A Midair Can Ruin Your Day

September 2022

Ed Downs

Two recent videos produced by AOPA’s Air Safety Institute caught this writer’s attention. Yes, as the title implies, both reports were about midair collisions, with loss of life. But it was not just the tragedy of these events that struck home, but the misunderstandings this writer encounters almost every time I teach a class (weekend live or ZOOM), fly with a student, or conduct a check-out or flight review. One of the fun aspects of working with more than 300 students per year (including conducting Flight Instructor Revalidation Courses) is that one is allowed to sample what is going on in GA and professional flying from one end of the country to the other. While midair collisions are typically not at the top of the conversation list, there are many training scenarios that include the potential of a midair. Allow this old CFI to ramble just a bit, keeping stats and FARs to a minimum, but sharing personal views gleaned from years of working with pilots and the ATC system.

First, are midair collisions a major factor in general aviation? Not really, with such encounters averaging somewhere in the teens to low 20s, every year. They have not gotten worse, but also not improved. From purely a statistical standpoint, the odds are in your favor of never even coming close to a midair. But while doing research for my old employer, Continental Airlines, back in a late 70s/early 80s time frame, this writer joined other airline pros and NASA to study airline-related accidents. The NASA team was lead of Dr. John K. Lauber, Ph.D. Neuropsychology, a truly remarkable guy. We held meetings at Embry Riddle University and finally the NASA Ames Research Center in the SFO Bay area. Really cool stuff to play with! Dr. Lauber offered an interesting view regarding “statistical safety.” According to Dr. Lauber, “ The chances of being in any kind of accident may be only .001 percent, but if you are involved, you participate at 100 percent.” That point stuck with this writer and many others. These studies evolved into what we know today as Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) and are a part of all pilot training. It was, in fact, this NASA activity that came back to this writer’s mind as I watched the two videos produced by AOPA’s Air Safety Institutes.

These early NASA studies were looking specifically for airline procedural errors and/or poor crew communication. Without the advanced data recording systems now common to air carrier operations (and many GA planes), all we had to work with were Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR’s) which only covered the last 30 minutes of a crew’s conversation. Yes, we picked up on procedural and crew coordination issues, but also something else, which was unexpected. In the vast majority of CVR’s reviewed, the crew was conversing about the situation which was about to kill them. They were trying to confirm with the other crew members that something was wrong, a clearance might have been misunderstood or perhaps a key aircraft system was malfunctioning. But they were not acting, they were not seeking clarification from ATC, they were not declaring an emergency. Our NASA team concluded that “intuition” is a powerful safety tool and that if you are “thinking something is wrong,” IT IS! Immediate action is required. In other words, you are not in danger of having an accident, the accident is already happening. Such was the case in the two most recent midair collisions.

In the first example, two aircraft were approaching a well-known towered airport, one on a long final and the other cleared for a mid-field crossing to line up with a parallel runway. By all appearances, a well-managed process to get both airplanes on the ground in the least amount of time. The tower was talking to both planes and both pilots were on frequency. Communication could not have been better, but the aircraft overflying the field flew past the parallel runway assigned and overtook the plane on final. Of the three players in this tragedy, at least one must have had bad “vibes,” but no clarifications were sought or given. In the second example, a training plane (CFI and student) was doing typical pattern work, touch-and-goes, making good CTAF calls as this was a non-towered airport. An arriving plane decided to make a long straight-in approach at high speed, again making CTAF calls. The trainer turned base and final in front of the arriving straight-in utilizing typical CTAF procedures. The straight-in called final approach. The trainer attempted to go around at the last minute, obviously concerned about the unseen plane now closing on his six, but too late. The slower plane was run over by the faster plane. It is hard to imagine that, given the level of communication going on in both of these examples, at least one of the players did not question what was happening but simply did nothing for too long. It is often thought that good communication, through CTAF or an ATC facility, will assure a midair will not occur. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Let’s talk about operations around class B, C and D airports. Isn’t the primary job of airport-related ATC, be it local control (tower), or approach and departure control (radar) to keep you from hitting other planes? Certainly, you think, “when I am on radar (actually GPS ADS-B display), I am flying with shields up, guarantied separation, right?” The answer is an emphatic NO! One must clearly understand how the U.S. ATC system works, which is very different from most other countries. Our entire ATC system is based upon “see and be seen,” that task belonging to the Pilot in Command (PIC) who is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. You are held responsible to not hit other airplanes. The only exception to this is when you are on an IFR flight plan, or clearance, and in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). Under IMC, ATC affords you positive separation from other IMC traffic. If on an IFR clearance, but in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), you are held responsible to not hit a VFR airplane. That is why Class B, C and D airspace have VFR minimums, including separation from clouds. They do not exist to protect VFR pilots from bad weather, but to give an IFR plane popping out of a cloud time to see and avoid a non-IFR plane. In class C airspace, approach and departure control radar have jurisdiction out to 20 miles from the airport, but non-IFR traffic is required to communicate with a class C airport only within 10 miles. That last 10 miles (out to 20) provides services only to “participating” aircraft and, in the case of a non-IFR plane, only on a “workload permits” basis. The amount of traffic within a radar sector, controller training, experience and judgment all enter the picture. The primary purpose of approach and departure control is to get their “participating customers” (meaning IFR flights) to line up on the final approach course or to get them out to the airway. It is the job of local control (tower) to pick up arriving planes (brought to them by approach control) and get them on the ground and out of the way of the next landing plane as fast as possible. These two FAA facilities act as a team to optimize airspace and runway utilization for their IFR customers. Of course, they do this task expertly and with a goal of not running planes into each other, but it is the IFR plane that carries the big stick when it comes to the game of “cram and jam.”

But the vast majority of instrument approaches are at non-towered airport. No radar, no radar separation. These type of approaches have increased due to GPS technology. When arriving such an airport, you are cleared for an approach and need to let ATC know when you are on the ground, then the next guy comes down. On departure, you are given a time (launch window) and block of airspace, not radar vectors. Other IFR aircraft are kept out of you block of airspace until you let ATC know you are in or out of the system. In the case of non-towered airport with GPS approaches that are considered a “precision approach,” the standard VFR minimums of three miles visibility and standard cloud clearance go to the ground, giving you (the IMC pilot) time to pop out and see a VFR airplane in time to miss it.

But many of these non-towered airports (Class G) have GPS non-precision approaches with Class G VFR minimums (one mile, remain clear of clouds), meaning there could be a VFR plane out their (not smart) right next to the cloud you are coming out of. Heads up! And what about you VFR pilots flying from class G airports? You might be flying a perfect traffic pattern, making great CTAF calls when an IFR plane comes popping out of the clouds from any direction appropriate to the approach procedure. Sure, you are working CTAF, but what about the IFR pilot? Possibly not. As learned from the midair example discussions earlier, CTAF is of no value unless both planes are using it (recommended, but not an FAR) and you take appropriate action when something sounds goofy. 

Bottom line, when around airports (towered or non-towered), do radar and communication always insure everyone knows where the other guy is … absolutely not! One last thought, do you always fly a standard traffic patter, especially on entry and exit? Do you know that traffic patterns as defined in the Chart Supplement are regulatory for non-towered airports, not just suggestions? While there certainly are exceptions, the standard 45-degree to the down-wind entry is a regulation. That “straight-in” involved in the collision previously discussed was in violation of FAR requirements. Always ask the rhetorical question, “Am I in a position to see and avoid another airplane?” If the answer is no, change your situation … NOW!

Let’s talk in-route. Certainly, in-route flight following (ARTCC) will advise you of traffic and keep you as safe as the Starship Enterprise being monitored by the eagle-eyed Mr. Spock… right? To be sure, in-route flight following is a great idea, especially due to important weather and airspace alerts you might pick up, but a guarantee of traffic advisories is not included. Like our airport airspace (Class B and C), radar is for IFR separation, not VFR.

VFR flight advisories will be given on a “workload-permits” basis. Flight following is typically available in “airway airspace,” more commonly known at Class E. Class E is also referred to as “Controlled Airspace,” meaning the FAA has the jurisdiction to control aircraft… if requested. How does one “request control?” Simple, file an IFR flight plan, which immediately moves you to the head of the list with positive separation from other IFR participants. Remember your VFR minimums in class E airspace? Below 10,000 feet MSL, visibility is three miles, 1,000 feet over clouds, 500 feet under clouds and 2,000 feet from clouds. Is that designed to keep VFR pilots out of trouble? Nope, it is designed to give IFR pilots time to pop out of a cloud and then see and avoid a non-IFR aircraft. Once again, the “miss responsibility” is on the pilot. And remember, ADS-B is not required below 10,000 MSL. Planes below 10K may, or may not, have been “seen” by radar in time to give a warning, if ARTCC even notices the potential conflict. Yeah, but doesn’t everyone have ADS-B. This country boy is here to tell you … NO! Again, workload, controller training and skill all enter the picture.

One can drone on (oh yes, watch out for drones!) as there are many situations that can lead to a mid-air, so lets just go back to the basics. You are pilot in command, and you are responsible to see and avoid. Never assign that responsibility to another person or technology. If in doubt … ACT!… to change the situation. Don’t let the very small .001 percent of probability become a 100 percent involvement!