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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB: USAF included?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:20:47 GMT, Dave Hyde wrote in
Message-Id: : Larry Dighera wrote: the NTSB report fails to find that the military pilot contributed to the cause of this mishap despite his failure to see-and-avoid. That is a glaring error of omission, IMNSHO. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Still, in this case, according to the evidence, the system on the A-7's side worked as planned. What was unplanned was the glider pilot's presence on a known (by 'the system') hot MTR. In joint use airspace (and VMC), a military pilot in command must always be aware of the possibility of conflicting traffic. By regulation, a powered airplane does not have the right-of-way over a glider. The AIM points out the reduction in 'see-and-avoid' potential on MTR's, and provides appropriate procedures for dealing with it. I can readily understand the physics involved in such a "reduction" in pilot ability so spot the frontal area of an inconspicuous (lights out) fighter airplane traveling at ~500 knots. While the pilot of the slow glider needs to scan for traffic throughout his field of view (and beyond), the pilot moving at high-speed need only scan 10 degrees in front of him to see potentially conflicting aircraft. The glider pilot either willfully or ignorantly disregarded these procedures. Yes. The NTSB pointed that out in their accident report. Is this the part of the Aeronautical Information Manual to which you are referring?: http://www1.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0305.html#3-5-2 3-5-2. Military Training Routes f. Nonparticipating aircraft are not prohibited from flying within an MTR; however, extreme vigilance should be exercised when conducting flight through or near these routes. Pilots should contact FSS's within 100 NM of a particular MTR to obtain current information or route usage in their vicinity. Information available includes times of scheduled activity, altitudes in use on each route segment, and actual route width. Route width varies for each MTR and can extend several miles on either side of the charted MTR centerline. Route width information for IR and VR MTR's is also available in the FLIP AP/1B along with additional MTR (slow routes/air refueling routes) information. When requesting MTR information, pilots should give the FSS their position, route of flight, and destination in order to reduce frequency congestion and permit the FSS specialist to identify the MTR which could be a factor. A quote from an article written by the glider pilot and publised in the Naval Aviation safety magazine, "Approach" (also listed as published in "Soaring and Motorgliding", but I can't personally confirm that): "In retrospect, the best thing I could have done when I saw the A-7 would have been to immediately bank away. [...] An even better thing would have been to avoid the low-level route." Even better, would have been for the fighter pilot to give way to the aircraft that had the right-of-way by virtue of the regulations both pilots were duty bound to follow. One wonders why the A-7 radar wasn't used to spot the glider in advance of the impact? Also, "If the Navy A-7 pilot hadn't been flying heads-up, I don't think I would have been writing this story." And finally, "I no longer ignore the little grey [sic] lines on my Sectionals." I haven't read the account to which you refer, but it seems that Mr. Garner failed to appreciate the regulations governing the situation. The A-7 was where he was supposed to be, Probably. But, I wouldn't characterize his (probable) speed as being safe below 10,000'. Safety is relative. Low-levels can be safe, but all of the players need to cooperate to maximize safety. At what speed would an A-7 be safe? Any action the military might take to make their aircraft operating on MTRs more conspicuous would enhance safety. The use of radar aboard the A-7 for collision avoidance seems obvious. I have no idea if the system worked better in the year this mishap occurred, but I doubt it; likely it was worse. The system was working for the A-7 pilot, he activated the training route through FSS. As far as I can tell, the glider pilot never even attempted to ascertain the status of the MTR he was flying in. That would appear negligent if it weren't for the fact that Mr. Garner was flying a glider. That's an aircraft of a different category with right-of-way over powered airplanes. Don't get me wrong. A PIC needs to check all available information before each flight to comply with regulations. But I fail to understand how Mr. Garner's checking to see if the MTR was hot made him responsible for the military pilot's failure to give way to, and see and avoid the glider. And the NTSB's failure to mention the military pilot's culpability on those two points tarnishes any semblance of NTSB objectivity or professionalism. Are you referring to the accounts in the NTSB report, or additional published accounts? If the latter, can you provide copies of the published accounts which you have summarized? Hutcheson, LT K. C., "The Hop was Perfect...Except for the Midair", 'Approach, The Naval Aviation Safety Review', March 1988, pp10-11. Unfortunately, that issue isn't available on-line. Approach Magazine Online Issues (1999 to present): http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/med...es/default.htm Garner, Chip, "Perspective: An Unfortunate Way to Start the Season." ibid(*), pp11-13. (*) Listed as 'reprinted from Soaring and Motorgliding' I wasn't able to find that on-line either. I won't post the entire articles here, but I'd be happy to snail-mail you copies. E-mail me with an address and I'll get them to you. I'd be most interested in the information contained in those articles. Here's my address: Larry Dighera PO Box 26768 Santa Ana, CA 92799-6768 Thank you very much for your kind offer. If you have the full NTSB report we'll trade. I don't, but it is available he http://www.general-microfilm.com/ General Microfilm Inc. P.O. BOX 2360 11141 Georgia Ave. Suite B-6 Silver Spring, Maryland 20902 Phone: (301) 929-8888 Fax: (301) 933-8676 http://www.ntsb.gov/Info/SOURCES.HTM My only contentions are that the NTSB failed to fault the military pilot for his failure to see-and-avoid and grant the glider right-of-way as is required of all military pilots operating on MTR routes in VMC. My contention and the glider pilot's own admission is that the glider pilot screwed away whatever chance he had of avoiding the A-7 in the first place. The responsibility to see-and-avoid is _each_ pilot's responsibility, not just the civil pilot's. Why do you make it sound like it was solely Mr. Garner's responsibility to avoid the military jet? What's interesting but unstated by the NTSB is that the glider pilot tried to recover damages from the Navy based exactly on the reason you state. The Navy paid 1/2 of what the pilot requested. No reason given, as well as no admission of a see-and-avoid error. Would the Navy have paid damages if they were not at fault? I wonder why the NTSB investigators failed to not the military's culpability. No mention is made of action taken against the A-7 pilot. As I understand it, the FAA is supposed to be made aware of the action taken by the military in such cases. Perhaps that information is available via a FOIA request. The regs you posted were certainly interesting, but well known. Perhaps you will address the right-of-way issue in this case. The AIM descriptions of MTRs are certainly just as relevant Not true. The Aviation Information Manual is not a regulatory document, thus it is not "just as relevant" as FARs. The AIM is just a summation of pertinent FAA orders and information for the convenience of airmen. Enforcement action cannot be brought directly from violating AIM sections, only regulations. and probably worth a review. I cited the only MTR reference I saw in the AIM. If the AIM contains more MTR related information, I'd be interested in reviewing it. Dave 'MARSA' Hyde Thanks again for the information you contributed. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
I can readily understand the physics involved in such a "reduction" in pilot ability so spot the frontal area of an inconspicuous (lights out) fighter airplane traveling at ~500 knots. In the example we are discussing, which airplane was flying with no lights? Which one was flying at 500 knots? While an A-7 might push 500 on some legs of a low level it's not likely he was that fast masking in the mountains. The glider pilot reported (how he knew is not stated) that the A-7 was at 360 KIAS. Fast, but not that fast. Back in the timeframe of this accident it's unlikely that you'd find an A-7 on a low-level (intentionally) without lights, as well, day or night. I hear that the Romulan cloaking device was inop too. Even better, would have been for the fighter pilot to give way to the aircraft that had the right-of-way by virtue of the regulations both pilots were duty bound to follow. You should read the supplemental info. *BOTH* pilots were _trying_ to give way. You'll see that *neither* pilot was reported for failure to see and avoid, but that the glider pilot was written up for his decision(s) to loiter in the published, active, and reported active MTR. (and I think I'm duty-bound by the charter of the newsgroup to report that an A-7E is not a "fighter" :-) 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. Would you rather have a pilot heads-down staring at an ineffective radar display or heads-up scanning for traffic? 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. 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'd be most interested in the information contained in those articles. They're on their way. Why do you make it sound like it was solely Mr. Garner's responsibility to avoid the military jet? Because I don't think ROW was the issue here. Neither pilot failed to see the other. Neither pilot was faulted for failure to see and avoid. The NTSB _has_ addressed "the inherent limitations of the see and avoid concept of separation of aircraft operating under visual flight rules" [...on MTRs], but their conclusions are/were not to your statisfaction, I suspect. One pilot used the system as it was intended and followed procedures intended to prevent midairs - the other pilot did not. I do not see right-of-way as a blanket absolution and/or reason for chucking what I (and the NTSB, as reported) see as the major causal factors in this mishap. I cited the only MTR reference I saw in the AIM. If the AIM contains more MTR related information, I'd be interested in reviewing it. The section you posted was sufficient and clear in its intent. Messing around in a hot MTR is risky. Do so at *your own* risk. Dave 'Fox four' Hyde |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Big John wrote:
I've not seen any AF Contract School accidents investigated by NTSB. If there was a GA aircraft involved with contract school aircraft, NTBS would be part of the investigation. Big John, The T-3A aircraft were military aircraft, owned by the USAF and modified from the British version to the "unique" USAF specifications, so their accidents would have been investigated by Air Force Safety personnel. The T-3As were not civil certified aircraft. Who owns the DA-20s? If Embry-Riddle owns them, they have to be civil certified and so I would think that any accidents they have would be investigated by the NTSB. If the USAF screening program results in the award of a PPL, I would think the program has to follow FARs and any resulting accidents would be investigated by the NTSB. The whole T-3A fiasco has been a particularly sore subject with me as I thought the entire premise for its procurement was bogus and it turned out to be a huge waste of tax dollars (as well as a contributor to a tragic loss of lives.) Tim Witt |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Were you involved in procurement of the T-3A?
Big John No, but I am active duty Air Force and I have always had issues with General McPeak's rationale for buying the T-3A. I used to see them parked at Hondo for months/years while the USAF decided what to do with them. It always seemed to me a colossal waste. Millions of dollars spent for no good reason and no one ever held to account for ramrodding this aquisition through. I never did hear what decision was made but I would be very surprised if they got sold to the civilian sector as anything but cut-up fuselages and engine parts for a return of pennies on the dollar to the taxpayer. Tim Witt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mil Acft heard on HF freqs, Monday 20 Sep 2004 | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 0 | September 21st 04 08:28 PM |
CIA Vietnam war controlled USAF aircraft missions | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 31 | March 3rd 04 10:56 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
A-4 / A-7 Question | Tank Fixer | Military Aviation | 135 | October 25th 03 03:59 AM |
FS Books USAF, Navy, Marine pilots and planes | Ken Insch | Military Aviation | 0 | July 20th 03 02:36 AM |