If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:12:59 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in . net:: Larry Dighera wrote: [...] I don't see how the fact of the MAC occurring within a MOA had any affect in this case. Perhaps not legally. For the practical matter, I'd say that the pilot flying [the Air Tractor] should have understood that the presence of the MOA indicated that there was a pretty good chance that someone would be using the area for some type of practice, and that perhaps either a bit of caution was called for, perhaps by flying under, over, or around the MOA in question. If not willing to do that, then contacting the local controlling agency should have ensured that the aircraft operating in the MOA were aware of his presence and extra precautions taken. I agree that communication with controlling authority while operating within MOA joint-use airspace is prudent. Of course, we don't know that the Air Tractor pilot didn't contact the controlling authority of the MOA at this point in the investigation. He did apparently have a handheld communications radio aboard. It would, almost certainly, have saved the man's life. I fail to see how a 200 knot flight on an IFR flight plan within a MOA is distinguishable from one outside the MOA's boundaries. Of course, a transponder would likely have done the same thing, whether he bothered to talk to anyone or not. I would expect a good likelihood that ATC would have advised the T-37 of the traffic conflict if the Air Tractor had been equipped with a transponder. The controller might have also done so if he had been able to see the Air Tractor's primary target on his radar scope. But the responsibility for seeing and avoiding was clearly on the shoulders of the T-37 PIC in VMC at the time of the MAC due to the Air Tractor being on his right. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.4.7&idno=14 Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES Subpart B—Flight Rules General § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... I call your attention to number 4 of the NTSB Findings: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...1FA028B&rpt=fi A conflict alert between the lead F-16 and the Cessna activated 10 times between 15:47:39 and 15:48:03. The developmental controller stated that he heard an alarm, but could not recall where it was. The controller providing the instruction did not recall if he saw or heard a conflict alert, and no conflict alert was issued. 4. (C) ARTCC SERVICE - NOT ISSUED - ATC PERSONNEL(DEP/APCH) How does that put ATC "on the hook"? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... I agree that communication with controlling authority while operating within MOA joint-use airspace is prudent. Of course, we don't know that the Air Tractor pilot didn't contact the controlling authority of the MOA at this point in the investigation. He did apparently have a handheld communications radio aboard. The collision did not occur in a MOA. I fail to see how a 200 knot flight on an IFR flight plan within a MOA is distinguishable from one outside the MOA's boundaries. The collision did not occur in a MOA. I would expect a good likelihood that ATC would have advised the T-37 of the traffic conflict if the Air Tractor had been equipped with a transponder. The controller might have also done so if he had been able to see the Air Tractor's primary target on his radar scope. But the responsibility for seeing and avoiding was clearly on the shoulders of the T-37 PIC in VMC at the time of the MAC due to the Air Tractor being on his right. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.4.7&idno=14 Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES Subpart B-Flight Rules General § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. The Air Tractor had equal responsibility, don't confuse right-of-way with the responsibility to see and avoid. § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... I agree that communication with controlling authority while operating within MOA joint-use airspace is prudent. Of course, we don't know that the Air Tractor pilot didn't contact the controlling authority of the MOA at this point in the investigation. He did apparently have a handheld communications radio aboard. I don't think this accident happened in a MOA. The Sheppard 1 MOA has a floor of 8,000 feet, so both aircraft were below the floor. The collision occurred inside Alert Area A-561, but 561 goes from the surface to 4,000 feet. Both aircraft were above this level. Hollister, OK is not shown on the sectional, but it is midway between Frederick and Grandfield. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Preliminary video with military spokesman and news-clowns he http://www.thehometownchannel.com/ne...0/detail.html# Slide show he http://www.thehometownchannel.com/ne...0/detail.html# Update he http://www.slackdavis.com/news_artic...gval/news_room Dead pilot's mother speaks: http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=...p=1&.intl =us On 8 Feb 2005 10:54:08 -0800, "Steve.T" wrote in . com:: Since the AT is much slower than the T37, as someone else pointed out, it is very difficult for it to crash into the T37. I agree, but fail to see the relevancy of that fact. So who has the right-of-way when one is being "cut off" by another, much faster a/c? It is revealing to find a fellow airman who is unfamiliar with: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.4.7&idno=14 Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES Subpart B—Flight Rules General § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. Outside of CLE airspace I was flying a C172 under the hood with a CFII in the right seat. We were on an approach, in contact with CLE approach when we almost became a hood ornament for a twin. You could say that we failed to give way to the a/c to our right. If the twin was indeed on your right, that's what I would say. How could it be other than that? So I do think speed has something to do with this MAC. I agree, that to the extent that speed reduces the time available for a PIC to scan the windscreen for conflicting traffic to see-and-avoid, it contributes to the cause of the accident. However, the fact of who hit whom does not seem relevant. It is more a matter of who failed to give way to the aircraft approaching from the right side. Should the military Accident Investigation Board find the PIC of the T-37 at fault in this MAC, it will be interesting to see if he is treated criminally as any citizen would be under the law of the land, or retired with a verbal reprimand as apparently occurred to Flight Lead Parker when he lead his wingman's 380-knot F-16 into the path of Jacques Olivier's Cessna 172 without benefit of ATC clearance on November 16, 2000. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lead F-16 pilot cleared in fatal crash over Manatee County Saturday, March 31, 2001 Associated Press BRADENTON — The lead F-16 pilot involved in a crash that killed a civilian pilot was cleared of criminal wrongdoing Friday and will retire Saturday. Air Force officials said the mistakes Lt. Col. Parker made leading up to the crash over Manatee County deserved only "administrative action" — a written or verbal reprimand. He will also retain his officer's pension. Citing confidentiality laws, Air Force officials would not elaborate on what form of administrative action was taken. They also would not say which of the mistakes he made the day of the crash led to the reprimand, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported for Saturday editions. The collision occurred Nov. 16. Jacques Olivier, a flight instructor from Hernando County, was killed in the crash. Capt. Greg Kreuder was following Parker on his way from Moody Air Force Base in Georgia to a bombing range in central Florida. But navigational problems led the pilots out of their military flight zone at 480 mph, more than 180 mph faster than federal and Air Force guidelines allow in airspace below 10,000 feet near airports. Olivier died instantly in the crash, his Cessna scattered over a Bradenton country club. Kreuder ejected and parachuted to safety before his plane crashed into a wooded area. ... Although it was Kreuder's F-16 that struck Olivier's single-engine plane, an Air Force report released earlier this month pointed to Parker's mistakes made in the minutes before the accident. The report said Parker, who was responsible for navigating the jets, gave incorrect instructions to his on-board computer, leading the F-16s more than seven miles off-course. The decision regarding Parker was made by Brig. Gen. John Rosa, commander of Moody Air Force Base in south Georgia, where the F-16 pilots were stationed at the time of the crash. The decision came about two weeks after Kreuder was cleared in the crash. ... The former flight instructor's family in Hernando County has filed a $10 million claim against the federal government for the pilots' role in ----------------------------------------------------------- More he http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1 NTSB Identification: MIA01FA028A 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Thursday, November 16, 2000 in BRADENTON, FL Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/23/2003 Aircraft: Lockheed-Martin F-16CG, registration: USAF Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Uninjured. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:00:17 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in t:: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . I call your attention to number 4 of the NTSB Findings: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...1FA028B&rpt=fi A conflict alert between the lead F-16 and the Cessna activated 10 times between 15:47:39 and 15:48:03. The developmental controller stated that he heard an alarm, but could not recall where it was. The controller providing the instruction did not recall if he saw or heard a conflict alert, and no conflict alert was issued. 4. (C) ARTCC SERVICE - NOT ISSUED - ATC PERSONNEL(DEP/APCH) How does that put ATC "on the hook"? ATC was found by the NTSB to be contributory to the cause of this MAC. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:17:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in t:: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . The collision did not occur in a MOA. The T-37 had been maneuvering in the MOA. It was not apparent from the NTSB preliminary report if "3.5 miles east of Hollister, Oklahoma" was within the MOA boundaries or not. Thanks for that information. I would expect a good likelihood that ATC would have advised the T-37 of the traffic conflict if the Air Tractor had been equipped with a transponder. The controller might have also done so if he had been able to see the Air Tractor's primary target on his radar scope. But the responsibility for seeing and avoiding was clearly on the shoulders of the T-37 PIC in VMC at the time of the MAC due to the Air Tractor being on his right. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.4.7&idno=14 Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES Subpart B-Flight Rules General § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. The Air Tractor had equal responsibility, don't confuse right-of-way with the responsibility to see and avoid. § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear. So you contend (based on the limited information available at this time*), that the Air Tractor pilot only violated the equivalent Air Force Instructions (AFI) 11-202, Volume III of § 91.113(b), while the T-37 PIC violated both § 91.113(b) and § 91.113(d)? * http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:40:54 -0600, "Dick Meade"
wrote in :: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . I agree that communication with controlling authority while operating within MOA joint-use airspace is prudent. Of course, we don't know that the Air Tractor pilot didn't contact the controlling authority of the MOA at this point in the investigation. He did apparently have a handheld communications radio aboard. I don't think this accident happened in a MOA. The Sheppard 1 MOA has a floor of 8,000 feet, so both aircraft were below the floor. The collision occurred inside Alert Area A-561, but 561 goes from the surface to 4,000 feet. Both aircraft were above this level. Hollister, OK is not shown on the sectional, but it is midway between Frederick and Grandfield. Thank you for that information. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:14:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in et:: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:46 GMT, "Mike Rapoport" wrote in . net:: It is always interesting how people talk about a slow airplane "crashing into" a fast airplane. Obviously it isn't possible and a more reasonable explanation is that the faster airplane flew right into the path of slower airplane. The issue is more about which aircraft had the right-of-way than who hit whom. Presumably, ATC is off the hook this time (unlike the military-civil MAC of 11-16-02), because the Air Tractor wasn't equipped with a transponder nor radios (other than a handheld Comm and GPS). Due to the lack of Mode C altitude information for the Air Tractor, the radar data won't show if it was in a climb or descent at the time of the mishap. I don't see how the fact of the MAC occurring within a MOA had any affect in this case. I don't see how it is possible for a slow airplane to avoid a much faster one converging from behind and to the right. I guess I'm missing your point, Mike. While it becomes increasingly difficult to spot conflicting traffic in time to take effective evasive action as speed increases, those who drafted the FARs apparently thought it was possible as long as neither aircraft was traveling in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet. Of course, as speed increases, scanning the periphery of the windscreen becomes less necessary to some extent. But that's not the phenomenon to which you're referring. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
It is also very revealing to find that you didn't read the *rest* of
the reg. (f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right. Later, Steve.T PP ASEL/Instrument |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
01 Jan 2005 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 2nd 05 12:34 AM |
22 Aug 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 24th 04 06:47 AM |
22 Aug 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 24th 04 06:46 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |