Ibra wrote:
I think Denver is Bravo, if Metroliner was flying IFR and cleared for instrument approach, he expect VFR to be positively controlled with separation from IFR (even VFR-VFR is “essential traffic”), the exception is operation on parallel and cross-runway if one confirms he had other traffic in sight
Denver has a Bravo, but KAPA is D airspace surface (5885) to 7999 and is below the Bravo which in the area has a base at 8000.
The Cirrus was a 2016 SR22T and from the picture of it on the ground showing the antennas on the roof, it has an active TAS system installed.
I flew into Centennial KAPA last year, landing on 17R in a Cirrus. It’s a pretty busy environment in the Denver area, seemed to be getting busier than when I’d been flying a lot there in previous years (this sortie to Utah was just before Covid lockdown). My main observation was how helpful the mandatory ADSB is, traffic advisories from Denver and then Centennial by radio could very rapidly and efficiently be checked visually; so seeing the benefits tended to persuade me that some form of compulsory conspicuity system would have to be mandated eventually in Europe. But ADSB won’t help when there’s a gross error like happened here ….
Bluebeard wrote:
My main observation was how helpful the mandatory ADSB is, traffic advisories from Denver and then Centennial by radio could very rapidly and efficiently be checked visually
I assume by “visually” you mean on the screen, versus looking outside the plane?
For your reference, ADS-B IN is not mandated anywhere in the US but that likely assists in making its use more widespread via inexpensive, flexible Foreflight/Stratus/iPad etc portables which work quite pretty well for almost everybody.
Certified ADS-B OUT is mandated in limited US areas for most planes, and this is not hugely expensive with e.g. Uavionix solutions.
Bluebeard wrote:
But ADSB won’t help when there’s a gross error like happened here ….
Agreed.
Yes, yes I meant being able in this busy environment to see other traffic emitting ADSB OUT. Whether the other traffic had ADSB IN is of less relevance.
By visual check I meant that advisories could readily and quickly be correlated to screen signals and thence – knowing the exact relative location – by eyeball to ensure separation, this was in VMC.
Ibra wrote:
Yes no excuse to overshoot but it’s not that obvious for someone from flat land who has not flown “alti-ports” before? the airport is high density altitude (6500ft DA yesterday?) and I think US does not have mountain ratings or site checks? but a proper self brief should include budgeting for wide pattern in airports & expect wide turns in the valleys, as TAS is higher on same IAS, I have to admit it’s not something that did cross my mind the first time as flat land flyer, but it’s pronounced and it’s one of the underlying reasons why one may overshoot their turn in valley or runway axis on final…
While the terrain west of Denver is indeed mountainous, the area east of Denver is pretty flat despite the high altitude much like Calgary in Canada. The city is big and those mountains would have been 20-30km away from Centennial airport which is a major airport within the city tending towards the eastern edge. It doesn’t really qualify as needing a mountain rating or as an “altiport”. Right base for runway 17 means that those mountains were behind the Cirrus. His high speed might have been due to him descending after crossing the mountains. Speculation, but that could have played a role in his missing the base to final turn. Based on the radar track and commentary on the video posted by @Peter, the pilot might have been focused on the Cessna traffic and distracted from his airspeed and Metro traffic. He seems to have come up pretty fast behind the Cessna. The terrain in front of him would have been very flat and there is no valley environment at Denver.
Yes it could be a fast descent from cruise but it seems the Cirrus was based in Denver, so the guy should be familiar, I was not specifically referring to mountain or valley flying just wondering if him having large delta between IAS and TAS would cause an overshoot their circuit? although I think it’s no different than 30kts tailwind on base leg before final which everybody should know how to manage…
Bluebeard wrote:
But ADSB won’t help when there’s a gross error like happened here ….
Since the Cirrus was equipped with an active Traffic Advisory System, ADS-B is not relevant although the airspace is ADS-B Out required airspace. So if the TAS system was working, the Cirrus would have been alerted to the traffic whether or not it was equipped with ADS-B In.
NCYankee wrote:
Since the Cirrus was equipped with an active Traffic Advisory System, ADS-B is not relevant although the airspace is ADS-B Out required airspace. So if the TAS system was working, the Cirrus would have been alerted to the traffic whether or not it was equipped with ADS-B In.NCYankee
That’s an interesting remark….How will we know if it there was a traffic advisory in the Cirrus? What about the TCAS in the metro…or its not mandatory for this kind of OPS?
Vref wrote:
What about the TCAS in the metro…or its not mandatory for this kind of OPS?
It isn’t, the Metro was a cargo plane. See here from the FAA:
TCAS I is mandated for use in the U.S. for turbine powered, passenger-carrying aircraft having more than 10 and less than 31 seats. … TCAS II is mandated by the U.S. for commercial aircraft, including regional airline aircraft with more than 30 seats or a maximum takeoff weight greater than 33,000 lbs.
For a full FAA TCAS writeup see here
