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.

Larry Dighera wrote:

I'd be most interested in the information contained in those articles.

They're on their way. I'll address your post in a day or so as well.

Dave 'Daytimer' Hyde

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

(lance smith) wrote in message . com...
Are USAF accidents included in NTSB accident reports/statistics? I'm
not talking about skunkworks or other secret stuff, but what about
cadet trainers?
Purely military accidents are not investigated by the NTSB--the
military investigates their own accidents. Accidents involving both a
military aircraft and a civilian aircraft will be investigated by both
the NTSB and the service involved. The military does not fly under
the auspices of Federal Aviation Regulations however their regulations
are similar and in some ways complement the FARS. Similarly,
government agencies that operate aircraft such as States or Federal
Agencies do not necessarily fall under the restrictions and
regulations of the FARS you and I have to comply with. They sometimes
will investigate their own accidents for internal consumption but
oftentimes they'll "let" the NTSB investigate as they may not have the
resources to do it (unlike the military.) Whether or not a particular
accident gets NTSB scrutiny depends in large part as to under what
authority the flight is conducted. The Air Force has contracted out
much of its "Cadet training" and these operations might be under Part
141 or Part 65 of the FARs which would mean the NTSB would get
involved.

Tim

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.

Same goes for flying at the Air Force Academy. The Slingsby T-3A,
Firefly, aircraft suffered a high accident rate at the Academy (high
altitude field). Several cadets and instructors killed. All
investigated by Air Force. Birds were grounded and evaluated by a
detachment from Edwards and got a clean bill of health but due to
publicity, the training program was given to a Contract School flying
DA20-C1 Falcons.

23+ feet long
35+ wing span
125 HP

Big wing seems to have helped with accident rate and they, to date,
have performed excellently at Academy fields altitude.

Can't find syllabus on Internet but would guess they also took some of
the higher risk maneuvers out of program? It's only a screening
program (they get Private license) for entering Heavy Iron training
after graduation.

Big John
USAF (Ret)


On 14 Jul 2003 11:46:13 -0700, (Tim Witt)
wrote:

(lance smith) wrote in message . com...
Are USAF accidents included in NTSB accident reports/statistics? I'm
not talking about skunkworks or other secret stuff, but what about
cadet trainers?
Purely military accidents are not investigated by the NTSB--the
military investigates their own accidents. Accidents involving both a
military aircraft and a civilian aircraft will be investigated by both
the NTSB and the service involved. The military does not fly under
the auspices of Federal Aviation Regulations however their regulations
are similar and in some ways complement the FARS. Similarly,
government agencies that operate aircraft such as States or Federal
Agencies do not necessarily fall under the restrictions and
regulations of the FARS you and I have to comply with. They sometimes
will investigate their own accidents for internal consumption but
oftentimes they'll "let" the NTSB investigate as they may not have the
resources to do it (unlike the military.) Whether or not a particular
accident gets NTSB scrutiny depends in large part as to under what
authority the flight is conducted. The Air Force has contracted out
much of its "Cadet training" and these operations might be under Part
141 or Part 65 of the FARs which would mean the NTSB would get
involved.

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

Tim

On 15 Jul 2003 07:18:01 -0700, (Tim Witt)
wrote:

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.

Right. I gave a short version just to outline the subject. Probably
should have gone more into the detail you covered?

Who owns the DA-20s?

Government, AFA or USAF, leased 35 of the DA20-C1 aircraft and renamed
them "Falcon" vs the civilian name 'Eclipse'.

Since they are leased to AF, they will be handled like any AF aircraft
in event of an accident even though flown by a civilian contract
pilot.

E-R pilots will give instruction IAW FAA rules for both air and ground
training with an AF overlay of classic military operations and
progress check flights by AF Pilots.

Couldn't find a photo of any of the birds at AFA in my brief search
but found that two birds were delivered to the USNA for the same type
of program (run by Navy Pilots) and they had the 'N' number on them vs
military number and text id. Was a arrival photo so may have been
repainted to Navy specs at school?


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.)

Remember there was some political association with the T-3A. Can't
remember what it was now, but lots of hot air going around (and
aircraft mod to US standards, delay, delay, etc.)????

Who is getting the birds? I heard but can't remember. Think they will
be used for some proficiency flying some place? They are owned and
paid for and we need to get some value out of them vs dumping for a
song to some shyster who will turn and make a fortune reselling them.

Were you involved in procurement of the T-3A?

Looks like the storm missed us here in Houston ) No wind and just
moderate rain. Less than from one of our normal summer thunderstorms.
Wx will be OK for GA flying by tomorrow )

Fly safe

Big John

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