Cobalt wrote:
But this is utterly trivial, he also broke “rule one” – ’don’t crash’ and FAR §91.111 (a) – ‘No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard’. Actually, technically, the Metroliner also broke that rule…
That is not only “technically” both broke this rule in the very same way.
Cobalt wrote:
FAR 91.113 (g)
Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight […]. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
In general this very hard to construe for someone who is not deep into FAA regulations. Same as mentioned earlier for EASA it is not automatically clear where final approach actually starts and ends.
If in this case the flightpath one can see on the different platforms (and in the video that was linked earlier) is correct, the Cirrus already made the major part of the base to final turn and therefore also was on final approach.
Therefore in terms of the rule you quoted it is hard to see a different narrative than both airplanes being on final approach and the metro liner overtaking the Cirrus from behind/above.
Fortunately on this occasion everyone is still around to answer the questions so there is no need to make assumptions.
Malibuflyer wrote:
the Cirrus already made the major part of the base to final turn and therefore also was on final approach.
The metroliner had been on final for miles. The Cirrus cut him off, plain and simple. Note the position of the lake
Cirrus:
Metroliner
Malibuflyer wrote:
In general this very hard to construe for someone who is not deep into FAA regulations.
Hardly! All of these rules require at least one pilot be aware that there is another aircraft is or will be in close proximity, the implied default is this is done visually, though you could do it procedurally in some circumstances. Nothing in the FAA rules of the air somehow magically trump the basics. It is only hard to construe when you looking for something that is not there 
RobertL18C wrote:
Didn’t he reply to an earlier ATC traffic for a 172, and misinterpreted the Metroliner traffic call?
It’s entirely possible and I’ve nearly been caught up in something like this in the worst possible way. I was arriving at EGJB/Gloucester on a fairly busy day, I had joined the circuit and there was a student in a Cherokee following. Tower instructed me to turn final after the Malibu (on a straight in approach) and follow him, and instructed the Cherokee to follow me.
What happened is the Cherokee ended up following the Malibu instead (which I was following), and hoved into view just as I was about to turn base to final, uncomfortably close.
Metroliner cleared for final.
Pilot sitting in left seat looking ahead at the runway.
He expects the Cirrus to be parallel to him on his right, probably behind him.
Since they are both at the same height (but the Cirrus is slightly higher) the Metroliner pilot probably can’t see the Cirrus approaching perpendicluly from the right due to cabin window configuration.
The Cirrus pilot, also cleared for final, is turning final base (maybe slightly fast), probably looking to his right, not ahead or to his left, engaged in lineing up with the runway.
Just my considerations.
I think one elephant in the room has not been mentioned so far:
The Cirrus and the Cessna going for 17R were on a different frequency than the Metroliner going onto 17L I think this, with the fact that these runways are very close to each other, is a major factor here.
The Cirrus was advised of the Cessna which was ahead of him as well as the Metroliner to which he responded “Traffic in sight, cleared to land” without specifying which one or both he had in sight.
The Metroliner was advised of the Cessna. He was never advised of the Cirrus. He was on a visual approach as well.
As to the Cirrus, I doubt that he was, as someone stated here, on a solo flight, as there were 2 people on board.
One thing I was looking at in details was MAC risk between uncontrolled IFR flying & uncontrolled VFR flying circuits with low cloud base, it appears this accident would not happened if Metroliner was flying IFR along shallow IAP 3deg glide slope while Cirrus was flying tight VFR circuit with steep 4.5deg slope
No need to see & avoid each other it will just not happen if the slow traffic flies a steeper approach than the fast traffic unless he lands on top of it on the touch down zone or on the runway, one can try simulations or try to hit in practice, it just won’t happen with 3deg at 150kts & 4.5deg slope at 90kts, the collision risk is zero !
Can anyone tell me WTF happening with this new species of VFR flyers, the one found at 800ft agl 3nm north of runway thresholds??!!!
Maybe this guy has an answer
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The Cirrus and the Cessna going for 17R were on a different frequency than the Metroliner going onto 17L I think this, with the fact that these runways are very close to each other, is a major factor here.
Split frequencies are standard ATC practice when a US airport with parallel runways is busy. Typically pattern work is done on one runway, IFR straight-ins and VFR full stops on the other, as in this case. The two controllers are sitting next to each other and coordinating, it just keeps chatter down on a single frequency.
There is no mystery here, nor any ATC separation or radio comm issues, the Cirrus was way too fast, overshot and rammed the Metroliner.
This showed up in my FB feed. Cannot verify provenance.
