Two air tankers avoid mid-air collision by 400 feet

Posted on Categories Fixed wingTags ,

As two air tankers were descending before landing at the uncontrolled Porterville Airport on July 12 in California, they narrowly avoided a mid-air collision by 400 feet. The aircraft were close to occupying the same space in the sky when the Traffic Collision Alert Device (TCAD) notified the lower tanker crew about the near collision threat from another tanker above. They took evasive action and lived to tell the story. The upper aircraft was a next-generation air tanker that could have been moving at almost twice the speed of the lower legacy aircraft; 330 to 340 knots versus 165 to 200 knots for legacy air tankers.

Next-gen air tankers would include the BAe-146, Avero RJ 85, C-130Q, MD-87, and DC-10. The legacy category has the P2v, S-2T, and Single Engine Air Tankers.

The entire Lesson Learned can be read here. Below is an excerpt:

As the two aircraft were returning to the AAB at the Porterville Airport (an uncontrolled airport) both flight crews made their calls over the CTAF to announce their positions. When the pilots of the Legacy AT heard the NextGen AT announce their position of “15 miles out” at that moment the Legacy AT crew knew they also just announced their position “15 miles out”. The TCAD (Traffic Collision Alert Device) simultaneously reported traffic on the display and over the intercom. The NextGen AT then descended directly over the top of the Legacy AT. The Legacy AT flight crew reported that the TCAD displayed 400 feet vertical separation and confirmed it visually. The Legacy AT Pilot-in-Command took action to obtain separation from the NextGen AT avoiding the possibility of encountering wake turbulence. The NextGen AT crew did not receive a resolution advisory (RA) on their TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) and proceeded to the airport, unaware that an incident had occurred. Both aircraft landed without further incident.

Typos, let us know, and please keep in mind the commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

6 thoughts on “Two air tankers avoid mid-air collision by 400 feet”

  1. Consider Ramona before a tower was put into operation. TWO mid-airs involving tankers. One a tanker and a student pilot, the other involving a tanker and a Lead plane. Three fatalities.

    Places like PTV don’t have enough traffic year round to qualify for a tower.

  2. Dozer Don, the tanker base staff do not necessarily monitor the mandatory airport frequency, and nor should they. They communicate on a separate Forest Service licensed frequency (that non-firefighting pilots will not be monitoring anyway).
    Traffic separation is the responsibility of the pilots themselves, or ATC where applicable. One might wonder if the TCAD displays were being monitored or were selected on, as the airplane icons should have been visible prior to an aural alert.

  3. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the tanker base monitor the incoming and outgoing aircraft? I know on fire assignments, the helibase has a person monitoring aircraft, and recording times. Would ‘they’ have heard two aircraft calling out at the same distance from the airport? Just wondering.

  4. No matter what aircraft you are flying it’s the pilots (aircrews) responsibility to see and be seen and be ready to take evasive action if needed. At a number of uncontrolled airports saw several close calls. Glad to know this one came out ok.

  5. Have to agree with Chris

    15 out and a cruise descent, IF this was the case, speeds of “Legacy” and “Next Gen” are probably well under the 250 kts moving into the airport traffic area let alone the FTA and are speeds only known to the aircrews setting up for a downwind to final.

    Again agreeing with Chris …..”Next Gen” vs “Legacy” has no bearing in the airport traffic area. Pilots have been flying into uncontrolled airspace and airports for years in airport areas for YEARS and I would imagine there were many near miss incidents BEFORE the safety journey of the fire world became a new brand name…

    How did all these pilots in the Next Gen aircraft do it before Porterville? Many aircraft report 15 out with no major issues and this crew did what was appropriate for a uncontrolled airport. I will give a little cred to TCAD because even in Cessna G1000 cockpits there are poor man’s equivalent of TCAD and sometimes it is correct and is a basic reminder for the aircrew to start getting heads outside the cockpit

    Legacy vs Next Gen….pffffffffft……basic airmanship…….nothing to do with the age of aircraft!!!

  6. At “15 miles out”, both airplanes would likely have been well below 10,000′ asl and required to be flying at under 250kts each. The differences in airspeed were likely not great and certainly not “twice the speed”. The fact that the aircraft were next-gen vs legacy is irrelevant to the underlying cause(s) of the incident. Crew situational awareness and technological assistance contributed to a successful resolution here.

Comments are closed.