Third Military-Civil MAC Jan. 18, 2005

"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"?

Larry Dighera wrote:
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.



Perhaps not legally. For the practical matter, I'd say that the
pilot flying 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. It would, almost certainly, have saved
the man's life. Of course, a transponder would likely have done
the same thing, whether he bothered to talk to anyone or not.

Mike

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

Mike
MU-2

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.

Larry Dighera:

Thank you for that fact - you are missing the point of 14CFR91.113(f).

I think this is the point most of us have been trying to make - and
most of us are not lawyers, but live by the rules of physics and common
sense, something that many times seems lost on lawyers and congress
critters.

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument