On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:12:04 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
disingenuous?

I obviously was asking the question in the context of information
available to ATC, which could be passed on to an itinerant GA pilot.
You knew that what was important was a CLEARANCE (which I failed to ask
directly about, but merely implied, in my question). Instead of saying
that such flights have sections that are NOT UNDER ATC CONTROL (while
still on a flight plan), you stated that all flights ARE ON A FLIGHT
PLAN (even though they may not be under ATC control).

If you do not know or understand the language and terminology well
enough to ask a meaningful question, you will continually get answers
which you may deem ingenuous, but it is the fault of the query not the
reply.

There is no obligation for ATC to pass information on to "an itinerant
GA pilot". None at all.

If the GA pilot is IFR, he gets a route and altitude assignment and is
expected to follow it. He MIGHT get traffic advisories if ATC work
load permits. No guarantee.

If a military pilot is on an enroute delay during his ALWAYS IFR
Flight Plan, he would be operating in a MOA, a restricted area, a
warning area, on a low-level training route, or in a VFR traffic
pattern. The "itinerant GA pilot" if he is on an IFR flight plan will
be routed around those airspaces (except for the VFR traffic
pattern--in which case he will be sequenced.)

Further, you kept focusing on the idea that a FLIGHT PLAN (even after
you knew it was irrelevant) is just an "intention to fly", thus
underlying its irrelevance.

It was a true statement and an attempt to educate you so that you
could at some point ask the question you really wanted to ask.

The reply is disingenuous in the same sense as the joke whose punchline
is "you are in an airplane".

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will...

In other words, no, the investigation was not conducted by a
disinterested third party. (and for somebody who, in this thread,
prides himself on answering =just= the question asked, you did not do so
here; the answer was either "yes" or "no".

This is a not a court of law, so the answers to complex questions can
be given in detail in an attempt to inform.

If you understand the objective of the accident board, the composition
of the board made up of outside-the-unit individuals, and the
follow-on alternatives based on the findings of the board, and still
insist that the board is somehow not a "disinterested third party"
there is little help for you.

You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Either of the above.

Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
take place in civil court.

I suspect there would be another proceeding, akin to the Article 34
hearing.

The equivalent to an Art. 34 is a grand jury investigation or an
indictment by federal prosecutor.

That one would be conducted by the FAA (or under its
auspicies),

No, the FAA is a regulatory agency. They exercise only adminstrative
authority. They are not a court of law nor a prosecuting agency.

and would determine what penalties would be applied to the
pilot found at fault. If the fighter pilot were found at fault, in the
case under discussion as I understand it, I expect that the FAA would
suspend and probably revoke his certificate.

Suspension of license is an administrative proceeding.

Now, pay attention here because this will again confuse you. A
military pilot does not have an FAA issued pilot certificate.

Most do, but that is because they choose to obtain one under the
provisions of "Military competence". You simply pass a written exam on
FARs and get a commercial license for SMEL with instrument rating. You
can get a type rating for any heavy with a similar civilian aircraft
by simply presenting your military flight record of successful
completion of a military check flight.

But, the military pilot does not possess nor exercise an FAA
certificate.

(I've got a commercial SMEL/Inst. with Convair 240/340/440 type
rating--a relic of the very short period when I flew the T-29 during a
Hq staff tour.)

I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.

Why? The FAA wouldn't bring that proceeding. The accident board from
the NTSB wouldn't. And, you seem to be demanding a "guilty until
proven innocent" verdict.

Your prejudice and unwillingness to consider an alternative to your
interpretation of events is blatant.

I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.

Do you disagree?

If you've followed through all of these posts and still ask that
question, my saying "YES, I disagree" today will probably also escape
your comprehension.

How someone who has demonstrated so little understanding of so many
relevant issues in this or any other accident could hold such a strong
opinion on culpability truly is amazing.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com