Midair Collision · NTSB ERA11FA468
YAKOVLEV YAK-55M — Hammonton, NJ
| Date | August 20, 2011 |
| Location | Hammonton, NJ |
| Aircraft | YAKOVLEV YAK-55M |
| Purpose of flight | Personal |
| Conditions | Day · Visual Meteorological Cond |
| Phase / occurrence | Maneuvering-aerobatics Midair collision |
| Pilot age | 37 |
| Pilot total time | 610 hrs · Building experience |
| Time in type | 260 hrs |
| Fatalities | 1, 1 serious |
Probable cause
NTSB findings
- Personnel issues-Psychological-Attention/monitoring-Monitoring other aircraft-Pilot of other aircraft - C
- Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Lack of action-Pilot of other aircraft - F
What happened
The Lancair pilot told a witness that he was going to fly the high-performance airplane to a nearby airport to visit a friend. The pilot was aware that the nearby airport had occasional aerobatic activity near the runway, within an "aerobatic box." The box was active on the day of the accident, with a Notice to Airmen issued for aerobatic activity at 3,500 feet and below. The airplane approached the airport about 3,500 feet; however, the exact altitude could not be determined due to the fidelity of the radar/encoder data. As the airplane approached the airport at a high airspeed, likely about 190 knots, it collided with an aerobatic airplane that had just completed a hammerhead stall and was observed in a dive. The pilot's airplane cut through the aerobatic airplane's fuselage just aft of the cockpit, top to bottom, and lost about 4 feet of its left wing. The pilot's airplane then crashed into nearby woods, and the pilot of the aerobatic airplane parachuted into the same woods.
The aerobatic pilot and an observer stated that clearing turns were conducted prior to the aerobatic maneuver. However, the sun’s position and the airspeed of the oncoming airplane would have made it highly unlikely that the aerobatic pilot would have seen it. It is unknown what the inbound pilot's intentions were at the time of the accident. A relative of the inbound pilot, another pilot who had flown with him often, surmised that the pilot's approach to the airport at such a high altitude may have been an exploratory overflight, which is supported by the airplane's high airspeed at the time. Radar indicated that the pilot's airplane did not perform any standoff maneuvering prior to approaching the airport, and other pilots in the air at the time heard no advisory radio transmissions from him. During flight in visual meteorological conditions, the tenets of "see and avoid" apply. With the inbound pilot's knowledge of potential aerobatic activity at the airport, it is not known why he did not use advocated collision avoidance strategies.