Scared of mid-airs

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:18:09 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
wrote in :

[...]
You have been claiming that the speed of the USAF flight
was "480 knots (550 mph) at impact" (your post, 7/14),
when actual recorded speed at impact was 356 KCAS
per the accident report.

[That would be Message-ID:
]


AIB Report mentions the 480 knot closure speed twice:

AIB Report:

"The closure rate of Cessna 829 and Ninja 1 based on
radar-measured conflict alert data just prior to the collision was
approximately 480 KTAS."

"Based on their closure rate of approximately 480 knots," ...

With regard to your 356 KCAS airspeed at the time of impact, that is
not given as Ninja 2's speed in the AIB nor NTSB reports. Here's the
only reference to that number I was able to find in either document:

AIB Report:

"Ninja 1’s displayed airspeed at the time of the midair was
356 KCAS" ...

You'll recall that Ninja 1 was not the aircraft that impacted the
Cessna. (I find the fact that the AIB report equates 'displayed
airspeed' with calibrated air speed a bit puzzling. Do F-16 airspeed
indicators actually display calibrated airspeed?)

So, lacking evidence to the contrary, I used the closing speed as the
speed at the time of impact. That may be incorrect, but lacking
better information, it seems reasonable to me, and not an exaggeration
nor hyperbole.

[...]

The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

"Ninja flight's mistake was in transitioning to the tactical
portion of their flight too early, unaware that they were in
controlled airspace."

That was President, Accident Investigation Board Robin E. Scott's
opinion. It is not fact.

Despite the fact that Parker failed to brief terminal airspace prior
to the flight as regulations require, I personally find it difficult,
if not impossible, to believe Parker was unaware, that the 60 mile
diameter Tampa Class B terminal airspace lay below him at the time he
chose to descend below 10,000' into it.

That's opinion, too, annit?

I suppose it is my reasoned opinion.

If you disagree, perhaps you could explain how Parker could have been
unaware of a chunk of terminal airspace 60 miles in diameter and
10,000' feet high on a clear day; I can't. He surely must have been
able to see the large international airport beneath him. Every pilot
knows there is controlled terminal airspace around such airports.
Additionally, Parker was attempting to contact ATC to obtain a
clearance to enter the Class B airspace immediately before he chose to
descend with out the required ATC clearance. Given those facts, how
could Parker possibly have been unaware of what he was doing? Lacking
an answer to that question, in light of the circumstances, logic and
reason demand, that I conclude, that Parker deliberately chose to
violate regulations prohibiting his descent into congested terminal
airspace without the required ATC clearance.


Per the F-16 Dash 1 he was allowed to be at 350 knots at
that altitude, and was traveling only slightly faster at the time
of the collision. What about that statement (from the
accident investigation) do you not understand?

Jeff, I understand that 450 knots within congested terminal airspace
is about one third faster than the 350 knot speed limit you state
above. One third is not 'slightly faster'. It is _significantly_
faster. (The 450 knot figure is quoted from the AIB report at the
beginning of this follow up article.) Perhaps you can provide the
reasoning you used in arriving at your conclusion.

Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.

Limiting the discussion to your 356 KCAS speed at the time of impact
figure disregards this fact:

Final NTSB Report MIA01FA028A:


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? :-)

Larry Dighera wrote:


Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.

Come on out West, we have lots of class G and you are not limited to a
measly 1200 AGL.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:40:54 -0600, Newps wrote
in :


Larry Dighera wrote:


Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.

Come on out West, we have lots of class G and you are not limited to a
measly 1200 AGL.


I am out west, southern California. Not much Class G above 1,200'
around here.

Jose wrote:

The deconfilction task rests on two pilots, the high performance one
(who should be so trained) and the low performance one (who was, in the
example, the one hit). To expect a typical 172 pilot to be able to
deconflict at F16 speeds is ludicrous, but that is what is being asked
when an F16 at full bore is the conflicting traffic.

The problem is that the 172-pilot's motivation doesn't match the
threat. Why is that, you ask? Because of inadequate information
about the threat, primarily.

It comes down to training and the emphasis placed on the problem by
the FAA (very minimal, in both instances).

The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his
ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.


Jack

Larry Dighera wrote:

Please provide a quote of my words in which I espouse ceding control
of airspace to the military and commercial interests.

You have in multiple instances advocated making the military totally
responsible for traffic conflicts/separation on MTR's. That
certainly requires control of the airspace.

In the spirit of cooperation, I have suggested that MTR's be made
Restricted airspace in order to facilitate such a scheme. You find
that an unsatisfactory solution, apparently. Feel free to restate
your position.


Jack

Larry Dighera wrote:

You might consider this quote from a naval fighter pilot:


http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...perhornet.html

Of his career as a Navy aviator, Webb told him: "Mike, I love this
so much I can't believe they're paying me to do it. I'd do it for
free."


And that makes your nebulous case, how?

They certainly wouldn't do it if they didn't love it, considering
all the downsides of the life. You only get fighter pilots so
cheaply for that reason.

Sorry if you hate your life.


Jack

The problem is that the 172-pilot's motivation doesn't match the threat. Why is that, you ask? Because of inadequate information about the threat, primarily.

I don't understand what you are saying.

If an F16 were flying full bore on a head-on collision course with a
172, it may well be that the F16 pilot's superior training and superior
eyesight could pick out the 172 in enough time. To expect the same
thing of a 172 pilot, who merely passed a class III exam, and has not
had training in high speed combat is ludicrous.

For this reason and others like it (including the VFR visibility
minima), there is a speed limit in the 172's normal territory: 250
knots, or the slowest safe speed in your aircraft, whichever is higher.
If military pilots have a sterile area where they can play, these
limits need not apply, since they are superior pilots with superior
eyesight, superior training, and superior experience. But it's like
driving 90 mph. Do it on the highway or the race track, but don't do it
on a residential street. And don't call a residential street a highway
for your convenience, and then blame the kid playing ball in the street
when you smash him at 90 mph.

It comes down to training and the emphasis placed on the problem by the FAA (very minimal, in both instances).

Partly. If the 172 pilots were trained to military standards, we could
probably raise the speed limit. But there's be no pilots left who have
the AMUs to pay for it.

The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.

All aircraft have blind spots. Airliners aren't known for great
visibility either.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:43:18 GMT, 588 wrote in
:

Scared of Mid-Airs?

Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
are.

Another inane remark like that, and you'll find yourself without my
readership.

That would be a heart-breaker, LD, but I'm just not a humorless,
one-note, obsessive kind of guy -- so I can live with it.

It is easier to avoid MAC's if you know under what conditions they
usually occur. Yet you recommend letting somebody else handle that
responsibility for you. And, you think you can give that
responsibility away and still retain your own freedom of action.

That seems arrogant.


Jack

Jose wrote:

...there is a speed limit in the 172's normal territory: 250
knots, or the slowest safe speed in your aircraft, whichever is higher.
If military pilots have a sterile area where they can play, these
limits need not apply....

...don't call a residential street a highway
for your convenience, and then blame the kid
playing ball in the street
when you smash him at 90 mph.

Keep the kid off the racetrack and everybody's happy. Responsible
adults do that.


The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his
ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.

Airliners aren't known for great visibility either.

And yet they have so few MAC's. Why is that?



Jack

In article ,
588 wrote:

...don't call a residential street a highway
for your convenience, and then blame the kid
playing ball in the street
when you smash him at 90 mph.

Keep the kid off the racetrack and everybody's happy. Responsible
adults do that.

Responsible adults know where they are

Responsible adults don't turn a sidestreet into a racetrack.




The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his
ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.

Airliners aren't known for great visibility either.

And yet they have so few MAC's. Why is that?

ATC Radar

TCAS

Big ugly airplanes are easy to spot

Not a lot of fighter aircraft flying around lost at the altitudes where
airliners spend most of their flight time.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate