airport abeam the displaced threshold area could easily be hidden from the view of base traffic, and vice versa. This advisory was added to the A/FD after the accident: “PILOTS BE ADVISED: DUE TO PATTERN PROCEDURES, AIRCRAFT IN THE RUN-UP AREA OR STARTING TAKEOFF ROLL ON RWY 36, AND AIRCRAFT ON FINAL APPROACH TO RWY 36, MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE EACH OTHER DUE TO TREES”. You can’t depend solely on radios as they are not required here and there may be an unknown malfunction anyway to a radio. I think if I were to visit this airport I would do my pretakeoff checks and runup closer to the mid-point of the airport to avoid any blind spots close to the trees at either end.
“trees surrounding the approach end of the runway could block a pilot’s view of arriving or departing aircraft”. So, maybe cut them down??
It is obvious that one of the aircraft was on the wrong frequency, even if they could not see each other for what ever reason, they should of been able to hear the transmit of the other aircraft. This scenario gets an “F” rating for such a stupid mistake. It could of cost someone there life !! There is just no excuse..The most important tool in your aircraft is your radio to let other traffic know your intentions, if you don’t use it properly you might as well turn it off, cause you are flying blind and have no business in the air. Just no excuse..!!!
The plane on the runway has the ‘RIGHT OF WAY’! The pilot in the RV-12 was negligent for not spotting the Chipmunk on the airport approach end run up area. What is going on here. After being hit the Chipmunk should have aborted the takeoff, too.
This report makes it difficult to visualize the situation insofar as where the chipmunk was in relation to the runway while presumably doing a pre-takeoff engine runup check. Was it off the runway or was the chipmunk delaying for a runup check while positioned on the runway? If the latter then that was bad judgement. An active runway should not be used for delay to do a pre-takeoff engine runup check. That should have been done prior to taxiing onto the runway. Runways are to be used for takeoffs after the taxi and takeoff checklists have been completed. The bigger problem would seem to be the lack of communication at this non-towered airport or the lack of see and avoid especially by the RV-12. How can a pilot not know his airplane has been struck by a propeller from behind during a takeoff roll?
A 45 degree entry to left base is not recommended. A single position report on the radio is less likely to be heard and comprehended than multiple position reports. Two aircraft making a single radio report simultaneously will be heard by neither.
Joseph – at this airport the base entry is specified for runway 36. From the A/FD: “All tfc enter 45º left base for Rwy 36 at 600 ́ MSL due to heavy jet tfc Rwy 33L at ISP”. According to the full NTSB report the arriving pilot made four radio calls: at “mid bay, crossing the shoreline, on 45 degree left base, and on the turn onto the final”.
a double -check lookout ,on the left ,on the right in front , on the ground and in the air can avoid those accidents with special attention in case there is no radio contact..