A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Third Military-Civil MAC Jan. 18, 2005



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 9th 05, 06:18 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 9th 05, 04:00 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 9th 05, 04:17 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 9th 05, 04:40 PM
Dick Meade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 9th 05, 05:27 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old February 9th 05, 05:30 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 9th 05, 05:46 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 9th 05, 05:47 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 9th 05, 10:48 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 10th 05, 03:31 AM
Steve.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:34 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 05:26 PM
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 December 13th 03 12:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.