The pilot in the low-wing Sonex reported that, while in the traffic pattern at the non-towered airport in Corona, California, he made continuous reports on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF).
He noted that, on final, he saw a high-wing airplane positioned adjacent to the runway he was approaching. He added that, on short final, “the runway was clear,” and he heard no radio transmissions.
The Sonex hit the high-wing airplane on the runway. It yawed right and came to rest nose down in front of the right wing of the high-wing airplane.
The pilot receiving instruction in the high-wing airplane reported that, after performing a run-up, she and the flight instructor taxied to and held short of the departure runway. She added that, during the taxi, she and the instructor did not hear radio transmissions on the CTAF from other aircraft in the traffic pattern.
Before departure, they visually cleared final and base and reported their departure intentions on the CTAF. They lined up on the runway for a short-field takeoff, held the brakes, and applied full power. She released the brakes and about three to five seconds into the takeoff roll, they heard a loud noise, and the airplane was pushed left.
The Sonex sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The high-wing airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and empennage.
Two witnesses in another airplane reported that, while taxiing, they heard the pilots in the high-wing airplane transmit that they were “taking the runway” and departing. They observed the high-wing airplane line up on the runway, but did not see any aircraft on base or final. Several moments later, they looked back and saw the high-wing airplane still on the runway and the Sonex on final.
One of the witnesses made a call on the CTAF warning the Sonex pilot that another airplane was on the runway, but heard no response. He made another call to the Sonex pilot to suggest that he perform a go-around, and then they observed the Sonex land on top of the high-wing airplane.
Despite reporting not hearing the other pilots on the CTAF, all the pilots reported that they used the same frequency.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to see and avoid the airplane on the runway while landing and the pilot receiving instruction’s and flight instructor’s failure to properly scan the approach before pulling onto the runway during takeoff.
NTSB Identification: GAA19CA068A
This November 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.
Hmmm, no one has brought up aircraft lighting while in the pattern. Landing lights with a wig wag feature and strobes are well worth the investment as it makes you hard to miss visually on final. When I see someone waiting to take the runway when I am on final I am wired and waiting to pull the trigger on the go around and sidestep. The Mk1 eyeball is the primary instrument and its misuse was the key element that contributed to this accident. The radio is backup as it may not be there so do all you can to stand out visually.
Good advice…..I live on a residential airpark with a flight school and lots of traffic from other flight schools. I am constantly amazed at the number of aircraft with no lights on. Pretty simple way of making yourself more visible, of course someone still has to be looking.
I just added wig wag to my plane. It’s on the entire time the engine is running.
While ADSB is not required outside of Class B and Class C, this is a case where if ADSB-IN was available in both aircraft it would have been helpful. Even when aircraft are correctly transmitting radio position reports it is very difficult to actually see them with the naked eye. My last flight into a busy uncontrolled airport on a clear and beautiful fall day (last week!) demonstrated that to me in spades. While I could see eight aircraft clustered around my destination airport, I actually SAW just two that came within 800 feet of me, one above and forward, and the other at my altitude and closing at 90 degrees to my course… this despite knowing where to look. Light, background, aircraft color, distance to the aircraft, whether it’s banked or not, where it is in relation to blind spots in my cockpit… all are factors that may or may not be easily mitigated. IMHO, with the availability of cheap hand held radios there’s not much excuse for relying solely on mark 1 eyeballs to detect nearby traffic. Really, there’s no excuse.
At what point on final approach does the nose cover the approach end of the runway? The Sonex pilot should have had plenty of time while flying in a normal pattern to see the Cessna, both sitting while holding short, and when it taxied into position. The fact that he missed it, says he may not have been flying a standard pattern. The AIM provides for standard operations for a good reason, generally they’re designed with safe operations in mind.
The Cessna crew should have made a clearing turn before taking the runway, When holding short, I have students park at an angle on the Taxiway, so we can clear both sides base, and the final path. This isn’t always possible due to trees, etc, but we ensure that what we can see is clear. Also, holding on a runway, for any length of time, is a risk factor, the longer the time, the higher the risk. So instructions, briefings, etc, should all be completed before taking the runway, so that all that remains is aircraft operations. The pause on a short field departure to apply full power need not take more than 10 or 15 seconds for an experienced pilot, even a student shouldn’t have to hold for more than 30 seconds to make the full power application and checks.
The Radio is Not a Safety Device – while they may augment safety, Radio COMS are prone to human error, and therefor not reliable. Depending solely on Radio traffic to clear an area, is a recipe for an accident. Heck, according to what I hear in the pattern, half the pilots in the country don’t know how to use the radio anyway. Nonstandard calls, jargon, and simply not knowing what to say or how to say it, all make the radio less useful, or even a dangerous distraction. They might as well save the paper that the pilot/controller glossary is printed on.
Next I’m sure we’re going to hear about how ADSB would have prevented this accident had we simply mandated every aircraft must have ADSB etc. Well, the same factors that apply to radios, apply to ADSB. A pilot might not even be looking at the screen, I know I wouldn’t be heads down on final, or taking the runway. It may not be configured (zoomed out/in excessively) – or the display simply ignored or misinterpreted.
The simple truth is, we as the Pilot in Command, have the sole responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft, and to ensure the safe outcome of our flight. Technology can be a boon to safety, but over-reliance on technology, without understanding it’s limits, opens gaps in our performance that enables accidents to occur.
Simple fact in today’s flying. Most pilots are flying their RADIOS, then their planes. They spend so much time talking that looking around has become secondary, or even ignored. When the mouth is engaged, usually the brain isn’t. We can spout all we want, but the radio has become primary today, and we all need to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND what is going on. This accident had every chance of being avoided, but neither pilot listened, neither pilot LOOKED.
Absolutely. I notice it with pilots staying in the pattern for T&G. They are fixated on their tasks and don’t comprehend how others entering the pattern may necessitate them to extend an upwind or downwind to accommodate other traffic. They talk but don’t think.
If the high wing held short of the runway at the hold line at a ninety degree angle to the runway (which is assumed), then how could they clear the base before taking the runway. If I’m going to hold in a high wing before taking the runway, I do that before starting the turn to the ninety degree position. Otherwise it is impossible to have an adequate view of the base leg. This sounds like another case of over-reliance on the radio. Not only can someone make a mistake with an incorrect frequency or have an equipment failure, there’s also the possibility of an aircraft arriving in distress on an unusual angle to the runway and not being able to make a radio call. Reliance on the radio for all separation just isn’t realistic.
When I started flying about 50 some years ago, I was taught to do a 360 clearing turn in the run-up area just before taking the runway. That would allow you to check for all traffic in the vicinity of the airport. In this day and age of traffic patterns of convenience not everyone is flying a standard pattern or landing into the wind, plus an aircraft in distress can fly any pattern they want.
One of reasons I don’t do straight-ins is because I like to look the landing area over and check for aircraft on the ground. An aircraft in the run-up area is a warning flag. Don’t assume that they are looking and see you. Expect the unexpected….
“Several moments later, they looked back and saw the high-wing airplane still on the runway …” Methinks they BOTH screwed up.
Pushing the microphone button does not mean the radio is turned I n.
Flying a very tight pattern can put visual contact unlikely.
Paint schemes and sky conditions matter.
Yea, the Sonex guy is lying…not only was he not transmitting but he was also not on final when the Cessna took the runway.
Food for thought, why did the Sonex hear no one, the witness hear only the 172, and the 172 not hear the witness?
Seems to me the Sonex was NORDO, despite his claims to the contrary.
He pushed his Mic button but forgot to turn his radio on. Maybe a bad fuse.
I am just taking a guess but maybe the Sonex was not tuned to the correct frequency so he did not hear any calls and the aircraft on the ground could not hear him. That would be the first question if I was the investigator after hearing the claims of both pilots. Regardless the Sonex would have the Right of Way given he was on short final when the Cessna pulled onto the runway. The Sonex does not have the best visibility as I recall so would not be able to see the Cessna when it was getting close to the runway threshold.
The NTSB link goes to a blank dark blue page (27NOV20 @11:05 US Eastern). So there is no report to read or pictures to see of the panel of the Sonex if they had been taken.
If the Sonex has two NAV/COMS the wrong one may have been selected (I know that no one here would ever make such a mistake).
Suppose that the Sonex was an emergency, with a dead engine, or electrical failure and fire. Who has right of way? Taking off is not required, but landing… Or suppose that the Sonex had been a J3 with no electrical system and no radio.
“The pilot’s failure to see and avoid the airplane on the runway while landing and the pilot receiving instruction’s and flight instructor’s failure to properly scan the approach before pulling onto the runway during takeoff.” IGNORES the rules.
So I have to agree with you Sarah, the Cessna was at fault and I think the probable cause would get shreaded in court by an aviation attorney.
try this link; https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=98664
I was surprise how the Sonex had destroyed the Cessna tail cone, and shredded the right wing, and only a wingtip and gear damage to the Sonex.
I suspect, as others have, that the Sonex radio was not transmitting….and probably not on. His flight originated here, so he would not have needed to change frequency.
I’ve found it difficult to ID an aircraft that is on the white approach stripes, especially a white aircraft that is not moving.
Thanks for the link!!! That search form is the glittering diamond in this thread! Been looking for it ever since the new and improved NTSB search tools were launched with no adoo.
I tried it out with keyword “dementia” in the narrative. Very interesting finds. So far no MAC involving Alzheimers, but several CFIT and LOC-I.
About a dozen guys (yep – guys!) over the last 17 years went flying alone in the cockpit with their dementia and paid for it. Sigh.
Then I tried my new found form (courtesy of JimH in CA) with keywords “midair”, “mid air”, “mid-air”, and MAC. Pay dirt! About 1+ MAC per year involving one or more NORDO aircraft within five miles of airports. Only God and a few lucky pilots know about NMACs. It’s kinda hard to see other aircraft. We’ve got an whole lot of blind spots where another aircraft could hide. FWIW, I think there’s a large element of very good luck for guys who’ve been flying for 50 years without an NMAC or bent metal. Heck, I’ve had two NMACs over the last 40 years. One was a flight of two AT-802 fire fighting aircraft flying north over the Columbia River – they whizzed by about 400′ below and to my right. The second was two or three years later – also over the Columbia when a north bound Mooney flew beneath my highwing Cessna close enough that I could tell he had his chart out and was lookin’ at it. Yep, that “big sky, little airplane” effect that keeps the odds down quite a way. I’ve grown to really like my ADSB-OUT and IN. There are a WHOLE lot more planes out there than I’d a thought sqwauking ADSB-out or with a transponder than I imagined. But then, there are still NORDO aircraft flying so maybe the sky just got a little bigger, except around airports.
Since NTSB in all their glorious wisdom changed the way NTSB system works on Oct 6th of 2020. So any links posted prior are dead-in-the-water. They now use the “Carol” system for any reports after 2006. I had given up on this convoluted *improvement* until I found this: https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:24::::::
IMHO the old monthly index of database was more intuitive but hey government always knows what is best!
Agree, the Sonex regardless of radio has the right of way to land since he was established on final. I also agree that a 360 is necessary to ensure no traffic is in conflict with your departure.