Third Military-Civil MAC Jan. 18, 2005

[Larry Dighera]

The latest Military-Civil MAC occurred Tuesday, January 18, 2005.
The military pilots stated the Air Tractor impacted the right side of
their aircraft.


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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.


------------------------------------------------------------
First Military-Civil MAC:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
The NTSB erroneously found the glider pilot to be at fault despite
FAA regulations granting him the right-of-way over powered
aircraft.


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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)(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.


------------------------------------------------------------

Second Military-Civil MAC:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA01FA028A&rpt=fi
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.

the failure of the F-16 flight lead pilot and F-16 accident pilot
to maintain an adequate visual lookout while maneuvering.

Factors contributing to the accident were:

the F-16 flight lead pilots decision to discontinue radar traffic
advisory service,

the F-16 flight lead pilots failure to identify a position error
in his aircrafts navigational system,

the F-16 pilots subsequent inadvertent [sic] entry into class C
airspace without establishing and maintaining required
communications with air traffic control (ATC);

and ATCs lack of awareness that there was more than one F-16
aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced the ATC
controllers ability to detect and resolve the conflict that
resulted in the collision.

The NTSB apparently failed to notice, that the F-16's navigation
system error did not affect Parker's deliberate decision to descend
into Class B airspace without the required ATC clearance.


------------------------------------------------------------
Third Military-Civil MAC:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=2
NTSB Identification: CHI05FA055B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, January 18, 2005 in Hollister, OK
Aircraft: Air Tractor AT-502B, registration: N8526M
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor, 1 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On [Tuesday] January 18, 2005, approximately 1128 central standard
time, an Air Tractor AT-502B single-engine agricultural airplane,
N8526M, and a Cessna T-37B, a twin-turbojet military trainer, tail
number 66008003, operating under the call sign Cider 21, were
destroyed following a midair collision during cruise flight near
Hollister, Oklahoma. The AT-502B was registered to a private
individual and operated by a commercial pilot. The T-37B was
registered to and operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). The
commercial pilot in the AT-502B was fatally injured. The USAF flight
instructor pilot was not injured and the USAF student pilot sustained
minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a
flight plan was not filed for the AT-502B, who was operating under 14
Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 for the ferry flight. An
instrument rules flight plan was filed for the T-37B, who was
operating under Air Force Instructions (AFI) 11-202, Volume III. The
cross-country flight for the AT-502B flight originated from the Olney
Municipal Airport, near Olney, Texas, approximately 1100, and was
destined for Huron, South Dakota, with an intermediate fuel stop. The
local flight for the T-37B originated from the Sheppard Air Force Base
(SPS), near Wichita Falls, Texas, approximately 1022.

According to company personnel from an Air Tractor dealership in
Arkansas, the pilot was hired to ferry the recently purchased AT-502B
to the new owner in Huron, South Dakota, with an intermediate
refueling stop in Hutchinson, Kansas. Company personnel at the Air
Tractor factory located in Olney, Texas, reported that the AT-502B was
equipped with basic visual flight rules (VFR) instruments and was not
equipped with any radios or a transponder. Company personnel added
that the pilot had a hand held aircraft radio transmitter, a hand held
Garmin 295 GPS unit, and various maps prior to departure.

During an interview with the NTSB investigator-in-charge (IIC), the
USAF flight instructor and student pilot reported that they were on a
routine mission training flight (C2803). After a non-eventful
departure from SPS, they performed two normal overhead approaches to
SPS before being cleared into the Military Operations Area (MOA). Once
in the MOA, the training flight completed one loop, a barrel roll, two

power on stalls, one spin recovery, two spin prevents, traffic pattern
stalls, and slow flight. After completing the series of high altitude
maneuvers, the training flight received radar vectors to the RANCH
intersection and then to the Frederick Municipal Airport (FDR), near
Frederick, Oklahoma, which is commonly referred to by the USAF as
"Hacker." As the flight descended to an altitude of 6,000 feet, the
instructor noted the bottom of the overcast cloud ceiling to be
between 6,000 and 6,500 feet mean sea level (msl).

After arriving at Hacker, the training flight performed a straight in
no flap landing, and requested left closed traffic. After completing a
normal overhead approach and a single-engine landing, the flight
proceeded to depart Hacker's airspace to the east and climbed to 5,500
feet msl.

During this time, the USAF student pilot performed the en route
portion of his checklist and contacted USAF Radar Approach Control
(Rapcon) to notify them they were en route back to Sheppard Air Force
Base and requested the "home plate" arrival.

Rapcon advised the flight that they had radar contact, and to descend
to 5,000 feet msl on a heading of 100 degrees.

After leveling off at 5,000 feet msl at an indicated airspeed of 200
knots, the flight instructor took control of the T-37B. The instructor
stated that he briefly scanned at the student pilot's altimeter on the
left side of the instrument panel (a standard practice for T-37 flight
instructors). As he was turning his head back to the right, he noticed
a "high visibility yellow airplane" out of the right corner of his
eye. The student pilot stated that as the flight instructor took
control of the aircraft, he scanned outside the airplane to the left,
and started to look back to the right when he saw the yellow Air
Tractor heading towards the right side of the T-37B.

Subsequently, the instructor and student pilot recalled feeling a
spinning sensation, and rolling inverted. Both the instructor and
student pilot initiated emergency egress procedures and ejected from
the aircraft.

The T-37B and AT-502B impacted farm fields about 3.5 miles east of
Hollister, Oklahoma. Both aircraft were partially consumed by a post
impact fire.

A witness located north of the accident site reported in a written
statement that he observed an aircraft descending rapidly in a nose
down attitude and on fire prior to losing sight of it behind a tree
line. Subsequently, the witness observed a second aircraft spinning in
a nose down attitude, and it was missing a wing. The witness added
that a plume of smoke was originating from the airplane but he didn't
see any flames. As the airplane continued to descend, he noticed two
parachutes on each side of the airplane and he decided to proceed to
the area to see if he could assist the pilots.
-------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.kfdx.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=7511

FAA STATES CROP DUSTER PILOT DIDN`T VIOLATE AIRSPACE
Friday, January 21, 2005


A Federal Aviation Administration official says the pilot of a crop
duster violated no rules before his plane and an Air Force training
jet collided in mid-air in Southwestern Oklahoma.

Pilot Dierk Nash of Wheatley, Arkansas died in the collision and crash
Tuesday in a military operating area over Tillman County, Oklahoma.
Nash was flying the plane from Texas to a customer in South Dakota and
the jet flown by Captain Christopher Otis and Second Lieutenant
Roderick James was returning to Sheppard Air Force Base. Otis and
James parachuted safely from the jet before it crashed. FAA spokesman
John Clabes says Nash had a clean flight record and was not in
violation of any rule as far as investigators can tell. The FAA is
assisting the National Transportation Safety Board`s investigation of
the crash. Sheppard Air Force Base is conducting its own investigation
in cooperation with the FAA and the NTSB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_05a/leadnews/189070-1.html
....With Details From Surviving Pilots

By Mary Grady
Newswriter, Editor

The T-37 pilots had completed a training session and were on their
way back to Sheppard Air Force Base, in Texas. They contacted USAF
Radar Approach Control and were told they had radar contact. They
descended to 5,000 feet and leveled off at 200 knots, the NTSB said.
After leveling off from the descent, the T-37 instructor took control
and briefly scanned the student's altimeter on the left side of the
panel, according to standard practice. As he was turning back to the
right, he told the NTSB he saw a "high visibility yellow airplane."
The student pilot said that as the instructor took control, he scanned
outside the airplane to the left, and started to look back to the
right when he saw the yellow Air Tractor heading toward the right side
of the T-37. The Air Force pilots said they felt a spinning motion and
rolled inverted, and then ejected from the airplane. If the results of
the investigation determine that no rules or procedures were broken in
the process of a man's death and the destruction of two aircraft,
perhaps it will be determined there is need to change the rules or
procedures. We'll let you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_05a/leadnews/189069-1.html

NTSB Reports On Fatal Military/Civilian Midair...

By Mary Grady
Newswriter, Editor

In Search Of Causal Factors
The pilots of an Air Force training jet saw the crop-duster seconds
before the two airplanes collided 5,000 feet above rural Oklahoma
about 11 a.m. on Jan. 18, the NTSB said in its preliminary report,
posted Thursday. The two pilots in the Cessna T-37B jet ejected
safely. The pilot of the Air Tractor AT-502B, Dierk Nash, 39, of
Arkansas, was killed. FAA spokesman John Clabes told the local KFDX
News that Nash had a clean flight record and was not in violation of
any rule as far as investigators can tell.

Nash was flying VFR, ferrying the Air Tractor from the plant in Olney,
Texas, to its new owner in South Dakota. He had been flying about a
half hour. The crop-duster was not equipped with a radio or
transponder, but Nash had a handheld radio and a GPS unit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


http://avweb.com/newswire/11_03b/briefs/189003-1.html
January 20, 2005

Military/Civilian Midair Probed

By Russ Niles
Newswriter, Editor

The vast majority of midair collisions are in or near the pattern so
investigators have their work cut out for them in the tragic meeting
of an Air Tractor crop-duster and an Air Force T-37 5,000 feet above
the wide-open spaces of Oklahoma on Tuesday morning. The Air Force
pilots, instructor Capt. Christopher S. Otis and student 2nd Lt.
Roderick V. James, bailed out safely but the Air Tractor pilot, Derek
Nach, died.

Hunting guide Jerry Mayfield reached the Tweet pilots first and said
one of them told him he didn't see the collision coming. There have
been similar events, before. Nach was ferrying the brand-new Air
Tractor from the plant in Olney, Texas, to its new owner in South
Dakota. Investigators have declined detailed comment or speculation on
the cause of the collision. The crash occurred near Hollister, Okla.,
in an area commonly used by the air training wings based at Sheppard
AFB near Wichita Falls, Texas. AVweb reported another
military/civilian collision in November 2004. The NTSB's current
synopsis and probable cause (a PDF file) are available online. After
that collision, the F-16 pilot ejected safely and walked to a local
house to use the phone.

The Cessna pilot was killed.
------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mike Rapoport]

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.

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The latest Military-Civil MAC occurred Tuesday, January 18, 2005.
> The military pilots stated the Air Tractor impacted the right side of
> their aircraft.
>
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> First Military-Civil MAC:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
> The NTSB erroneously found the glider pilot to be at fault despite
> FAA regulations granting him the right-of-way over powered
> aircraft.
>
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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)(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
> parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Second Military-Civil MAC:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA01FA028A&rpt=fi
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
> cause(s) of this accident as follows.
>
> the failure of the F-16 flight lead pilot and F-16 accident pilot
> to maintain an adequate visual lookout while maneuvering.
>
> Factors contributing to the accident were:
>
> the F-16 flight lead pilots decision to discontinue radar traffic
> advisory service,
>
> the F-16 flight lead pilots failure to identify a position error
> in his aircrafts navigational system,
>
> the F-16 pilots subsequent inadvertent [sic] entry into class C
> airspace without establishing and maintaining required
> communications with air traffic control (ATC);
>
> and ATCs lack of awareness that there was more than one F-16
> aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced the ATC
> controllers ability to detect and resolve the conflict that
> resulted in the collision.
>
> The NTSB apparently failed to notice, that the F-16's navigation
> system error did not affect Parker's deliberate decision to descend
> into Class B airspace without the required ATC clearance.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Third Military-Civil MAC:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=2
> NTSB Identification: CHI05FA055B
> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> Accident occurred Tuesday, January 18, 2005 in Hollister, OK
> Aircraft: Air Tractor AT-502B, registration: N8526M
> Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
>
> This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
> errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
> report has been completed.
>
> On [Tuesday] January 18, 2005, approximately 1128 central standard
> time, an Air Tractor AT-502B single-engine agricultural airplane,
> N8526M, and a Cessna T-37B, a twin-turbojet military trainer, tail
> number 66008003, operating under the call sign Cider 21, were
> destroyed following a midair collision during cruise flight near
> Hollister, Oklahoma. The AT-502B was registered to a private
> individual and operated by a commercial pilot. The T-37B was
> registered to and operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). The
> commercial pilot in the AT-502B was fatally injured. The USAF flight
> instructor pilot was not injured and the USAF student pilot sustained
> minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a
> flight plan was not filed for the AT-502B, who was operating under 14
> Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 for the ferry flight. An
> instrument rules flight plan was filed for the T-37B, who was
> operating under Air Force Instructions (AFI) 11-202, Volume III. The
> cross-country flight for the AT-502B flight originated from the Olney
> Municipal Airport, near Olney, Texas, approximately 1100, and was
> destined for Huron, South Dakota, with an intermediate fuel stop. The
> local flight for the T-37B originated from the Sheppard Air Force Base
> (SPS), near Wichita Falls, Texas, approximately 1022.
>
> According to company personnel from an Air Tractor dealership in
> Arkansas, the pilot was hired to ferry the recently purchased AT-502B
> to the new owner in Huron, South Dakota, with an intermediate
> refueling stop in Hutchinson, Kansas. Company personnel at the Air
> Tractor factory located in Olney, Texas, reported that the AT-502B was
> equipped with basic visual flight rules (VFR) instruments and was not
> equipped with any radios or a transponder. Company personnel added
> that the pilot had a hand held aircraft radio transmitter, a hand held
> Garmin 295 GPS unit, and various maps prior to departure.
>
> During an interview with the NTSB investigator-in-charge (IIC), the
> USAF flight instructor and student pilot reported that they were on a
> routine mission training flight (C2803). After a non-eventful
> departure from SPS, they performed two normal overhead approaches to
> SPS before being cleared into the Military Operations Area (MOA). Once
> in the MOA, the training flight completed one loop, a barrel roll, two
>
> power on stalls, one spin recovery, two spin prevents, traffic pattern
> stalls, and slow flight. After completing the series of high altitude
> maneuvers, the training flight received radar vectors to the RANCH
> intersection and then to the Frederick Municipal Airport (FDR), near
> Frederick, Oklahoma, which is commonly referred to by the USAF as
> "Hacker." As the flight descended to an altitude of 6,000 feet, the
> instructor noted the bottom of the overcast cloud ceiling to be
> between 6,000 and 6,500 feet mean sea level (msl).
>
> After arriving at Hacker, the training flight performed a straight in
> no flap landing, and requested left closed traffic. After completing a
> normal overhead approach and a single-engine landing, the flight
> proceeded to depart Hacker's airspace to the east and climbed to 5,500
> feet msl.
>
> During this time, the USAF student pilot performed the en route
> portion of his checklist and contacted USAF Radar Approach Control
> (Rapcon) to notify them they were en route back to Sheppard Air Force
> Base and requested the "home plate" arrival.
>
> Rapcon advised the flight that they had radar contact, and to descend
> to 5,000 feet msl on a heading of 100 degrees.
>
> After leveling off at 5,000 feet msl at an indicated airspeed of 200
> knots, the flight instructor took control of the T-37B. The instructor
> stated that he briefly scanned at the student pilot's altimeter on the
> left side of the instrument panel (a standard practice for T-37 flight
> instructors). As he was turning his head back to the right, he noticed
> a "high visibility yellow airplane" out of the right corner of his
> eye. The student pilot stated that as the flight instructor took
> control of the aircraft, he scanned outside the airplane to the left,
> and started to look back to the right when he saw the yellow Air
> Tractor heading towards the right side of the T-37B.
>
> Subsequently, the instructor and student pilot recalled feeling a
> spinning sensation, and rolling inverted. Both the instructor and
> student pilot initiated emergency egress procedures and ejected from
> the aircraft.
>
> The T-37B and AT-502B impacted farm fields about 3.5 miles east of
> Hollister, Oklahoma. Both aircraft were partially consumed by a post
> impact fire.
>
> A witness located north of the accident site reported in a written
> statement that he observed an aircraft descending rapidly in a nose
> down attitude and on fire prior to losing sight of it behind a tree
> line. Subsequently, the witness observed a second aircraft spinning in
> a nose down attitude, and it was missing a wing. The witness added
> that a plume of smoke was originating from the airplane but he didn't
> see any flames. As the airplane continued to descend, he noticed two
> parachutes on each side of the airplane and he decided to proceed to
> the area to see if he could assist the pilots.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.kfdx.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=7511
>
> FAA STATES CROP DUSTER PILOT DIDN`T VIOLATE AIRSPACE
> Friday, January 21, 2005
>
>
> A Federal Aviation Administration official says the pilot of a crop
> duster violated no rules before his plane and an Air Force training
> jet collided in mid-air in Southwestern Oklahoma.
>
> Pilot Dierk Nash of Wheatley, Arkansas died in the collision and crash
> Tuesday in a military operating area over Tillman County, Oklahoma.
> Nash was flying the plane from Texas to a customer in South Dakota and
> the jet flown by Captain Christopher Otis and Second Lieutenant
> Roderick James was returning to Sheppard Air Force Base. Otis and
> James parachuted safely from the jet before it crashed. FAA spokesman
> John Clabes says Nash had a clean flight record and was not in
> violation of any rule as far as investigators can tell. The FAA is
> assisting the National Transportation Safety Board`s investigation of
> the crash. Sheppard Air Force Base is conducting its own investigation
> in cooperation with the FAA and the NTSB.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_05a/leadnews/189070-1.html
> ...With Details From Surviving Pilots
>
> By Mary Grady
> Newswriter, Editor
>
> The T-37 pilots had completed a training session and were on their
> way back to Sheppard Air Force Base, in Texas. They contacted USAF
> Radar Approach Control and were told they had radar contact. They
> descended to 5,000 feet and leveled off at 200 knots, the NTSB said.
> After leveling off from the descent, the T-37 instructor took control
> and briefly scanned the student's altimeter on the left side of the
> panel, according to standard practice. As he was turning back to the
> right, he told the NTSB he saw a "high visibility yellow airplane."
> The student pilot said that as the instructor took control, he scanned
> outside the airplane to the left, and started to look back to the
> right when he saw the yellow Air Tractor heading toward the right side
> of the T-37. The Air Force pilots said they felt a spinning motion and
> rolled inverted, and then ejected from the airplane. If the results of
> the investigation determine that no rules or procedures were broken in
> the process of a man's death and the destruction of two aircraft,
> perhaps it will be determined there is need to change the rules or
> procedures. We'll let you know.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_05a/leadnews/189069-1.html
>
> NTSB Reports On Fatal Military/Civilian Midair...
>
> By Mary Grady
> Newswriter, Editor
>
> In Search Of Causal Factors
> The pilots of an Air Force training jet saw the crop-duster seconds
> before the two airplanes collided 5,000 feet above rural Oklahoma
> about 11 a.m. on Jan. 18, the NTSB said in its preliminary report,
> posted Thursday. The two pilots in the Cessna T-37B jet ejected
> safely. The pilot of the Air Tractor AT-502B, Dierk Nash, 39, of
> Arkansas, was killed. FAA spokesman John Clabes told the local KFDX
> News that Nash had a clean flight record and was not in violation of
> any rule as far as investigators can tell.
>
> Nash was flying VFR, ferrying the Air Tractor from the plant in Olney,
> Texas, to its new owner in South Dakota. He had been flying about a
> half hour. The crop-duster was not equipped with a radio or
> transponder, but Nash had a handheld radio and a GPS unit.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://avweb.com/newswire/11_03b/briefs/189003-1.html
> January 20, 2005
>
> Military/Civilian Midair Probed
>
> By Russ Niles
> Newswriter, Editor
>
> The vast majority of midair collisions are in or near the pattern so
> investigators have their work cut out for them in the tragic meeting
> of an Air Tractor crop-duster and an Air Force T-37 5,000 feet above
> the wide-open spaces of Oklahoma on Tuesday morning. The Air Force
> pilots, instructor Capt. Christopher S. Otis and student 2nd Lt.
> Roderick V. James, bailed out safely but the Air Tractor pilot, Derek
> Nach, died.
>
> Hunting guide Jerry Mayfield reached the Tweet pilots first and said
> one of them told him he didn't see the collision coming. There have
> been similar events, before. Nach was ferrying the brand-new Air
> Tractor from the plant in Olney, Texas, to its new owner in South
> Dakota. Investigators have declined detailed comment or speculation on
> the cause of the collision. The crash occurred near Hollister, Okla.,
> in an area commonly used by the air training wings based at Sheppard
> AFB near Wichita Falls, Texas. AVweb reported another
> military/civilian collision in November 2004. The NTSB's current
> synopsis and probable cause (a PDF file) are available online. After
> that collision, the F-16 pilot ejected safely and walked to a local
> house to use the phone.
>
> The Cessna pilot was killed.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:46 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
et>::

>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.

[Steve.T]

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. So who has the
right-of-way when one is being "cut off" by another, much faster a/c?

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.

So I do think speed has something to do with this MAC.

Regards,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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).
>

If you're referring to the F-16/172 midair near Bradenton Florida, that
occurred on November 16th 2000. ATC is "off the hook" in that one as well.

[Allen]

"Steve.T" > wrote in message
ups.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. So who has the
> right-of-way when one is being "cut off" by another, much faster a/c?
>
> 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.
>
> So I do think speed has something to do with this MAC.
>
> Regards,
> Steve.T
> PP ASEL/Instrument
>

If you were in VMC then VFR rules apply (see and avoid) and it is both
pilot's responsibilty to watch for traffic. Otherwise just get flight
following, couple up the autopilot, and read a good book. Let the other guy
watch out for you :)

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allen" > wrote in message
m...
>
> If you were in VMC then VFR rules apply (see and avoid) and it is both
> pilot's responsibilty to watch for traffic. Otherwise just get flight
> following, couple up the autopilot, and read a good book. Let the other
> guy
> watch out for you :)
>

VFR rules apply when you're operating VFR, IFR rules apply when you're
operating IFR, "see and avoid" applies when weather conditions permit.

[Mike Williamson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:46 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>
>>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.
>
>

Perhaps not legally. For the practical matter, I'd say that the
pilot flying 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. It would, almost certainly, have saved
the man's life. Of course, a transponder would likely have done
the same thing, whether he bothered to talk to anyone or not.

Mike

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:09:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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).
>>
>
>If you're referring to the F-16/172 midair near Bradenton Florida, that
>occurred on November 16th 2000. ATC is "off the hook" in that one as well.
>

I call your attention to number 4 of the NTSB Findings:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA01FA028B&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)

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:46 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>>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.

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:12:59 GMT, Mike Williamson
> wrote in
et>::

>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/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I call your attention to number 4 of the NTSB Findings:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA01FA028B&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"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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.

[Dick Meade]

"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.

[Larry Dighera]

Preliminary video with military spokesman and news-clowns here:
http://www.thehometownchannel.com/news/4107670/detail.html#

Slide show here:
http://www.thehometownchannel.com/news/4107670/detail.html#

Update here:
http://www.slackdavis.com/news_article.php/news_id/argval/1143/argname/back_link/argval/news_room

Dead pilot's mother speaks:
http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=%22t-37%22++%22air+tractor%22+2005+-%22Associated+Press%22&ei=UTF-8&n=10&fl=0&u=www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/article/0%252C1891%252CTRN_5784_3483631%252C00.html&w=t-37+%22air+tractor%22+2005&d=6E89BF2738&icp=1&.intl=us




On 8 Feb 2005 10:54:08 -0800, "Steve.T" > wrote
in om>::

>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/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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 here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:00:17 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I call your attention to number 4 of the NTSB Findings:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA01FA028B&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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:17:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"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/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=27c71dab383e6bf76c5bee27b6f95482&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&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?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1

[Larry Dighera]

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:14:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:46 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote in
>> et>::
>>
>>>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.

[Steve.T]

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

[Steve.T]

Larry Dighera:

Thank you for that fact - you are missing the point of 14CFR91.113(f).

I think this is the point most of us have been trying to make - and
most of us are not lawyers, but live by the rules of physics and common
sense, something that many times seems lost on lawyers and congress
critters.

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Larry Dighera]

On 9 Feb 2005 18:31:41 -0800, "Steve.T" > wrote
in . com>::

>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.
>

What does it reveal?

Was one of the aircraft being overtaken from behind in this MAC?

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On 9 Feb 2005 18:31:41 -0800, "Steve.T" > wrote
> in . com>::
>
>>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.
>>
>
> What does it reveal?
>
> Was one of the aircraft being overtaken from behind in this MAC?

Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...

[Morgans]

"Blueskies" > wrote

> Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...
>
By definition, overtaken IS always from some degree of behind. Anything
catching up to you from behind 90 degrees (off the side) of the flight path
qualifies as you being overtaken.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:04:36 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>"Blueskies" > wrote
>
>> Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...
>>
>By definition, overtaken IS always from some degree of behind. Anything
>catching up to you from behind 90 degrees (off the side) of the flight path
>qualifies as you being overtaken.


According to the preliminary NTSB report
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=2


The Air Tractor was destined for Huron, South Dakota from Olney
Municipal Airport, near Olney, Texas, with an intermediate
refueling stop in Hutchinson, Kansas.

The T-37 departed Frederick Municipal Airport (FDR), near
Frederick, Oklahoma, en route back to Sheppard Air Force Base
(located in northern Wichita Falls, Texas) on a heading of 100
degrees.

The T-37B and AT-502B impacted farm fields about 3.5 miles east of
Hollister, Oklahoma.


From this information in conjunction with a sectional chart, one
should be able to deduce the likely headings of each aircraft at the
time of impact. Near as I am able to tell from Mapquest* maps, the
T-37 was east bound and the Air Tractor was north bound.

If that constitutes 'overtaking' as defined by the FAA, I would be
surprised.




* For reference:

T-37 intended leg:
Frederick, OK to Wichita Falls, TX
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&1a=&1c=Wichita%20Falls&1s=tx&1z=&1y=US&2ex=1&src=maps&ct=NA&2a=&2c=Frederick&2s=OK&2z=&2y=US&2pn=&2l=ECMixCmL0cI%3d&2g=x%2bF0%2fcCsT90%3d&2v=CITY&2pl=

T-37 actual leg:
Frederick, OK to Hollister, OK:
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&1a=&1c=hollister&1s=ok&1z=&1y=US&2ex=1&src=maps&ct=NA&2a=&2c=Frederick&2s=OK&2z=&2y=US&2pn=&2l=ECMixCmL0cI%3d&2g=x%2bF0%2fcCsT90%3d&2v=CITY&2pl=

Air Tractor intended leg:
Olney, TX to Hutchinson, KS
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&1a=&1c=Hutchinson&1s=ks&1z=&1y=US&2ex=1&src=maps&ct=NA&2a=&2c=Olney&2s=TX&2z=&2y=US&2pn=&2l=SpXDeEjqTss%3d&2g=vuPwcqRgi0Q%3d&2v=CITY&2pl=

Air Tractor actual leg:
Olney, TX to Hollister, OK:
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&1a=&1c=hollister&1s=ok&1z=&1y=US&2ex=1&src=maps&ct=NA&2a=&2c=Olney&2s=TX&2z=&2y=US&2pn=&2l=SpXDeEjqTss%3d&2g=vuPwcqRgi0Q%3d&2v=CITY&2pl=

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATC was found by the NTSB to be contributory to the cause of this MAC.
>

Well, that doesn't make it so. What ATC error contributed to this accident?
The NTSB brief says "ATC's lack of awareness that there was more than one
F-16 aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced the ATC controllers
ability to detect and resolve the conflict that resulted in the collision."
I'll wager the controller understands very well that EVERY formation flight
has more than one aircraft in it, although the NTSB may not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

The NTSB preliminary report indicates the collision occurred after the
period of airwork in the MOA and after pattern work at Frederick Municipal
Airport. A check of the sectional chart indicates "3.5 miles east of
Hollister, Oklahoma" is not in a MOA.


>
> 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?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1
>

No, I contend (based on the limited information available at this time),
that the Air Tractor pilot and T-37 crew violated the requirement to
maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid other aircraft. I base that on
the fact that a collision did occur between these aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...
>

Overtakes tend to be from behind.

[Blueskies]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...
>>
>
> Overtakes tend to be from behind.


My take on this is anything that catches up with you from the 179° behind the plane is overtaking you.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:39:59 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>
>>> Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...
>>>
>>
>> Overtakes tend to be from behind.
>
>
>My take on this is anything that catches up with you from the 179° behind the plane is overtaking you.
>

Are you attempting to imply, that if aircraft A impacts aircraft B
from a relative bearing from aircraft B of ~90 degrees to 270 degrees,
it constitutes aircraft B being overtaken by aircraft A by authority
of regulation?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:11:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> ATC was found by the NTSB to be contributory to the cause of this MAC.
>>
>
>Well, that doesn't make it so.

Yes. I've noticed. :-(

>What ATC error contributed to this accident?

A conflict alert activated (10 times) 30 seconds before being radioed
to the Cessna pilot by ATC.

>The NTSB brief says "ATC's lack of awareness that there was more than one
>F-16 aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced the ATC controllers
>ability to detect and resolve the conflict that resulted in the collision."
>I'll wager the controller understands very well that EVERY formation flight
>has more than one aircraft in it, although the NTSB may not.
>

I agree. Below is more information:


This interview was reported in the Naples News March 7, 2001:

The Air Force said there were two main causes of the accident:
Olivier and Kreuder failed to "see and avoid" each other in time
to prevent the collision, and Tampa air traffic controllers failed
to transmit a safety alert to Olivier when their radar system
showed the two aircraft were in danger of colliding.

Thirty seconds before the collision, there was a radar alert to
controllers that was not passed on to the Cessna, Scott said,
adding that controllers refused to be interviewed by the military.

(I believe that Parker's decision to descend into terminal airspace at
~400 knots without benefit of the required ATC clearance nor radio
contact was the primary cause, despite Scott's failure to find it
contributory.)


Here's another Naples News article, that contains more details of
ATC's failure to issue a warning:

Probe reports trainee was at radar screen during air collision

Saturday, August 11, 2001

Associated Press

BRADENTON — A trainee was at the radar screen when an Air Force
jet collided with a private plane in November, said a Federal
Aviation Administration report made public Friday.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that documents obtained from
the agency said the trainee was at the screen at a Tampa air
control tower at the same time controllers in Miami were trying to
warn the pilots off their collision course.

[...]

Two Air Force pilots were flying 480 mph — 180 mph faster than
federal and Air Force guidelines allow in that urban area — on a
practice bombing run to rural Avon Park.

[...]

The FAA documents said the trainer for the unidentified novice
controller was on the telephone to the Miami controllers at the
time of the collision over Manatee County.

The FAA's report includes signed statements by the trainer and
trainee assigned to Tampa's south satellite, known as "S" position
on Nov. 16.

The two F-16s over Manatee County were designated Ninja 1 and
Ninja 2.

"I was working the 'S' position. The traffic was moderate to
heavy. I took the automated hand-off on Ninja 1. My trainee
plugged in, to train, at about this time," wrote air traffic
controller Mark Allen.

Miami controllers had directed the F-16s to an outdated radio
frequency and they were unable to initiate contact with Tampa.

"I answered a phone call from MIA regarding Ninja 1's altitude. I
saw a fast moving target, southbound, and figured it was Ninja. I
pointed to the radar scope and told my trainee to issue traffic to
N829 (Olivier)," he continued.

"I saw the fast moving target and N829 merge. When N829 did not
respond, I took the position from the trainee," Allen wrote.

The trainee, whose name has not been released, wrote that when
Miami controllers called, he "didn't know what they were talking
about."

After hearing a "Mayday" call, he wrote he was ordered to leave
the controls.

According to Allen's report, Miami controllers or an Air Force
radar man telephoned to ask for the proper Tampa frequency. By
that time, it was too late to save Olivier.

The FAA report details the contact between controllers in Miami
and Tampa in the moments before and after the crash.

"Can you tell me what the altitude is on that Ninja 1? I lost the
target on him," asked one Miami controller.

"Ahh. Hang on. I see him down at 2,000 (feet)," responded the
Tampa trainee.

Nine seconds later, the trainee attempted to make a radio call to
Olivier: "Traffic off your left side. Ahh. Two thousand."

There was no response. After Allen took back the controls and made
three more attempts to contact Olivier, Ninja 1 sent out a
distress signal.

Ten minutes after the crash, the Air Force pilots and Tampa
controllers were still trying to figure out what happened, the
report shows.



This appeared in the Naples News March 9, 2001:

Associated Press

An Air Force investigation released earlier this week partially
blames its own pilots and air traffic controllers. The Air Force
said that air traffic controllers had time to move the Cessna out
of the way when they received a 30-second warning that the
aircraft were on a collision course.


And from Air Force News Archive March 7, 2001:

Command releases F-16 accident report

03/07/01 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- Air Combat
Command investigators have determined the cause of a midair
collision between an F-16 Fighting Falcon and a Cessna 172 near
Bradenton, Fla., on Nov. 16. They believe a critical combination
of avionics anomalies, procedural errors and individual mistakes
-- on the ground and in the air -- led to the accident.

Second, Tampa air traffic controllers failed to transmit a safety
alert to Cessna 829 when their radar system generated "conflict
alert" warnings, indicating that two aircraft were in danger of a
collision. Investigators determined that if the controllers had
issued a safety alert to the Cessna when the first conflict alert
began, it is likely the pilot would have had time to maneuver to
avoid the collision.


And finally from the NTSB accident brief:

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. ...
The developmental controller informed the Cessna pilot at 15:48:09
that he had traffic off his left side, but received no response.



Oh, and then there's is this:

Published on March 8, 2001, Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL)

1 controller on leave, 1 back on job

One of the two air traffic controllers at Tampa Approach
responsible for communicating with the F-16s and the Cessna that
collided over south Manatee County is on leave. The other is back
at work.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees civilian
control towers, will not release the controllers' names or
information about why one of them is on leave. The FAA cited
employee privacy laws. FAA officials would say only that the leave
for one employee began after the crash that ...

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:21:52 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>The NTSB preliminary report indicates the collision occurred after the
>period of airwork in the MOA and after pattern work at Frederick Municipal
>Airport. A check of the sectional chart indicates "3.5 miles east of
>Hollister, Oklahoma" is not in a MOA.
>

Thanks for looking it up.

>>
>> 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?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1
>>
>
>No, I contend (based on the limited information available at this time),
>that the Air Tractor pilot and T-37 crew violated the requirement to
>maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid other aircraft. I base that on
>the fact that a collision did occur between these aircraft.
>

Do you consider the fact that the Air Tractor was to the right of the
T-37 to be significant with regard to right-of-way regulation §
91.113(d)?


There is also the issue of the 5,000 foot altitude at which this MAC
occurred.

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:39:59 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Overtakes tend to be from behind.
>>
>>
>>My take on this is anything that catches up with you from the 179° behind the plane is overtaking you.
>>
>
> Are you attempting to imply, that if aircraft A impacts aircraft B
> from a relative bearing from aircraft B of ~90 degrees to 270 degrees,
> it constitutes aircraft B being overtaken by aircraft A by authority
> of regulation?
>
>

If it is coming in from behind either wingtip (assuming a conventional design) I would say it is overtaking, in other
words between 3:01 and 8:59 o'clock.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:49:43 GMOn Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:39:59 GMT,
"Blueskies" > wrote in
>::

T, "Blueskies" > wrote in
>::
>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:39:59 GMT, "Blueskies"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>>
>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't say anything about being overtaken from behind...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Overtakes tend to be from behind.
>>>
>>>
>>>My take on this is anything that catches up with you from the 179° behind the plane is overtaking you.
>>>
>>
>> Are you attempting to imply, that if aircraft A impacts aircraft B
>> from a relative bearing from aircraft B of ~90 degrees to 270 degrees,
>> it constitutes aircraft B being overtaken by aircraft A by authority
>> of regulation?
>>
>
>If it is coming in from behind either wingtip (assuming a conventional design) I would say it is overtaking, in other
>words between 3:01 and 8:59 o'clock.
>

I understand your reasoning, although I don't really agree with it.

What would you call it if the aircraft was coming in at 9 o'clock or 3
o'clock?

It would be interesting to know what constitutes 'overtaking' in the
eyes of the FAA.

[Morgans]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote

>
> I understand your reasoning, although I don't really agree with it.
>
> What would you call it if the aircraft was coming in at 9 o'clock or 3
> o'clock?
>
> It would be interesting to know what constitutes 'overtaking' in the
> eyes of the FAA.

I really don't see why you are having a hard time with this. Everyone has
to go by the same conventions, or else the person who is supposed to hold
course turns to avoid, right while the person that is supposed to turn,
turns right into the first one's new course. Then you have the
dance-change, dance-change, crash and burn.

One is supposed (read required) to hold course and speed, and the other one
is supposed to alter to miss, usually behind. If you see someone coming at
you at 9:01, you are the one that is obligated to hold course and speed. It
just is not that tough.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:14:28 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote
>
>>
>> I understand your reasoning, although I don't really agree with it.
>>
>> What would you call it if the aircraft was coming in at 9 o'clock or 3
>> o'clock?

I'd still like an answer to the above question?

>> It would be interesting to know what constitutes 'overtaking' in the
>> eyes of the FAA.

I wonder where the above definition is written?

>I really don't see why you are having a hard time with this. Everyone has
>to go by the same conventions, or else the person who is supposed to hold
>course turns to avoid, right while the person that is supposed to turn,
>turns right into the first one's new course. Then you have the
>dance-change, dance-change, crash and burn.

I'm finding it difficult to visualize the situation(s) you are
describing. Are you able to provide a few concrete examples?

Here are some representative situations, that assume both aircraft are
at the same altitude located about one nautical mile from the point
(C) where their courses will intersect unless one or both take evasive
action to avoid:

1. Aircraft A heading 360 degrees,
aircraft B heading 120 degrees ahead and left of aircraft A

x
\ /
B x
/

C


--+--
| A
+



2. Aircraft A heading 360 degrees,
aircraft B heading 060 degrees ahead and left of aircraft A.

C

\
B x
/ \
x

--+--
| A
+



3. Aircraft A heading 360 degrees,
aircraft B heading 090 degrees ahead and left of aircraft A.

|
B +--+ C
|


--+--
| A
+


4. Aircraft A heading 360 degrees,
aircraft B heading 180 degrees directly in front of aircraft
A.

+
| B
--+--


C


--+--
| A
+


5. Aircraft A heading 360 degrees,
aircraft B heading 360 degrees directly behind and overtaking
aircraft A.

C


--+--
| A
+

--+--
| B
+


In your opinion, what are the correct actions for aircraft A and
aircraft B?

Here are mine:

1. Aircraft A: Turn to right and descend

Aircraft B: Turn to right and climb


2. Aircraft A: Turn to right and descend

Aircraft B: Turn to left and climb


3. Aircraft A: Turn to right and descend

Aircraft B: Turn to left and climb


4. Aircraft A: Turn to right

Aircraft B: Turn to right


5. Aircraft A: Hold course

Aircraft B: If in the (left hand) pattern, remain outside of
A's track (to the right), except final leg go
around;

en route, alter course 30 degrees left until well
ahead of A.


>One is supposed (read required) to hold course and speed,
>and the other one is supposed to alter to miss, usually behind.

This is the first I've heard of this. Are you able to provide a
citation that supports your assertions?

>If you see someone coming at you at 9:01 [o'clock], you are the one
>that is obligated to hold course and speed.

And here I thought FARs required each aircraft to take evasive action.
If they don't, what happens when traffic bearing down on your 9:01
o'clock fails to spot your aircraft?

>It just is not that tough.

I'm happy you find it so easy, and look forward to your citations and
examples.

[Morgans]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote
>
> I'm happy you find it so easy, and look forward to your citations and
> examples.
> ****************************
Wow, what a post. Drown 'em in BS?

Larry, you're not worth the time and effort. Sorry.

Someone else with a LOT of time, want to give it a wack?
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:13:45 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote
>>
>> I'm happy you find it so easy, and look forward to your citations and
>> examples.
>> ****************************
>Wow, what a post.

Thank you.

>Drown 'em in BS?

I wasn't drowned at all. :-)

>
>Larry, you're not worth the time and effort.

So you don't have any credible evidence to support your assertions, I
take it.

>Sorry.

Indeed you are. I am left to conclude, that you don't actually find
the subject as easy as you contended it was.

>Someone else with a LOT of time, want to give it a wack?

I sincerely doubt anyone shares your views, and I sincerely wonder
where you got those notions.