Aircraft near miss?

[jhellwig]

Driving home from a long work night/day/week through Iowa City on the highway a plane caught my eye. It was a business jet heading east with it running gear down like it was going to land at the airport right in that area. I thought it was odd as you usually don't see many plans landing that direction. Next I see it's landing gear start retracting and the plane pull up. As I look to the left there is a prop plane at about the same altitude also coming in for a landing headed south. The airport has a north south and east west runway. There was also another prop plane not far behind the first prop plane also landing as I turned off the highway by the airport. If both planes had tried to land it would have been close but probably missed. Would something like this be a near miss and reported in some FAA thing?

There is a lot of air traffic and vehicle traffic in the area due to the college football game. Usually don't see much going into this airport.

 

[wwillson]

Would something like this be a near miss and reported in some FAA thing?

No, this is a fairly common occurrence at uncontrolled fields.

There is a well defined set of rules that work to keep traffic separated at fields without control towers (uncontrolled). I've had near misses when an aircraft approaches the field, but doesn't follow the rules, such as announcing their position and intentions, following established traffic patterns, etc. You may thing other airplanes would be easy to spot visually, but it can be very difficult to see them, hence the need to tell other pilots where you are and what your doing.

 

[Astro14]

Not a ”near miss” - any more than one driver stopping at a stop sign, and another driving through an intersection is a “near crash”.

 

[jhellwig]

I guess it is not controlled but isn’t too far from a controlled one. Just kinda odd thing to see. I would have thought there would have been radio traffic with it being “busy” that would have been noticed especially since there are intersecting runways. I also thought that a business jet might have had something to say there are other planes around but don’t know how that stuff works.

 

[Astro14]

It may also be the case that the prop plane wasn’t communicating on Unicom for that airport (often, small airplanes are flown by amateurs who don’t alway follow all the rules) and the business jet took the safe course of action once he acquired the small plane visually. Hard to know.

What airport was it, exactly?

 

[jhellwig]

It was the Iowa City municipal airport.

 

[wwillson]

plane wasn’t communicating on Unicom for that airport

That is likely the case. When it is VFR, you are near a small airport, and < 1000' over pattern altitude, you should be "calling traffic" on unicom. When everybody states their position and intentions, nobody get hurt.

One time I was flying with a student into Kankakee IKK on about 2 mile final for runway 04 and calling traffic on unicom. Everyone listening on unicom knew my position and that I was on final for RWY 04. There was a 10 know wind blowing directly down runway, so you wouldn't expect any opposite direction traffic right? I had a Beech King Air fly about 50' over our head opposite direction with a closing speed of probably 250 kts. I saw him, just in time to see the entire underbelly of the airplane. I was really hot that he wasn't calling traffic on unicom. Really hot, he just about killed all of us. It's the only time I've ever broken ATC protocol of being cool calm and collected. I didn't swear on the radio, but I sure let him know what I thought of his jackassery. He was probably doing a back course approach and didn't feel the need to announce himself. We were doing the ILS to the same runway, so he was perfectly aligned with us. What kind of idiot does an opposite direction approach to the active runway and doesn't call traffic?

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

That is likely the case. When it is VFR you are near a small airport and < 1000' over pattern altitude, you should be "calling traffic" on unicom. When everybody states their position and intentions, nobody get hurt.

One time I was flying with a student into Kankakee IKK on about 2 mile final for runway 04 and calling traffic on unicom. Everyone listening on unicom knew my position and that I was on final for RWY 04. There was a 10 know wind blowing directly down runway, so you wouldn't expect any opposite direction traffic right? I had a Beech King Air fly about 50' over our head opposite direction with a closing speed of probably 250 kts. I saw him, just in time to see the entire underbelly of the airplane. I was really hot that he wasn't calling traffic on unicom. Really hot, he just about killed all of us. It's the only time I've ever broken ATC protocol of being cool calm and collected. He was probably doing a back course approach and didn't feel the need to announce himself. We were doing the ILS to the same runway, so he was perfectly aligned with us. What kind of idiot does an opposite direction approach to the active runway and doesn't call traffic?

Wow.

Back course localizer approaches, never saw many in the u.s although I wasn't keeping track of them.

We are no longer ( not even aware of any around where we fly into ) allowed to fly them, same with NDP approaches ( RNAV GPS most places now ).

We fly to one uncontrolled airport but luckily I have only ever seen one other aircraft there ( MYSM Bahamas ). VFR only, ATC ( Miami ) cannot clear aircraft for an IFR approach and have to depart VFR.

 

[wwillson]

Back course localizer approaches, never saw many in the u.s although I wasn't keeping track of them.

We are no longer ( not even aware of any around where we fly into ) allowed to fly them, same with NDP approaches ( RNAV GPS most places now ).

There aren't many left, as they have mostly been replaced with RNAV-GPS.

This is one that exists today and this happens to be the airport where I trained for my private and instrument rating.

KALO LOC BC RWY 30 (IAP) - FlightAware

Waterloo Rgnl Airport (Waterloo, IA) [KALO/ALO] information, location, approach plates.

www.flightaware.com

I flew that BC many times and played the mental gymnastics with the needle.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

There aren't many left, as they have mostly been replaced with RNAV-GPS.

This is one that exists today and this happens to be the airport where I trained for my private and instrument rating.

KALO LOC BC RWY 30 (IAP) - FlightAware

Waterloo Rgnl Airport (Waterloo, IA) [KALO/ALO] information, location, approach plates.

www.flightaware.com

I flew that BC many times and played the mental gymnastics with the needle.

Flying an NDB without an RMI was the highest level of mental gymnastics LOL.

 

[wwillson]

Flying an NDB without an RMI was the highest level of mental gymnastics LOL.

I never taught instruments in an airplane that had an RMI, just the plain old ADF. I really liked using the ADF for NDB approaches. Many students had a hard time learning the mental gymnastics of looking at the ADF needle and mentally laying that over the heading indicator, then interpreting what that means. When an instrument student could do the entire NDB approach from the IAF, procedure turn, missed approach, hold over the NDB, all the while correcting for wind (more mental gymnastics), I knew they were likely ready for the check ride. My favorite was the NDB approach to Dekalb, IL (DKB) which is no longer in use.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I never taught instruments in an airplane that had an RMI, just the plain old ADF. I really liked using the ADF for NDB approaches. Many students had a hard time learning the mental gymnastics of looking at the ADF needle and mentally laying that over the heading indicator, then interpreting what that means. When an instrument student could do the entire NDB approach from the IAF, procedure turn, missed approach, hold over the NDB, all the while correcting for wind (more mental gymnastics), I knew they were likely ready for the check ride. My favorite was the NDB approach to Dekalb, IL (DKB) which is no longer in use.

I am sure you were a great instructor ( teaching ability and personality ).

Transport Canada no longer requires us to fly NDB approaches ( but we have to fly VOR ) since they are pretty much gone now.

The last real NDB approach I actually flew was in the high Arctic a long time ago.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Off-topic @Astro14 but what IMC ( in cloud ) approaches were used by the Navy to get back to the ship?

GCA/PAR or ILS and what minimum height would you need to see the ship?

 

[wwillson]

I am sure you were a great instructor ( teaching ability and personality ).

Thank you.

I'm renewing my flight instructor certificate this month and there is a fairly busy airport not too far away. Seriously thinking about doing some instructing again.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Thank you.

I'm renewing my flight instructor certificate this month and there is a fairly busy airport not too far away. Seriously thinking about doing some instructing again.

I was going to ask why you didn't continue instructing.

Sounds like a good idea to get back into it as long as the schedule works for you.

 

[Astro14]

Off-topic Astro, but what IMC ( in cloud ) approaches were used in the Navy to get back to the ship?

GCA/PAR or ILS and what minimum height would you need to see the ship?

USN had an ILS (SPN-41) system, but it was both incompatible with civilian ILS (which operated on a frequency that the Navy used for other purposes) and not that useful.

The problem with an ILS transmitter that is bolted to something that moves is that the localizer and glideslope move, too. So, you’re on and on, the ship rolls, and you’re suddenly high and right, you make a correction, the ship rolls back, and now you’re low and left. It was hard to fly most nights, with the loc and glideslope dancing around.

Much better was the SPN-42 ACLS. A radar set on the ship locked onto the airplane, in fact, the lock was so precise, that airplanes had an antenna to give it a tight focus. That radar sent datalink course and glideslope information to the airplane that was stabilized in space, not to the carrier, by using the ship‘s inertial nav to compensate for ship motion. The autopilot on the airplane (F-14 and F/A-18) could be coupled to the datalink guidance for a full autoland.

We F-14 guys flew manually to maintain our proficiency, but in the F/A-worked well and was used often. When I say well, it put the airplane within inches of desired glideslope. So, in order to prevent excessive wear at one point on the flight deck, it had a random +/- 9” scatter, to spread out the touchdown point by about 10 feet horizontally.

Both systems have been replaced by SPN-46, which uses differential GPS signals to stabilize the airplane in space as the carrier moves. I never flew it, after my time, but I’m told it works very well.

Our weather minimums were 200 and 1/2. 200’ ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility. But if it was worse, what choice did we have? Holding doesn’t work for long in a fighter, and you cannot launch enough tankers to keep the air wing airborne for very long. We often operated without an alternate, so, we would land below minimums.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

USN had an ILS (SPN-41) system, but it was both incompatible with civilian ILS (which operated on a frequency that the Navy used for other purposes) and not that useful.

The problem with an ILS transmitter that is bolted to something that moves is that the localizer and glideslope move, too. So, you’re on and on, the ship rolls, and you’re suddenly high and right, you make a correction, the ship rolls back, and now you’re low and left. It was hard to fly most nights, with the loc and glideslope dancing around.

Much better was the SPN-42 ACLS. A radar set on the ship locked onto the airplane, in fact, the lock was so precise, that airplanes had an antenna to give it a tight focus. That radar sent datalink course and glideslope information to the airplane that was stabilized in space, not to the carrier, by using the ship‘s inertial nav to compensate for ship motion. The autopilot on the airplane (F-14 and F/A-18) could be coupled to the datalink guidance for a full autoland.

We F-14 guys flew manually to maintain our proficiency, but in the F/A-worked well and was used often. When I say well, it put the airplane within inches of desired glideslope. So, in order to prevent excessive wear at one point on the flight deck, it had a random +/- 9” scatter, to spread out the touchdown point by about 10 feet horizontally.

Both systems have been replaced by SPN-46, which uses differential GPS signals to stabilize the airplane in space as the carrier moves. I never flew it, after my time, but I’m told it works very well.

Our weather minimums were 200 and 1/2. 200’ ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility. But if it was worse, what choice did we have? Holding doesn’t work for long in a fighter, and you cannot launch enough tankers to keep the air wing airborne for very long. We often operated without an alternate, so, we would land below minimums.

Thanks, very interesting.

 

[wwillson]

I was going to ask why you didn't continue instructing.

Kids, work, and life got in the way. There was no way I was going to take on students when I couldn't devote the time required. As you know, it takes a ton of time to instruct correctly. There is a lot more ground time than flying and most students require 50+ hours of flight instruction before they are ready to go for the ride.