On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:59:18 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
wrote in ::

Larry Dighera wrote:
I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to find facts
that support those statements.

also Larry Dighera:
You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,

If you speak here of the Florida mishap, there's your example--
the CLOSURE rate was near 500 knots, but not the speed of
the USAF aircraft.

Just to assure that we are all both aware, the definition of
'hyperbole' is: extravagant exaggeration.


The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

1. "Based on their closure rate of approximately 480 knots," ...

2. "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the
descent."

Based on 1 above, you are the one who has exaggerated the closing
speed by 20 knots, but we are both human after all.

Based on 2 above, I am guilty of exaggerating the top speed the Ninja
flight reached by 50 knots. I don't classify ~11% as _extravagant_
exaggeration; rather it is my poor recollection of an event that
occurred nearly six years ago. In any event, I apologize for my
error, but I do not see how it may have affected the conclusions I
reached.

And since he was not aware that he was in terminal airspace
(per a cite you named), there's a deliberate misstatement
to boot.

The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

"Ninja flight’s mistake was in transitioning to the tactical
portion of their flight too early, unaware that they were in
controlled airspace."

That was President, Accident Investigation Board Robin E. Scott's
opinion. It is not fact.

Despite the fact that Parker failed to brief terminal airspace prior
to the flight as regulations require, I personally find it difficult,
if not impossible, to believe Parker was unaware, that the 60 mile
diameter Tampa Class B terminal airspace lay below him at the time he
chose to descend below 10,000' into it.

Immediately prior to that descent, he was attempting to contact ATC
for clearance to enter Tampa Class B airspace, but failed to make
contact, so he continued his descent into Tampa Class B airspace. If
he were unaware he was over the 60 mile diameter terminal airspace,
what reason would he have had to contact Tampa Approach? Surely
Parker could see the busy international airport below him. So, while
my statement is at odds with the AIB report, I believe it is more
accurate.

If you disagree, I welcome your explanation of how a competent pilot
can possibly be unaware of a 60 mile wide swath of congested terminal
airspace (and that doesn't even include the Class C to the south of
the Class B) that is located immediately north of the MTR start point.


I am unable to find any reasonable excuse for what Parker did. It was
a clear day. He was descending into Class B airspace, canceled IFR,
and dove his flight of two into the terminal airspace at twice the
speed limit imposed on all other aircraft in that airspace without ATC
clearance. He may have lost situational awareness, but I find it
impossible to believe he didn't know that continuing his descent would
put him within Class B airspace without a clearance and without
communications with ATC. That's against regulations.

His nav system position error was sufficient that he was not
aware he was entering terminal airspace.

The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

"The error was such that following INS steering to a selected
point would place the aircraft 9-11 NM south of the desired
location"

In other words, Parker's INS steering erroneously lead him to believe
he was located 9-11 miles north of his true position, because his
flight was southbound at the time. That means, that Parker could not
have thought he had past terminal airspace, and the AIB report
indicates that he believed he was approaching the MTR start point
prior to his descent below 10,000'. The error works against the
theory that it excuses Parker's decisions.

What about that do you not understand?

You need to re-read that portion of the AIB report dealing with the
INS error that miraculously occurred immediately before his descent.
There was no error earlier in his flight. Read the report, and cite
the portion that contradicts my analysis, if you don't concur.

Or do you simply refuse to believe it because it isn't convenient?

I refuse to believe your analysis of the effect Parker's INS error
had, because it isn't logical. You need to take the time to
OBJECTIVELY re-analyze that portion of the AIB report.

Per the F-16 Dash 1 he was allowed to be at 350 knots at
that altitude, and was traveling only slightly faster at the time
of the collision. What about that statement (from the
accident investigation) do you not understand?

Jeff, I understand that 450 knots within congested terminal airspace
is about one third faster than the 350 knot speed limit you state
above. One third is not 'slightly faster'. It is _significantly_
faster. (The 450 knot figure is quoted from the AIB report at the
beginning of this follow up article.) Perhaps you can provide the
reasoning you used in arriving at your conclusion.

Incidentally, what is the 'F-16 Dash 1'? Is it the aircraft operation
manual, that provides information regarding minimum speeds for various
flight regimes?