One thing that I have observed over the past few years is when I have witnessed things like you spoke of and prevented, it always seems to have the backwards tail attached in some way. I have seen a Mooney cut the runway at an intersection half way to take off ahead of one already on the numbers but not moving and I have been cut off on downwind ay mid field by Mooney who told me on the ground he was short on fuel (did not declare in the air though). Go figure !!

So who was wrong in this situation? I have no idea but it seems there were a few errors. Seems the TIS wasn’t working in the Cirrus or it would have been annoying the pilot with it’s “TRAFFIC” “TRAFFIC” alerts. Maybe he was too busy wondering what that was about to sort out the Mooney ahead. Pet peave of mine as an instructor is to ask my student where the traffic is and have him point to the screen and say right there without ever looking up OMG…!! Okay how about the guy in the Mooney? Did he cut the Cirrus off? Was it intentional or was it because it’s just plane old difficult to see out through that little bitty windshield? It seems he turned inside of the B52 pattern flying Cirrus. I’ve spent lots of hours in the pattern with foreign students and their traffic patterns are different and larger than ours and trust me, following an Oxford B52 pattern Seneca around the pattern in a Champ can be taxing.

The only real thing with the flying that went wrong was the Cirrus pilots decision to use the 360 on final. This is specifically addressed in the AIM as a disruptive maneuver but that is in terms of ATC. It was a bad call and it’s hard to know why he decided to do it. It probably deserves some one on one refresher training or initial training on the subject. Going around may have been a better alternative or maybe S turns or who knows. Bottom line is it worked, however poorly and he probably learned from it.

It was probably a little over the edge to take on the roll of ATC and start giving further advisories once the initial alert had taken place. We truly can’t know what was going on within the Cirrus cockpit after the shake up from the first event. We tend to get really worked up on the radio sometimes and as it was pointed out, CTAF is not the place to have these discussions. Stuff like this happens and opening a big dissertation on CTAF about it and arguing inhibits other participation from other aircraft.

That’s my $.02

For my PPL, I was taught to turn base when at 45 degrees from the threshold, flying a downwind where the runway is half way up the strut. In a C172 that means a steep full flap approach. Then, while training for my night rating (5 hours night + 5 more hours instrument) I learned to turn base when I saw the VASIS/PAPI turn from white to red. After I completed my instrument rating, and saw how some descents from IAF to FAF are gentle and others are steep, I got intrigued by approach design, and learned this fact:

It turns out that for a standard 50′ threshold crossing height, with a standard 3 degree approach slope (as used on most ILS glideslopes & most VASIS/PAPI glidpaths), circuit height intercepts the glideslope/path at about 4 NM from the threshold (right where you might just find an NDB!).

Maybe you were taught to descend 500′ on base so to turn base to final at 500′ AGL, which one would then expect to find on a 3 degree glidepath at about 2 NM from the threshold. That same slope would require the downwind to be offset from the runway by 2 NM, which sounds like quite a bit to me.

A one mile downwind offset lets one descend on a 3 degree slope from 1000′ AGL to 750′ AGL for turning final at 3 SM from threshold. Good for a stable “power on,” warm engine for the “missed,” approach. Of course, those flying “power off” approaches will want to turn base closer to the threshold.

So then, for a 1 mile runway, one could expect a “standard” uncontrolled aiport circuit to be 7 miles long by 1 mile offset. That should work for drivers of hot IFR aircraft made by Mooney, Cirrus & Pilatus. Those flying “power off” approaches will find them selves turning base “inside” the hot birds’ base legs – and so begins the conflict!

As for the radio calls: First call to alert the of the conflict, no question it was the right thing. Second call – ok again to alert of a potential conflict from converging right & left base traffic. If you had said “you should have gone around rather than the left 360″ that would have been overstepping the bounds.

You would think people have the wisdom to learn from others’ mistakes, but… Merely three months after the accident, at the same airport, I was in full takeoff roll after properly announcing myself on CTAF, when all of a sudden I see this low-wing plane coming at us head-on. Just like your Cirrus driver, (s)he was trying to land on the runway opposite to the one used that day, going against the traffic. (And, did I mention there was no announcement of his/her intentions on the CTAF?) I pulled instantaneously the throttle and braked as hard as I safely could preparing to exit the runway, while my friend (a CFII flying with me as safety pilot) went on the comm to let the other pilot know (s)he is going in the wrong direction. Fortunately, the other pilot -while not acknowledging itself on CTAF- pulled up before we would become another negative statistic. As an added benefit, were still on the ground. (Needless to say, my takeoff was aborted, and had to taxi back to active runway.)

Now, this is what I would call “an honest to God mistake”: When you acknowledge it (even though you don’t respond) and take corrective action immediately. I concur with others who responded: the Cirrus driver was doing what was doing not because of ignorance, but because of sheer arrogance and lack of respect for others. For those who are sympathetic to the Cirrus driver’s arrogance, I have one recommendation: try to walk a mile in the shoes of those who lost their loved ones in the midair collision at Corona!

Bruce, you did the right thing!

I feel you did the right thing, air safety is everyones business, when you help in the air what could be more timely!

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year, I’ve enjoted everyone of your presentations, much continued success.