Cropsprayer and Cessna mid-air collision Carltonville

[dollar]

I've watched a lot of video originating in South America. Generaly not particularly good. This tragic story reminds me of some of them. It's such an obvious error. They are both aware that the other is in the air in close proximity but manage to fly into each other? I am obviously distressed by the result BUT there is no procedural excuse for this happening? You do this, then I'm sorry to say, you're wearing it. Condolences to all involved. Lets not get like South America

[Wildcat_004]

I agree with Dollar. Too many civilian pilots want to do formation flying and dont go about it in the correct way. When you considering a photo shoot as well……that calls for some serious planning, briefing and not somebody who wants to do it, but someone who can do it…..!!

[Diesel-3]

Seems like the same crop sprayer pilot was indeed the pilot of the crop sprayer that hit the young man last year.

@jimdavis, according to this report, yes.

Sounds like a bit of a cowboy.

[OG]

Is there any evidence that this was a photo sortie, or just someone's assumption.
Casper and Estelle used the 182 and a R44 to travel between their various farms, and also to inspect crops and fences. Estelle had a HPL, and I am sure that if they wanted a photo-op, this would be a better platform.
Also, Hennie was not conducting spraying at the time, but was ferrying to the the crop that was to be sprayed after just having tanked up.
This incident also has zero to do with the cropsrayer/pedestrian accident. The person that was hit, was not supposed to be in the field. Yes, the aircraft was low, but some applications require wheels in the crop, and then I certainly wont be looking around for people that should t be there in the first place.
Why it happened, I cannot say, but to call someone a cowboy is uncalled for. A cowboy wont last 13000 hrs, mostly spraying. By all means, speculate, but use some common sense while doing so

[Jan]

Thank you Oscar. I really hope that an eye witness might come forward. Also - I saw the “photo sortie” story popping up on various platforms. It is therefore my feeling that there might be some truth in that. Maybe they have talked to someone on the ground before taking off. Maybe not true at all. So many questions.

I have had some dealings with Hennie and Estelle over the years (Dynon support mainly) and found them really professional and also very nice and friendly people to deal with. Never met Casper. Such a tragedy.

[BenSmit]

Savas and Jim

I hear what you are saying but I do believe that many, as I, have learnt much here on Avcom. I am certainly safer for it.

Not all participate here so their leaning opportunities are diminished. If you only learn from your own experience and maybe a small group of aviation friends, your attention to safety and aviation in general is not on a great growth path.

Aviation is about ongoing learning.

[GeraldNagel]

Sometimes we forget to tell the other to take control when taking
photos.

Stupid but it happens.

[roadrunner]

I think what we all can learn from this is to try as hard as we can to be risk averse.There is a risk in driving youre car to the mall for example.If you drive recklessly by speeding or drinking then the risk factor goes up.Is it really necessary to drive fast for example or overtaking on white line etc list us endless this is just an example and it's more true in aviation.There are so many variables and experienced aviators has paid the highest price.That is why us mere mortals with less experience must be very carefully and pay attention and don't try to do things which can put you,plane or passenger in a situation that is dangerous.We don't know what happened but I think if they were still here in hindsight they would probably have said you know what it wasn't necessary. Same with the bloke that crashed at diving dam .The first action to try and be safe is to identify hazardous thoughts. and it applies in everything we do not just flying.If you feel pressured step away ,pause and think what can go wrong.Again condolences to all involved .Very tragic hope we can learn from this

[thelsa]

Not being insensitive but was thinking.
If this was a photoshoot, what is the possibility the camera(s) might have survived the accident. If possible, this could shed more light. Was just wondering.

[Frontiersman]

Thelsa, the cameras themselves or itself (not sure how many there might have been onboard) would probably not have survived in the sense that they will still be working afterwards, but I'm reasonably sure that the memory storage, whether on data chips in the camera or a removable data card would be undamaged. From the photos it would seem as if potential fire damage would not be a factor here.

[southside]

Who flew into who?

You have a low wing below and a high wing above, (we assume) but that doesn’t make sense to me. Both would be able to see each other. So perhaps that was not the actual case. Surely there is more to this?

Do we know for sure this was a photography shoot gone wrong just because someone said so?

As for what we can learn from doing formation flying (if this was the case, we don’t know for sure)…a good pre flight briefing ect…there is nothing to learn here with regards to that…it’s obvious.

It’s the same as speculation about CFIT accidents in crappy weather and ‘what can we learn here?’

There is nothing to learn. We all know this. Yet people still fly in bad weather.

When people crash because of obvious hazards, nothing is learnt, we just know it happened because of what we already know based on history.

I would like to believe other factors were involved in this accident.

[savas]

Who flew into who?

You have a low wing below and a high wing above, (we assume) but that doesn’t make sense to me. Both would be able to see each other. So perhaps that was not the actual case. Surely there is more to this?

Do we know for sure this was a photography shoot gone wrong just because someone said so?

As for what we can learn from doing formation flying…a good pre flight briefing ect…there is nothing to learn here with regards to that…it’s obvious.

It’s the same as speculation about CFIT accidents in crappy weather and ‘what can we learn here?’

There is nothing to learn. We all know this. Yet people still fly in bad weather.

When people crash because of obvious hazards, nothing is learnt, we just know it happened because of what we already know based on history.

I would like to believe other factors were involved in this accident.

Well said

[Chris-Cub]

Who flew into who?

You have a low wing below and a high wing above, (we assume) but that doesn’t make sense to me. Both would be able to see each other. So perhaps that was not the actual case. Surely there is more to this?

Do we know for sure this was a photography shoot gone wrong just because someone said so?

As for what we can learn from doing formation flying (if this was the case, we don’t know for sure)…a good pre flight briefing ect…there is nothing to learn here with regards to that…it’s obvious.

It’s the same as speculation about CFIT accidents in crappy weather and ‘what can we learn here?’

There is nothing to learn. We all know this. Yet people still fly in bad weather.

When people crash because of obvious hazards, nothing is learnt, we just know it happened because of what we already know based on history.

I would like to believe other factors were involved in this accident.

I agree at this time in history meeting future=Today, we know a lot about accidents, all types accidents for that matter, and a lot was said, taked, written about that, easily searchable as well, and covered in training.

What is not talked about much or as it should, is Human Reflexes which is an automatic function of your body that kicks in, it makes you do something in 1-2-3 seconds, or freeze you and then the accident happens(Fail), or you have a narrow escape(Win) after at least one party had initially overstep a rule of the game of safety.

In my opinion, your reflexes may be "wrong" for years and you may not know it till the final test comnes along. In my opinion a wrong reflex can be changed, but its not as straight forwards as a one day course, talking about it, etc, it requires repetative excersizes around that identified condition whatever it may be.

Think back on your whole life, child at school to adult, where you may have went in a reflex condition whatever it might have been, you either got injured, or had a narrow escape, with a question mark about what just happenned but you just cannot remermber all the details 1-2-3 seconds exactly..........

Are accidents unavoidable due to humanly nature and our abstract creations we deal with above than walking barefoot(Excluding footware) as borned-? Its very basic to nature.

[Patrick AL]

Who flew into who?

You have a low wing below and a high wing above, (we assume) but that doesn’t make sense to me. Both would be able to see each other. So perhaps that was not the actual case. Surely there is more to this?

Do we know for sure this was a photography shoot gone wrong just because someone said so?

As for what we can learn from doing formation flying (if this was the case, we don’t know for sure)…a good pre flight briefing ect…there is nothing to learn here with regards to that…it’s obvious.

It’s the same as speculation about CFIT accidents in crappy weather and ‘what can we learn here?’

There is nothing to learn. We all know this. Yet people still fly in bad weather.

When people crash because of obvious hazards, nothing is learnt, we just know it happened because of what we already know based on history.

I would like to believe other factors were involved in this accident.

I agree at this time in history meeting future=Today, we know a lot about accidents, all types accidents for that matter, and a lot was said, taked, written about that, easily searchable as well, and covered in training.

What is not talked about much or as it should, is Human Reflexes which is an automatic function of your body that kicks in, it makes you do something in 1-2-3 seconds, or freeze you and then the accident happens(Fail), or you have a narrow escape(Win) after at least one party had initially overstep a rule of the game of safety.

In my opinion, your reflexes may be "wrong" for years and you may not know it till the final test comnes along. In my opinion a wrong reflex can be changed, but its not as straight forwards as a one day course, talking about it, etc, it requires repetative excersizes around that identified condition whatever it may be.

Think back on your whole life, child at school to adult, where you may have went in a reflex condition whatever it might have been, you either got injured, or had a narrow escape, with a question mark about what just happenned but you just cannot remermber all the details 1-2-3 seconds exactly..........

Are accidents unavoidable due to humanly nature and our abstract creations we deal with above than walking barefoot(Excluding footware) as borned-? Its very basic to nature.

Interesting and valid aspect on the discussion.

Sad incident. RIP to the 3 victims, and condolences to family and friends.



A lot probably boils down to character traits of the pilot in situations of pressure, and how one may or may not instantly 'rationalise' sudden crisis situations -and may react too easily and instinctively in reflex, rather than in considered action.

That is fundamentally how we approach risk in any form -how 'close' can we get to the peak and limit, in 'reward', time and space, without getting too close so that we are left only the option of 'reflex' response , rather than a considered one.

I guess in commercial aviation, through assessment and experience built through many hours in different roles/organisations, the pilots who show tendency to 'panic reflex/ over-react' would be weeded out, but in GA -if a pilot is prone to ' reflex' rather than considered reaction, then they may well be a very capable pilot with many hours logged, having never 'tested' in a crisis situation.

If I understand the sequence of events, I guess and suspect that they probably had good sight of each other -possibly the Cessna was flying in the near-wake/ track of the Cropsprayer- at slightly higher altitude -to get some good overhead clips -at approx. the same airspeed

-when the Sprayer 'pulled out' of the low run/spray run, he lost speed immediately and climbed steeply -leaving the Cessna with very little time to react before his higher speed made him immediately catch up with the Sprayer as he slowed and climbed.

[117]

What if the air tractor took evasive action to avoid an obstacle, and pulled up in a turn, into the 182?
The 182 might have been merrily going along with eyes in front not aware of the obstacle (or fully aware of it and clear of it), whilst the pax in the 182 was watching things through a camera lens, which will give you no perspective on the events unfolding

Anyone with an idea of the area should be able to find this out