It’s the sunroof upgrade 
Again a datapoint that needs verifying, but the Cirrus was flying around 50 knots above nominated speeds and much faster than the Metroliner. Another reason for the overshoot, if you turn base at 165KIAS this might happen.
Ibra wrote:
In this case both aircraft were conducting visual approaches, VFR/IFR flight rules, ATC and airspace class become irrelevant, the two aircrafts are responsible for own traffic avoidance: the moment you say you are doing “visual approach” you will be flying in “Class G bubble around you” for approach & landing, you will only get separation back for the go-around !
As I wrote yesterday, that’s not true according to ICAO standards for ATC.
PANS-ATM 6.5.3.4: Separation shall be provided between an aircraft cleared to execute a visual approach and other arriving and departing aircraft.
The only exception (described in 6.5.3.5) is if two successive aircraft are on a visual approach, the second has reported having the first in sight and has been instructed by ATC to maintain own separation. Really, this is something all IR pilots should know.
Whether the FAA applies 6.5.3.4, I don’t know. I’m sure it is applied in Europe.
Silvaire wrote:
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.
I know. Simply what I am saying is that this way the Metro had no way of knowing what traffic there was other than what the controller told him. And usually, are those runways with split frequencies that close together?
Silvaire wrote:
There is no mystery here, nor any ATC separation or radio comm issues, the Cirrus was way too fast, overshot and rammed the Metroliner.
That is what it looks like yes.
172driver wrote:
This showed up in my FB feed. Cannot verify provenance.
It appears everywhere and the damage is consistend with “official” pics so I guess it is genuine.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And usually, are those runways with split frequencies that close together?
Yes. That’s the way the airports are built. When taking unfamiliar people for rides the proximity of other planes on the parallel final approach can be alarming to them.
Most people in the pattern are very attentive to straight-ins on the parallel, staying well on their side. I was taught that as a student and it surely didn’t decrease after I’d ridden along on some straight-in biz jet approaches to my base. Squaring off your base to final turn in a C152 is not necessary when there may at any time be e.g. a Lear 35 blasting past you. Once that happens a couple of times you tend to get the idea.
It would be interesting to know the circumstances that led to the Cirrus pilot completely losing control of his planes speed and position, but regardless that surely appears to be what he did.
PS I just measured the spacing between parallel runways at Centennial and compared it with airports I use regularly. Google maps is pretty good.
Centennial appears to have 700 ft between runway centerlines, which is actually more than I’m used to seeing. My base has 400 ft between centerlines, and two other local airports have 500 ft between centerlines. One of those runways is 8000 ft or 2400 meters long, so sees a fair number of high performance aircraft every day.
I find that the controllers will try to slot a jet between planes on final for the parallel runway, maybe asking one plane to extend its downwind so that two planes of vastly different speed aren’t parallel on final to the left and right runways. However for two planes of broadly comparable speed they’re not going to go to that trouble – they’ll often give you a traffic advisory on base (“Runway 18 right, cleared to land, number two, your traffic is a Metroliner on 1-1/2 mile final for the parallel”) but otherwise its see and avoid for both planes, in Class D, sometimes flying wingtip to wingtip for a short period.
I’ve also in similar circumstances had ATC ask me to fly direct to short final immediately after turning base, terrain allowing.
As someone who spent the bulk of my flying years in the US came to EASAland last year, I’m with Silvaire on this one. My home field for a significant number of years was KPDK in Atlanta, the primary GA reliever for the busiest airport in the world, with a lot of traffic. Also had two parallel runways very close to each other, and it was completely normal in visual conditions to have another aircraft off your wingtip. Happened on many if not most approaches.
One thing I noticed coming to Europe is that there is so much less GA traffic here, even in “busy” airspace. In the US in busy areas your head is on a swivel all the time, and the situation is compounded by the lack of published VFR routing. So traffic comes from all directions and just gets slotted in. Sometimes you’ll be asked to do a 360 for spacing or remain clear of the airspace because it’s too full, but it wasn’t uncommon at KPDK to have 5-6 airplanes in the pattern with more approaching the field and breathless, rapid-fire radio calls. I personally found it a bit exhilarating, but there is not much room for error.
By contrast, I fly out of the second busiest airport in Holland, EHRD, and it feels positively sleepy and highly organized by comparison. I’ve not flown anywhere I would consider busy in Europe, and it’s always organized with published procedures so you have a pretty good idea where the traffic will be.
Why do I mention this? Because at an airport like KPDK you DO NOT OVERSHOOT. You’d better be damn sure you know where you are in relation to the centerline at all times, because there is no margin for error. That’s normal. Everyone knows and accepts this, and if you’re uncomfortable with tight margins, fast radio work, and lots of traffic, then you steer clear of such fields.
Also worth noting is that it’s normal at Class D controlled fields to have aircraft coming into the “pattern” from a variety of entry points. If you’re approaching runway 27 from the north, you might get a midfield right downwind or a right base. From the south you’d get the opposite. From the west you could get a downwind not at midfield, and from the east a straight-in. Even with parallel runways, you might be crossing over from one side to the other, watching for the other guy doing the same from the opposite direction a bit further out. Many times I was told to shift to the other runway while on final to accommodate someone. It’s the wild west!
All that sounds normal to me, its the only to way to handle significant traffic volume. Inbound planes do not ‘go away’ until they’re on the ground and off the runway. Having them mill around in the area does not reduce congestion or increase safety. Radar helps.
I’ve found base entries to be most typical when approaching 27R from the north, or 3 mile straight ins
Switching runways on final is common and I’ve always enjoyed it, it throws a challenge your way when you’re not expecting it and is good practice in that way.
I learned to fly in an environment where my base and most airports we used for practice had parallel runways and up to 700 movements per day. When I first started flying away to Class D airports with only one active runway and not a lot of traffic it was strangely anticlimactic after worrying about my arrival at an unfamiliar airport. A bigger challenge came later, with uncontrolled airports having significant terrain or altitude issues.
Silvaire wrote:
All that sounds normal to me
Exactly, same sentiment. ATC switching you from one rwy to the parallel to accommodate faster/slower traffic is also perfectly normal. You just deal with it.
