Jeff Crowell wrote:
Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Limiting the discussion to your 356 KCAS speed at the time of impact
figure disregards this fact:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...A028A &akey=1
"Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the descent."

Why would you overlook that 450 knot speed? Does the F-16 Dash 1 only
pertain to the speed at time of impact? :-)

Jeff Crowell:
Somewhere during the entire flight, Ninja 2's speed might
easily have been supersonic;

Larry Dighera:
Perhaps. But any speed in excess of the minimum safe speed is a
violation of regulations below 10,000'.

Of course. But hardly a smoking gun.


would that have had any influence
on the collision? (other than the cosmic scheduling of it all--
obviously, anything which might have occurred to either F-16
or Cessna to speed or delay their movements throughout their
respective flights that day would have prevented this tragedy).
Seen that way, if Ninja had gone even a little faster then this
would have been nothing more than a close miss.

That analysis disregards the fact that there were other aircraft
present in the congested Class B and C terminal airspace that could
have been impacted just as easily by the Ninja flight.

But they were not, were they?


I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
collision.

That conclusion is debatable. If we're discussing time to deconflict,
we'd need to know at what point the Ninja flight achieved 450 knots.

For starters, if the accident investigation report does not
specifically say that the 450 knot speed phases of the
flight were not a proximate cause of the mishap, we can
be sure it was not.


I have not seen any claim other than yours that
Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
your argument in the best possible light.

Perhaps. At any rate, I commend you for taking the time to analyze
all the data available. That has to be an enlightening experience.

Excuse me? Care to say what you mean here?


And I'm reassured that by the limited discrepancies you have provided,
the vast majority of what I have said is correct.

That would be just one more example of you making a
conclusion that is not supported by facts. I have been
attempting to limit our discussion to a limited set of data
so that it is easier to keep up.


Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
course has meaning in terms of how much time was
available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
blatant lie.

That conclusion is dependent on malice of intent, which I feel is
unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts. We just choose to
interpret the facts differently.

"Malice of intent"?

You are convinced, in the face of data to the contrary
(and with no data in support), that the mishap pilot got
up with the specific intention of killing a civil air pilot
that day.

You cast away entire chunks of data from the mishap
investigation report just because they do not fit with
your preconceived notion.


Jeff