• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Two too close for comfort.

YOW!!!! THAT is a wee bit too close for comfort. Any idea specifically where it happened? That's what you call "dodging a bullet" for sure. Gent needs to buy lottery tickets.

MTV
 
Image shows ADS-B position 15 seconds before reported collision time. No ADS-B data available for the other aircraft.

N737DM at 03_14_44 Z.PNG
 

Attachments

  • N737DM at 03_14_44 Z.PNG
    N737DM at 03_14_44 Z.PNG
    216.1 KB · Views: 3,066
Quote from the report-

AIRCRAFT DOVE TO AVOID ANOTHER AIRCRAFT N21132, LANDED AND POST FLIGHT INSPECTION REVEALED WING TIP DAMAGE WITH TIRE MARKS, ANCHORAGE, AK.
 
Wonder who was where at what altitude. Most days the controllers call out traffic and altitude especially coming into Lake Hood. That has always been a congested area and eyes outside is my rule when transitioning through. Not the area to look down and fiddle with toys. I can see the suspension of part 93 deviations and more strict adherence to altitude assignments coming from this.

Glad everyone made it home.
 
Wonder who was where at what altitude.


Well I already posted the where (based on reported collision time). The ADS-B altitude at that time was 1475 ft and after landing the ADS-B altitude shows 450 ft so, at collision time, the aircraft was at about 1,000 ft agl which is consistent with entry to traffic pattern.
 
In all my 50 years at Lake Hood the lake has always been about 70 feet MSL depending on the rains and who's controlling the outflow or pumps. If the ADSB shows 450 AFTER landing something isn't right.

Inbound for the water or the strip, when you enter the north edge of Lake Hood segment until mid channel your supposed to be below 1200 or above 2000. The 185 on floats was quickly approaching the shoreline and if he was at 1475 he either needed to go higher or get down. But then the whole ADSB altitude reporting is suspect if it really does show 450 after landing.
 
But then the whole ADSB altitude reporting is suspect if it really does show 450 after landing.

The absolute altitude reported by this ADS-B site may not be correct (and obviously is not). GE shows the elevation of the lakes to be 65 ft. However, the difference between the reported altitude at collision time and the report altitude at landing is quite likely to be correct.
 
Different matter but I've seen lots of IFR traffic and a few accident histories reported by ADS-B on Flightrader24 to be off expected altitudes. They provide a GPS Altitude which is sometimes different than what FT24 calls Calibrated Altitude. Needs further explanation.

More - especially the comments section: https://pilotworkshop.com/tips/vfr_altitude_gps/ It's all different sometimes I guess

Gary
 
Last edited:
Sooooooooo ANYONE that has half a brain and has flown in Anchorage airspace understands that this is some real no $hit flying. You have everything from 30,000 hour heavy pilots, military fast movers/heavys, 135 tours, bush pilots, regular pilots, student pilots, and 15 hour solo pilots all an airspace Less than a few miles wide and 1.000 ft high. Just stacking on more rules/restrictions is not the answer or we can just stop GA in Anchorage. ADSB is not the answer!! The tower can only hold so many hands!! Keep looking outside and planes are not that big, look for the little dot!
DENNY
 
So…. from a guy who’s flown that corridor a lot? Airplanes not lighted are extremely hard to see against the cluttered background of the city. Sometimes lighted ones are, too. I always wished controllers would keep planes on published routes. Inbound and outbound each have specific lanes and altitudes. Nobody pays attention until something bad happens.
 
My understanding is that the 182 was outbound off Merrill. I can't find a factual reference to that so maybe I just heard it around the lake.
 
My point exactly about ADSB and GPS's and anything else you look down to fiddle with. Over the boat hull and over Point Mac is not the place to be looking anywhere but outside.

Once you get past there things open up some.

And yes, this summer seems to be a bad year for flying at whatever altitude you want. Few ask for deviations but most don't.

Part 93.51 is written specifically for this airspace and it's not adhered to well. (I didn't look it up but pretty sure it's .51)

My 2 cents says that will be changing and controllers will be issuing more altitude advisories.
 
My ADS-B has audible warnings inside the distance I’ve set. I rarely look at it. That’s rhetoric from guys who don’t use it. Monday in the Su Valley was LOW and I appreciated locating the Maule in front of me when I lost visual. And once more in the open over Knik Arm I appreciated being called by a guy on opposite heading so we both saw each other. ADS-B works well.
 
The best thing that you can do as a new/old pilot learning to fly lake hood is get a Lake Hook experienced CFI to fly in any slow plane around the area and approach from all directions. Ya I have told people how to do it and read the pink book but once you get to just look for all the landmarks without trying to fly it is so much better. I had a much smarter and younger pilot do that for me when my 180 was being placed at Lake hood it was a huge game changer!!!
DENNY
 
Traffic really piles up at point Mackenzie and you have to be on your toes. Traffic callouts help but especially coming in on the west route you can lose the ones right in front of you pretty easily with the city background.
 
Wag the wings and light the lights. It's been a few years but i recall siting other aircraft against the city being a challenge. How do they do it at Oshkosh?

Gary
 
But then the whole ADSB altitude reporting is suspect if it really does show 450 after landing.

ADS-B site is reporting barometric altitude which is actually pressure altitude (Altimeter 29.92). Historical weather data for Anchorage shows the barometric pressure close to the time of the accident was 29.46. Apply that correction and the reported landing altitude looks very reasonable.
 
The AK Supplement has Lake Hood routes starting on pp 355 and Merrill routes after that. If everyone is honest we’ll find nobody actually uses the published procedures. I was at Hood yesterday and noticed more guys climbing to 2000’ than usual. A near miss improves awareness but historically it doesn’t last very long.

For the unfamiliar, crossing at 2000’ requires contacting departure so you’re being handled until you pass the altitude boundary or descend and terminate radar following. Not many Hood pilots use that service. Lots of Hood airplanes don’t have transponders. And few wheel planes are comfortable over the water at 700’. Nothing new. When it was my home base I didn’t use the procedures, either.
 
It’s been a while since I flew in there regularly, but back when, I regularly requested a deviation from 93 airspace procedures, especially outbound. The good news there was it took me out of some of the traffic conflicts, and let me operate higher. I was rarely denied that request.

But, just DOING it without a waiver is NOT good. That is some of the most complex airspace on the planet, folks.

Seriously.

MTV
 
In reality all it does is raise the ceiling to 1400’ because that’s the ceiling as soon as you cross the north shore unless you have permission and ADS-B. Without ADS-B I don’t think you can do above 1400’ at all unless you can get to 1900’ before the shoreline and stay east of the 4100' Class C ceiling until clear on the north side. I’ve never seen anyone do that. I’ve used the deviation for test flights and post-maintenance flights. It has limited usefulness.
 
Last edited:
Airspace must have changed. Used to be, you could request a waiver of 93 airspace and depart to the north through Elmendorf's approach corridor as long as there was no conflicting traffic. Saved circling to altitude over Hood to cross, or crossing at low level.

MTV
 
ADS-B changed. Before when tower gave a deviation it was assumed it also was permission for entry into C airspace. Now we can't go there without ADS-B. At least that was my take-away when I asked about ADS-B deviations through Class C.
 

Attachments

  • maxresdefault.jpg
    maxresdefault.jpg
    367 KB · Views: 157
Last edited:
I fly in and out of Lake Hood a lot. Definitely a lot of cross traffic at Point MacKinze and big jet vortexes propagating through. There was talk of moving the Lake Hood control area to sleeper strip. Maybe that would help?

Couple of F35's the other night as well.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5746[1].JPG
    IMG_5746[1].JPG
    44.6 KB · Views: 139
ADS-B changed. Before when tower gave a deviation it was assumed it also was permission for entry into C airspace. Now we can't go there without ADS-B. At least that was my take-away when I asked about ADS-B deviations through Class C.

Stewart,

Sorry, I didn’t explain myself well. The waiver from 93 I spoke of was so I could use the airspace between 1200 and 1900 over the north half of the channel. So, take off LHD northbound, stay IN LHD segment. Cross channel climbing to over 2000, which I was at by north shore, flying OVER the 1900 foot top of Charlie A/S shelf.

All that does is allows you to cross the channel at a safer height over water. BUT that 1200 to 1900 foot slice over the north half of the Inlet is approach corridor for EDF.

I don’t recall ATC ever saying no, however.

I was never warm and fuzzy about crossing the Inlet below 1200. And, yes, that’s all same as last time I went through there.

MTV
 
The reality is people in and out of Lake Hood segment fly at all kinds of altitudes with or without deviations and most don't think about class C until Powerline bend.
They cut the corner all the time to the west.

Every once in a while someone gets snippy about it, but there is a lot of lax behavior going in and out of the lake.
 
Back
Top