BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2011, 12:02

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 7942.story

The report, released Friday by the National Transportation Safety Board, found that Southwest Airlines Flight 821 and the private plane, a Cirrus SR-22 en route from Picayune, Miss., to Kissimmee, ultimately came as close as 100 feet vertically and one-tenth of a mile laterally. The minimum required separation is 1,000 feet vertical or 3 nautical miles lateral.

If this had happened to me I would have been pissed. At 11,000, this "formation flight" would have been likely heading SE on the Leese Arrival, or 50-75 miles NW of Orlando.
Right over my house.

The Cirrus flight is on an IFR flight plan, has burned quite a bit of fuel and loses comm. How much of a threat can a Cirrus be with 1/2 tanks or less? If he was a terrorist, why fly IFR all the way from Picayune, MS? Why not just fly VFR, talking to nobody and raise no suspicions.

The WDW TFR is 3000 & 3. I can fly up to an over it and not be in contact with ATC. Ever. Am I a threat too?

KSC is over 50 miles away, in a different direction from the flight to KISM for the Cirrus.

So ATC directs this 737 into an illegal flight formation within 100 feet and 1/10th of a vile laterally? I don't care if this guy was flying over P-40, this is really uncalled for.

What's the 737 gonna do if they determined he was a threat to WDW? Go to guns?

Reminds me of the Heinz aircraft/helicopter collision many years ago when ATC also requested an intercept.

Heads should roll.

(I did a search for a thread but could not find one.)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2011, 13:38

Username Protected wrote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-southwest-cirrus-flyby-20110822,0,3967942.story

The report, released Friday by the National Transportation Safety Board, found that Southwest Airlines Flight 821 and the private plane, a Cirrus SR-22 en route from Picayune, Miss., to Kissimmee, ultimately came as close as 100 feet vertically and one-tenth of a mile laterally. The minimum required separation is 1,000 feet vertical or 3 nautical miles lateral.

If this had happened to me I would have been pissed. At 11,000, this "formation flight" would have been likely heading SE on the Leese Arrival, or 50-75 miles NW of Orlando.
Right over my house.

The Cirrus flight is on an IFR flight plan, has burned quite a bit of fuel and loses comm. How much of a threat can a Cirrus be with 1/2 tanks or less? If he was a terrorist, why fly IFR all the way from Picayune, MS? Why not just fly VFR, talking to nobody and raise no suspicions.

The WDW TFR is 3000 & 3. I can fly up to an over it and not be in contact with ATC. Ever. Am I a threat too?

KSC is over 50 miles away, in a different direction from the flight to KISM for the Cirrus.

So ATC directs this 737 into an illegal flight formation within 100 feet and 1/10th of a vile laterally? I don't care if this guy was flying over P-40, this is really uncalled for.

What's the 737 gonna do if they determined he was a threat to WDW? Go to guns?

Reminds me of the Heinz aircraft/helicopter collision many years ago when ATC also requested an intercept.

Heads should roll.

(I did a search for a thread but could not find one.)

I suspect the original reason for the look-see was to help the pilot of the Cirrus and the stuff about potential terrorist acts simply window dressing added after the fact. I do have to wonder what ATC thought they could possibly gain with the intercept though. It's not like the 737 was going to be able to offer any assistance to the other pilot. And I've gotta wonder how competent the 737 pilot was with intercepts and formation flight in the first place. He could easily have killed the Cirrus with his wake if he overshot and got in front of it. Seems to me they should leave that stuff to the Air Force pilots who are trained to do it, if it's needed at all.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2011, 13:41

Old news.... Granted it was a pretty ridiculous idea to do that, I don't see what everyone is making a big deal about. The 737 driver knew exactly what he was doing when he agreed to go take a look and could have said no, but instead did it anyway. 100 and .1 without having any kind of visual would be about as nasty as a deal as could possibly be, but that is not the case here. The 737 had the Cirrus in sight and the captain made the choice to fly his aircraft into such a close proximity. Sure the controller didn't come up with the greatest idea in the world, but the SWA pilot is just as guilty.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2011, 15:12

Username Protected wrote:

Old news.... Granted it was a pretty ridiculous idea to do that, I don't see what everyone is making a big deal about. The 737 driver knew exactly what he was doing when he agreed to go take a look and could have said no, but instead did it anyway. 100 and .1 without having any kind of visual would be about as nasty as a deal as could possibly be, but that is not the case here. The 737 had the Cirrus in sight and the captain made the choice to fly his aircraft into such a close proximity. Sure the controller didn't come up with the greatest idea in the world, but the SWA pilot is just as guilty.

I do realize this incident happened a while ago but the article was published today as a follow up with the NTSB findings. It's relevant. And if it really is no big deal, then why was the NTSB involved in the first place?

100 and .1 is unacceptable to a small plane pilot next to a 121 air carrier he has no idea is there.

I am not sure who the worse decision here. The controller for making the request or the captain for acquiescing.

You have to wonder what each of them were thinking, their collective level of judgement and what possible good could come out of this maneuver.

If I'm a passenger in the SWA, I'm wondering how exactly competent this captain is and why he is taking chances with 137 SOB.

I call BS on the terrorist excuse.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2011, 15:46

After re-reading my response, I didn't mean for it to sound the way it did. No doubt it is a big deal, nothing small about it. Would think that two intelligent professionals would know better, but it's like our good friend Ron says: "you can't fix stupid."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2011, 17:40

Username Protected wrote:

Old news.... Granted it was a pretty ridiculous idea to do that, I don't see what everyone is making a big deal about. The 737 driver knew exactly what he was doing when he agreed to go take a look and could have said no, but instead did it anyway. 100 and .1 without having any kind of visual would be about as nasty as a deal as could possibly be, but that is not the case here. The 737 had the Cirrus in sight and the captain made the choice to fly his aircraft into such a close proximity. Sure the controller didn't come up with the greatest idea in the world, but the SWA pilot is just as guilty.

What do you think the chances are the Cirrus could have hit the 737 if the pilot decided to turn abruptly towards the jet without realizing it was there? There's a reason that formation flights require that both pilots involved are playing the same game.

ATC vectors 737 at a Cirrus? Really?!?