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.