[quote=Larry Dighera]For others following this message thread, here are the stories written
by the pilots involved:


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/attack.htm
Attack aircraft, delivering air-to-ground munitions, are deployed
in force application and air control roles.

One wonders why the A-7 radar
wasn't used to spot the glider in advance of the impact?

How effective do you think the APQ-126 is at spotting
small fiberglass airplanes in ground clutter?
Hint: It's an air-to-ground radar.

I have no experience with on board military radar.

Would you rather have a pilot heads-down staring at an
ineffective radar display or heads-up scanning for traffic?

I would prefer that the military aircraft operating on MTRs employed
some technology to augment the pilot's ability to prevent colliding
with civil aircraft. Perhaps something like TCAS would less of an
anachronism for this purpose than the "Mark-1 Eyeball."

A study employing highly trained military pilots determined that
17-seconds out of every 20-seconds was required to scan for
conflicting traffic. That leaves only 3-seconds remaining out of
every 20-seconds for head-down instrument scan.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
"An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan. Without
the benefit of intensive military training, most pilots will need
more time than this. But as demonstrated by the military pilots,
considerably more time should be spent on the external scan than
the panel scan."


An aircraft traveling at 250 knots will travel ~1.4 NM in 20
seconds. If 20 seconds are required to visually detect conflicting
traffic, and one adds to that

* the additional time necessary to recognize the
(intentionally very inconspicuous) military attack traffic
as being on a conflicting course

* the time to make appropriate deconfliction control inputs

* the time it takes the aircraft to respond to those inputs
and maneuver out of harm's way

it becomes readily apparent that the PIC is tasked with the
impossibility of visually locating the conflicting aircraft
when it is much greater than 1.4 NM distant, or face disaster.

Of course, the pilot of a military aircraft operating on a MTR at ~500
knots will only have half the time given in that example. Further,
the above calculations do not take into consideration the speed of the
other aircraft, which may significantly increase _closing-speed_. The
physics involved realistically preclude visual separation of
high-speed military operations from reliably occurring, but currently
the FAA erroneously permits it, indeed mandates it by official
regulation.

Currently, a civil PIC is required to visually observe the tiny speck
offered by the minimal frontal profile of the military aircraft
operating on the MTR (traveling well in excess of 250 knots, and not
burning a landing light) at substantially (2 to 4 times) more than 1.4
NM distant to successfully avoid it.

I submit that the likelihood of a non-military trained pilot
accomplishing visual separation from military aircraft operating on
MTRs is effectively nil. Therefore, it would seem that the FAA is
failing to meet its responsibility to provide safe skies by permitting
high-speed low-level operation of military aircraft while relying on
physical calculations which indicate that see-and-avoid is physically
inadequate for separation of these aircraft in excess of 250 knots.

Perhaps it's time for a change:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/c85fcc2b24fc2ead86256962005b584c!OpenDocument&High light=special%20use#_Section1

The use of radar aboard the A-7 for collision avoidance seems obvious.

I don't think you know very much about the A-7 radar.

Agreed. I'm just attempting to provide constructive suggestions for
adequate flight safety. Perhaps someone with your experience would be
more successful in suggesting more reasonable safety measures.

Using an ineffective radar for collision avoidance is neither as obvious
nor as smart as using a sectional and a phone/radio call to FSS
to avoid hot MTRs.

I would like to shed some light on the capabilities of the A7E radar to help illuminate the discussion. I happen to know a great deal about A7E Radar, as well as its inertial navigation system, computer systems, Doppler radar, and weapons control systems since I was in charge of the Integrated Weapons System (IWT) shop at VA27 that had the responsibility of maintaining these systems on LT Hutcheson’s aircraft at the time of this incident.

The forward looking radar on the A7E has several modes of operation including terrain following, terrain avoidance, search, ground tracking of targets, and yes, navigation. But please keep in mind that it was 1950’s technology. If the radar detects a pending near-air collision, it is designed to provide a flashing break-X or other indicator in the pilot’s heads-up display system and loud audible alarms in his headset, so your question that “Would you rather have a pilot heads-down staring at an ineffective radar display or heads-up scanning for traffic?” may not be applicable.

I do not know what happened on this occasion. I do know that if the pilot had received any warning from the system, it would have been recorded on the flight recorder and presented to the investigating authorities. That leads me to suspect that this situation was instantaneous and immediate. I know that sounds like a redundancy, but I am trying to convey that this happened so rapidly that “no one” had any possibility to react.

I know a great deal about aircraft, but I know nothing about being a pilot. Unlike you folks, I don’t know anything about flight rules, or plans, or regulations. One thing I do know, however, is that flying is inherently dangerous and sometimes there may simply be no “right or wrong” in a situation.

I believe that it may be possible that the A7E (which is a “light attack” aircraft and not a fighter, of course) and the glider could have both acted entirely appropriately within the conditions they were presented, and yet still collided. I don’t know the actual conditions, and from what I read, you really don’t either. Some things can be over analyzed.

I DO know the nature, character, and training of LT Hutcheson, however, and I know the thoroughness with which the Navy deals with aviation accidents. Both are outstanding. I also know that there were no instrumentation alerts recorded either before or after the collision.

Thank you for your time and courtesy, and I apologize for entering into a conversation beyond my depth.

K. J. Larkin