A low-wing multiengine Piper PA34 departed the airport near Miami on an evaluation flight in the local training area with a commercial pilot candidate and designated pilot examiner onboard.
The student pilot and a flight instructor onboard a high-wing airplane were returning to the same airport on a cross-country instructional flight.
About six minutes after the low-wing airplane departed, the airplanes collided nearly straight-on about 1,500 feet mean sea level and 9 miles northwest of the airport.
All four people perished in the crash.
At the time, the low-wing airplane was clear of the Class D airspace and no longer communicating with air traffic control (ATC).
One of the pilots in the high-wing airplane had contacted ATC just before the collision. The controller acknowledged the transmission and issued a traffic advisory, but no further communications were received.
Neither airplane was equipped with a traffic information system, nor were they required to be.
An aircraft performance and cockpit visibility study revealed that both airplanes would have remained relatively small, slow-moving objects in each other’s windows until about 12 seconds before the collision.
It is likely that none of the pilots saw the other airplane given that radar data does not indicate that either airplane performed evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision.
No preimpact mechanical malfunctions were identified with either airplane.
Toxicology testing identified low levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and metabolites in the high-wing flight instructor’s blood and urine. Their presence indicates that the instructor had used marijuana at some time before the accident, but it is unlikely that the psychoactive effects of THC remained or contributed to the accident.
Probable cause: The failure of both pilots in both airplanes to see and avoid the other airplane as they converged nearly head-on at the same altitude.
NTSB Identification: ERA18FA194
This July 2018 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.
More electronics to solve a problem suggests everyone in close proximity of an airport should be focused on and analyzing screen displays.
The high wing plane only, according to what I’m reading, received traffic information and was in a position to see the opposing traffic. And was the only one with a pot smoker…coincidence. The report says THC probably not a factor. Perhaps not to physical ability, but perhaps to casual demeanor towards things in general? Or are aircraft less important than semi truck CDLs, for which I’m tested to insure no drugs?
Perhaps you haven’t flown with ADSB with a nice large screen yet but it becomes part of your scam like looking at your altitude or your airspeed. You just do it for a second to verify what you need to know and continue looking outside. Even if you are not looking at the screen you’ll get audible warnings. Has helped me immensely over the past 5 years using Dynon and Garmin. I think like anything you need to train properly to continue looking outside as much as possible. I agree there’s a possibility of keeping one’s head inside too much. But that’s even possible with a six pack.
Point taken, there is a need for immense help. Perhaps full automation/autonomy is due, and not really that hard to do. The plane would be in the system, you just tell ATC where you want to go and off you go. Everything programmed and automated. If there’s an enroute or destination weather problem the big screen will alert you to diversion options…Enid or Lawton? Your maintenance handled in a corporate manner, everything will be in the system.
My years of military radar, missile, large drones and automotive systems development to date says it’s all quite possible…and overall safer by eliminates people needing help.
Reading the report, only the Piper had ADS-B but in the notes said it was inop. The controller gave the Cessna a warning about 30 seconds before the accident of the Piper coming in his direction. Based on the radar tracks the Cessna turned more towards the Piper. Visual analysis in the report using average pilot height indicated that the Piper would not have seen the Cessna due to the climb, and the Cessna could have seen the Piper in the lower right of the windscreen. The size of the other aircraft was not considered significant until about 5 seconds before the crash and not obvious until 2 to 3 seconds before the crash. There is no indication in the report either aircraft had their lights on.
(Soapbox on) One suggestion that no one follows is to have your lights on (yes ever in the daytime). There is a reason daytime running lights work with cars. They are called anti-collision lights (including the landing light) for a reason. Lights are cheaper then airplanes to replace. (Sorry, off my soapbox now).
THC found in instructor of high wing YET states that was no longer a factor , in other words it no longer had any bearing on this crash so my question is…why bring that up at all ? It is like when a motorcycleist is hit by a train or tractor truck and is smashed flat …the media always fills compelled to say “but he wasn’t wearing a helmet” as though that would have had any bearing on his/her death !
The FAA and NTSB were involved in a VMC/VFR collision off Dulles (IAD) as employees of both were flying aircraft that collided. The Canadian TSB investigated the crash.
I as I recall, the Canadians said that see and avoid sounds good, but the human eyeball is not up to the task. A bug spot on your windscreen may not move and then suddenly mushroom into another aircraft, and at the speeds of convergence, you can’t identify the threat as a threat soon enough to take evasive action quickly enough.
Running ADS-B in using an iPad, we are finding that there has been more traffic around us that we never saw, even when IFR and getting traffic advisories in VMC.
Perfect example why ADS-B IN/OUT needs to be required for ALL aircraft.
More trouble than its worth unless a screaming female voice says pull up or dive and has to be loud enough to startle the pilots over the noise of the noisy airplane .
I don’t think such a warning that loud exist .
HUH? ADSB gives plenty of warning, both visually long before any threat of collision and audibly once closer.
I remember the airlines experimenting with that. What I remember was not that it had to be loud,just “out of place”. The most effective as i remember was the voice of the Wife/daughter/girlfriend. This of course was at a time in which
the vast majority of flight crews were all male.
It’s a good idea, except that..
1. It’s not anonymous and yes big brother IS watching you.
2. The avionics manufacturers are gouging us with the prices.
Even though out of Delta airspace it’s a shame the controller didn’t issue any further warnings. I had a similar event, not seeing another aircraft and was told to descend immediately… Most likely save lives