USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

[RT]

Following an investigative teev program it appears US military pilots are
unable to stay awake for more than a few minutes after t/o so are regularly
dosed to the eyeballs on speed (Dexadrine/amphetamine).

This has the somewhat embarrassing side effect of giving them the total lack
of discriminination between their buddies and 'Ole Nick' himself,
unsurprisingly leading to mulltiple brassing up of assorted
colleagues/allies (aka "friendly fire") - accompanied by the entirely
unsurprising: "Huh? Whadded I do?" when being advised they'd just taken out
a few dozen allies........

Lissen you lot. The Cold War is finished. If you are too terrified to fly
military aircraft without being spaced out, subcontract the job to the
Russians, eh?

Hmmmm - or maybe ultralight pilots.

And there's no real reason to keep on with the 30% friendly fire losses rule
you initiated in Vietnam.

In the meantime stay well away from our mob so there will be some of us left
to save your sorry arses (asses) again the next time you dozy *******s land
a bunch of choppers in a well known ambush site ( Afghanistan).....

(Ferkin 'ell - allies like this - who needs enemies...... <sigh> :-(

[Gordon]

Let me guess, its Finnish Troll Season already??

[John E. Carty]

<Bull**** snipped>

Oh, guess that leaves nothing left to discuss :-)

[David Bromage]

Gordon wrote:
> Let me guess, its Finnish Troll Season already??

It was posted from Australia, and presumably referring to the
documentary "The Need For Speed - Going To War On Drugs" screened in
Australia last night. I didn't see it, but this is what it's about:

http://acftv.com/archive/article.asp?archive_id=19&
http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/7608.php
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_pilotpills021220.html

Cheers
David

[Ron Natalie]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...

> The US Pentagon is becoming a nation unto itself with its own set of
> laws above the laws of the land. What's next?

The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the civilian government itself).
Any compliance with the FAR's the military services mandates is purely at their own
discretion.

[Greg Esres]

<<The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military >>

Then why do the FARs contain certain exemptions for military aircraft,
if the regs don't apply to them in the first place?

[C.D. Damron]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military >>
>
> Then why do the FARs contain certain exemptions for military aircraft,
> if the regs don't apply to them in the first place?

In the interest of safety, the military respects and adheres to the FARs, in
most every instance. The military pilot, who is not required to even hold a
license, answers to his/her command, not the FAA.

There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory
authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal
mandate. Over decades, this ambiguity has been resolved consistently - the
military is not governed by FARs.

There have been some interesting cases over the years. In a couple of cases
where military pilots have held licenses, the FAA has initiated action to
pull licenses, which would affect the military pilot's non-military or
post-military flying. These cases are rare. I wonder if the FAA has
actually pulled licenses of military pilots based on their military flying
behavior. Any ideas?

The FAR's contain certain exemptions for military aircraft primarily to
alert everybody involved that the military is likely to be acting outside of
the FAR's, in certain areas. A GA pilot might be interested in what can be
expected in the pattern when military aircraft are present! Thus, there is
great value to publish such exemptions.

The relationship between the military and FAA has been a model of
cooperation and communication compared to other inter-agency relationships.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:32:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:03:09 +1000, "RT" > wrote
>in Message-Id: >:
>
>>Following an investigative teev program it appears US military pilots are
>>unable to stay awake for more than a few minutes after t/o so are regularly
>>dosed to the eyeballs on speed (Dexadrine/amphetamine).
>
>Here's a link to an article exposing the USAF on drugs:
>http://www.acftv.com/archive/article.asp?archive_id=19
> Amphetamines, sedatives, anti-nerve agents, adrenaline and a whole
> variety of vaccines, including anthrax, make up a cocktail of
> chemicals banned by civilian authorities in the ordinary
> workplace, yet forced upon pilots flying multi-million dollar jets
> into combat and Special Forces soldiers operating behind enemy
> lines.
>
>The US Pentagon is becoming a nation unto itself with its own set of
>laws above the laws of the land. What's next?


Here are additional links to the video:

Demand for our streaming video has been high, meaning on occasions the
server is too busy to serve all requests. We are working on a solution
to increase capacity.

Some corporate firewalls also block ports used for streaming content.
Contact your network administrator to check this.

Please take another look at the site to try watching the video again
or click either of the URL's below - we have found the Real One player
offers better reliability:

Real One Player:
rtsp://streaming.konnex.co.uk/acftv/The_Need_For_Speed_Trail.rm?cloakport=8080,554,707 0

Windows Media Player:
mms://streaming.konnex.co.uk/acftv/The_Need_For_Speed_Trail.wmv

Robin Carpenter
acftv Webmaster

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Ron Natalie]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:08:55 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <Hgu_a.94174$cF.28808@rwcrnsc53>:
>
>
> >There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory
> >authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal
> >mandate.
>
> Can you elaborate on your statement above?
>
> While the information you provided regarding the military not being
> required to adhere to FAA FARs seems consistent with my experience,
> USAF military pilots engaged in peacetime operations are apparently
> required to comply with: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202

Which is exactly what I said. The FAR's do not by themselves apply
to the military, the military mandates their own compliance with them.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:08:55 GMT, "C.D. Damron"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<Hgu_a.94174$cF.28808@rwcrnsc53>:


>There is some legal ambiguity, as the FAA has been given regulatory
>authority in certain areas where they have not asserted their original legal
>mandate.

Can you elaborate on your statement above?

While the information you provided regarding the military not being
required to adhere to FAA FARs seems consistent with my experience,
USAF military pilots engaged in peacetime operations are apparently
required to comply with: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202


http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/11/afi11-202v3/afi11-202v3.pdf
BY ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3
6 JUNE 2003
Flying Operations
GENERAL FLIGHT RULES
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

It would seem that AF Instruction 11-202 closely follows FAA FARs.

Supplements are here:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/search.asp?keyword=AFI11-202&page=2
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Greg Esres]

<<the military is not governed by FARs...>>

Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:

December 9, 1992
Dr. Dietrich Bahls

Dear Dr. Bahls:

....

You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
aircraft, both civilian and military. Outside of U.S. airspace,
however, the rules of the appropriate jurisdiction govern both U.S.
civilian and military aircraft operations.

....

[Dennis O'Connor]

yawnnn ...
AGITPROP...
emotionally loaded buzz words....
flat out wrong (or lie) about the chemical family - Dexedrine
(dextroamphetamine sulfate) is not a narcotic...
tens of thousands of children are on amphetamines daily for ADHD and they
don't hallucinate...
essentially zero facts and lots of panting and glaring......

if you don't like what the military does, enlist, work your way up to be
chief of the pentagon, and change the policies....


BTW, coffee is a drug, Pepsi is a drug, Tylenol is a drug, paprika is a
drug, cinnamon is a drug, licorice is a drug, jalapena is a drug, and on and
on...

Denny

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<the military is not governed by FARs...>>
>
> Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:
>
> December 9, 1992
> Dr. Dietrich Bahls
>
> Dear Dr. Bahls:
>
> ...
>
> You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
> both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
> 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> aircraft, both civilian and military.

No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression. A
FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:56:46 -0700, Steve Hix > wrote
in Message-Id:
>:

>Which still doesn't mean that amphetamines are narcotics...they are
>not.

Umm... Who said they were?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Greg Esres]

<<No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's
discression. >>

Well, you're contradicting the FAA's General Counsel's Office.

By what authority are you able to do that?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's
> discression. >>
>
> Well, you're contradicting the FAA's General Counsel's Office.

FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US Military.

> By what authority are you able to do that?

The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the President,
while US DOT is an extra Contitutional entity; with its authority delegated
by Congresss to the Executive. US DOT is not even a part of the chain of
cammand.

[Greg Esres]

<<FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US
Military.>>

We're talking about knowledge of the law.

<<The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the
President, >>

That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey
the law?

FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of
aircraft...within the United States...."

Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless
the law itself provides the exemption.

Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your
position?

[B2431]

>
>No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression. A
>FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.
>
>

Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations. Next time you go to a book
store or FBO pick up the current FAR/AIM.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:52:23 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote
> in Message-Id: >:
>
> >in the doses used by US airmen, it's more on the level of "lots of
> >coffee withtout the urination problem."
>
> What dose would that be?

5 mg to 10 mg. Well below the more dangerous doses seen in recreational
users.

Dexedrine is one of the milder amphetamines.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <<the military is not governed by FARs...>>
> >
> > Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:
> >
> > December 9, 1992
> > Dr. Dietrich Bahls
> >
> > Dear Dr. Bahls:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
> > both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
> > 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> > aircraft, both civilian and military.
>
> No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression. A
> FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.
>
The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal Aviation
Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US
> Military.>>
>
> We're talking about knowledge of the law.

Yes, we are.

> <<The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the
> President, >>
>
> That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey
> the law?

Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congrsional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?

> FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of
> aircraft...within the United States...."

No, a FAR is a Federal Acquisition Regulation and has nothing to do with
airspace.

> Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless
> the law itself provides the exemption.

If you mean CFR 14, then that administrative law has only to do with those
individuals and corporations that volentarily submit themselves to FAA's
regulatory authority.

> Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your
> position?

You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression.
A
> >FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.
> >
> >
>
> Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.

Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > <<the military is not governed by FARs...>>
> > >
> > > Here's a copy from a FAA letter of interpretation:
> > >
> > > December 9, 1992
> > > Dr. Dietrich Bahls
> > >
> > > Dear Dr. Bahls:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > You are correct that in the U.S. there is only "one" airspace in which
> > > both civil and military aircraft operate. While in U.S. airspace Part
> > > 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> > > aircraft, both civilian and military.
> >
> > No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's discression.
A
> > FAR is a Fedral Acquisition Regulation and is not an FAA regulation.

> The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal
Aviation
> Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR.

Not anymore. In consent decree FAA agrees to not use the acronym FAR
anymore.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Come on folks, wake up... Despite lip service and soothing sounds offered
> by their spokesman, the military arm of the federal government
demonstrates
> daily that it is not bound by civilian rules, including the FAA rules...
I
> will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
> think for themselves...
> Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a fully
> automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or napalm,
> etc.,?

Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being
certificated for flight operations under CFR14.

> Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...
>
>
> Denny
>
> . While in U.S. airspace Part
> > 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governs the operation of
> > aircraft, both civilian and military.
>
> obviously NOT!
>
> D.
>
>

[Greg Esres]

<<Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a
fully automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or
napalm, etc.,?>>

There doesn't need to be an authorization. There is no prohibition.

There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
authorized by the administrator".

The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

[Greg Esres]

<<Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?>>

Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law:

<-----snip-------->
Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the
national armies is plenary and exclusive.
<-----snip-------->

<<You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the
words.>>

I've given you the following
1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office
2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions
3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs

All you've given me is statements based on your own authority.

[Greg Esres]

>Military aircraft built after 1959 have little chance of even being
>certificated for flight operations under CFR14.

Part 91 only requires that "Civil" aircraft have an airworthiness
certificate.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
> Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority?>>
>
> Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law:
>
> <-----snip-------->
> Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the
> national armies is plenary and exclusive.
> <-----snip-------->

Congress' power is limited to funding and declaration of war. Any claim of
Congressional primacy over the military seems childish, in light of the past
30 years of American history. Even the enabling order giving DoD authority
over the military has been resinded, during this Administration.

> <<You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the
> words.>>
>
> I've given you the following
> 1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office
> 2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions
> 3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs
>
> All you've given me is statements based on your own authority.

I'll refer you to Article II section 2:

"The President shall be Commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into
the actual service of the United States;"

Historically, this section of Article II is the explicit price George
Washinton required to become the first President of the Republic; no George
Washington, no Republic. Washington, commander of the Army of Virginia, was
the most powerful man in America at the time and refused to relinquish power
in order to be President.

I suggest that in the future, you post items you are capable of
understanding, Esres. As has been pointed out by other posters, the
Military has their own regulation bringing them into compliance with some
sections of CFR14, but this document is controlled by the military and is in
no way subject to FAA review.

[Ron Natalie]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message ...
-
> There are numerous exemptions in the FARs for military aircraft, and
> there are a number of other blanket exemptions such as "Unless
> authorized by the administrator".

Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in part 91.
The only part that even pretends to play military and civilian together.

>
> The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
> every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
> Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.

The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
only civil aviation.

[B2431]

>> Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.
>
>Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.
>

Cite your source.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.
> >
> >Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.

> Cite your source.

FAA DER Standardization Seminar, Long Beach California.

[Greg Esres]

<<The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft, only civil aviation.>>

You have not yet offered any support for that allegation.

[Greg Esres]

<<That fact only seems to erode your other assertion, Esres.>>

How so?

[B2431]

...
>> >> Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.
>> >
>> >Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the acronym.
>
>> Cite your source.
>
>FAA DER Standardization Seminar, Long Beach California.
>
OK, now take a look at the FAA web page. They still use FAR as Federal Aviation
Regulation.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Ron Natalie]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message ...
> <<The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
> aircraft, only civil aviation.>>
>
> You have not yet offered any support for that allegation.
>
Geez, I didn't realize people were going to be so thick about things.
The enabling legislation that gives the FAA regulationss authority is the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958. It's found in 49 USC 40101.

[Greg Esres]

<<As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own
regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14,
but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way
subject to FAA review.>>

This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no
power over the military.

# U.S. Code:

* 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces
* 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or
Veteran's Facilities Property
* 32 U.S.C. - National Guard
* 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
* 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits
* 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense


The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability
of Congress to make laws governing the military.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own
> regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14,
> but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way
> subject to FAA review.>>
>
> This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no
> power over the military.

I never wrote that Congress has no power over the Military. Please do try
to keep the voices in your head from taking over your side of the debate.
>
> # U.S. Code:
>
> * 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces
> * 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or
> Veteran's Facilities Property
> * 32 U.S.C. - National Guard
> * 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
> * 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits
> * 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense
>
>
> The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability
> of Congress to make laws governing the military.

All these are funding issues Esres; an issue I explicitly pointed out
Congress controls.

You see Esres, these united States operate under a three branch system of
Government. Each of these branches has explicit power granted under the
Constitution and then Congress has delegated some powers to the Executive.
Congress, having delegated powers to the Excutive, does not increase the
Constitutional powers of Congress.

Esres, you are persueing a false premise.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> ...
> >> >> Um, Tarver? FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations.
> >> >
> >> >Nope, FAA lost the lawsuit and is no longer allowed to use the
acronym.
> >
> >> Cite your source.
> >
> >FAA DER Standardization Seminar, Long Beach California.
> >
> OK, now take a look at the FAA web page. They still use FAR as Federal
Aviation
> Regulation.

It doesn't matter that FAA has not completed the removal of the term "FAR"
from their website. Did you expect that a Court decision would have instant
global effect?

Now stop being silly, Dan and run along.

[Greg Esres]

<<Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in
part 91. The only part that even pretends to play military and
civilian together.>>

What difference does it make how many? Even if there were only one
exemption, you would still have to explain why there would be an
exemption in a set of laws that didn't apply to the military in the
first place.

<<Geez, I didn't realize people were going to be so thick about
things.>>

Yes, I should accept uncritically anything I read over the internet,
because people would NEVER talk about things they didn't understand.

<<The enabling legislation that gives the FAA regulationss authority
is the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. It's found in 49 USC 40101.>>

Well, that's a little too much for me to study right now. I didn't
find anything that explicitly stated one way or the other.

[Greg Esres]

<<All these are funding issues Esres; >>

There are not. You haven't scanned through Title 10. Covers the
whole gamut of issues.

<<you are persueing a false premise.>>

My premise is you don't know what you're talking about. That doesn't
preclude you from being right; you know the saw about a stopped
clock....

But you need to offer evidence, and you haven't.

[John Galban]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
<snip> I
> will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
> think for themselves...
> Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a fully
> automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or napalm,
> etc.,?
> Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...

I know it was rhetorical, but I can't help myself :-)

Generally speaking, the FARs tell you what you are not authorized to
do, rather than what you are authorized to do. If there's no reg
prohibiting it, go for it. You can't violate a reg that doesn't
exist.

I know that Cessna has made versions of the 172 equipped with rocket
pods and Piper has a version of the PA32 equipped with bomb racks.
Assuming that those versions were built under a valid type cert.,
there is nothing in the FARs that would prevent you from loading up
and heading out. Failing that, you could go the experimental route
and build your RV-10 with machine guns in the wings. No FAR covering
that either.

I'm sure doing the above would result in quite a bit of attention
from the ATF, since it is probably a violation of numerous laws to
possess those kinds of weapons, but I don't think you'd be in trouble
with the FAA. Part 91 definetly does not apply.

FWIW - Most government aircraft are exempt from the FAR requirements
that you and I must adhere to(i.e. type cert., annual inspections,
etc...). This applies not only to military aircraft, but also to
aircraft operated by government agencies like the FAA, BLM and USDA.


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180, sans bomb racks)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<All these are funding issues Esres; >>
>
> There are not. You haven't scanned through Title 10. Covers the
> whole gamut of issues.

I'll go with title 49, when it comes to FAA authority.

You are very confused about how the system works, Esres. I have filed and
had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA. That petition provided
FAA ACOs with 99 people and later with $250 million; Tom Mc Sweeny was the
only FAA management survivor in DC. Now he is off on a golden parachute
ride with Boeing and for a little listening, US common carriers can now
boast of two zero killed years. Ken Mean also assisted me in my seeking
regulatory Relief and so my Congressman placed him in the Inspector
General's position at US DOT. The reform of FAA was a very effective
political issue for Republicans and my Congressman is now Chair of Ways and
Means.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Actually, your "numerous exemptions" are limitted to a handfull in
> part 91. The only part that even pretends to play military and
> civilian together.>>
>
> What difference does it make how many? Even if there were only one
> exemption, you would still have to explain why there would be an
> exemption in a set of laws that didn't apply to the military in the
> first place.

Letters of agreement are a polite way of dealing with egotistical asses?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > US common carriers can now
> > boast of two zero killed years
>
> Two zero? Did the kaiser steal your word twenty?

They added one back in on the other zero year, but I think it was political.

[Robert Moore]

"Ron Natalie" wrote

> Two zero? Did the kaiser steal your word twenty?

Ron, I think that the phrase was intrnded to be read
as two (2) zero-killed years. In other words, no deaths
for two years.

Bob

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(John Galban) wrote:

> I know that Cessna has made versions of the 172 equipped with rocket
> pods and Piper has a version of the PA32 equipped with bomb racks.
> Assuming that those versions were built under a valid type cert.,
> there is nothing in the FARs that would prevent you from loading up
> and heading out.

and there's the challenge... to do the mod in a manner that
is consistent with the valid type cert.


> FWIW - Most government aircraft are exempt from the FAR requirements
> that you and I must adhere to(i.e. type cert., annual inspections,
> etc...). This applies not only to military aircraft, but also to
> aircraft operated by government agencies like the FAA, BLM and USDA.

e.g., State aircraft or Public aircraft as opposed to civilian aircraft.

--
Bob Noel

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >I have filed and
> >had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA.
>
> Translation: he filed a Freedom of Information Act request?

No Dan, I filed and got action on a First Amenedment petition. I got my guy
from GAO installed as Inspector General of US DOT and helped McSweeny become
Associate Administrator of FAA.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[John R Weiss]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote...
>
> The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
> only civil aviation.

Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

> > The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
> > every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
> > Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.
>
> The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
> only civil aviation.

This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.

That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
compared to that.

On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
> wrote:
>
> > > The Administrator is capable of issuing exemptions for just about
> > > every reg there is, and most likely has done so for the military. But
> > > Part 91 gives the Administrator the right to do so.
> >
> > The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft,
> > only civil aviation.
>
> This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
> acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
> transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
> it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.

When where?

> That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
> maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
> FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
> requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
> compared to that.

Are you sure this is not just a result of Drydens misbehavior in modifying
that Lear?

> On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
> pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
> FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.

Sure.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:04:17 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<1rV_a.146530$Ho3.17545@sccrnsc03>:

>"Ron Natalie" > wrote...
>>
>> The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
>> only civil aviation.
>
>Actually, he does, per 49 USC 40101, par. (d)(4) and (d)(6).


Actually, she does if you consider "Public interest" to be authority:

"...the Administrator shall consider the following matters, among
others, as being in the public interest"




http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/40101.html

(d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest. -

In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of
subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the
Administrator shall consider the following matters, among others,
as being in the public interest:

(1)

assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the
highest priorities in air commerce.

(2)

regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and
fulfills national defense requirements.

(3)

encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new
aviation technology.

(4)

controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil
and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the
safety and efficiency of both of those operations.

(5)

consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities.

(6)

developing and operating a common system of air traffic control
and navigation for military and civil aircraft.

(7)

providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the
enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled
substances, to the extent consistent with aviation safety.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Richard Lamb]

"Webidence" is defined as: "Using unproven evidence gathered from the
Web to prove your silly point".

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:13:04 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

snip

>The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government)
>passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA
>flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying
>managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of
>passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies,
>that had serious accidents).

Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
those present that think like Tarver).

Was seriously under the impression that no pax still meant no regs for
"public use" aircraft.

We charter-hauled a Federal grant-funded duck-counter (I **** you not)
around in an Aztec for awhile a few years back, 'cause she couldn't do
the "mission" legally in a "public use" aircraft.

TC

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a fully
> automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or napalm,
> etc.,?

Where in any part of 14 CFR does it say that I *can't* attach a fully auto
gun to my aircraft? If it doesn't say I can't, then the FARs allow it (BATF
is another issue, however).

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Tarver Engineering]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<I have filed and had executed a First Amendment petitioin WRT FAA.>>
>
> What you're saying is I should take your word for it.

There are "responsible engineers" at Boeing now, in response. (ie DER that
is PE)

> Well, I don't.

Who are you that I would care what you believe, Esres?

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer
California E14066
Washington 31553

[John R Weiss]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote...
> >
> > The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public aircraft,
> > only civil aviation.
>
> This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
> acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
> transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
> it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.
>
> That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
> maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
> FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
> requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
> compared to that.
>
> On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
> pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
> FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.


The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight OPERATIONS,
even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT.

In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly)
differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the requirements
of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a "Pilot
Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft are
specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate" for
operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in 61.3(c)(2)),
it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator." It is
entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical
certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator."

In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both civil
and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a).

[John R Weiss]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote...
>
> The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government)
> passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA
> flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying
> managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of
> passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies,
> that had serious accidents).

If, by "operations" you mean the aircraft equipment and certifications, pilot
requirements, etc., you are correct. However, the FAA DOES regulate
"operations" to the extent those aircraft use US airspace. Most of the flight
rules in 14 CFR 91 (nee FAR Part 91) apply to civil and public aircraft
operations alike.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
> > decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
> > those present that think like Tarver).
>
> For those of us who obey the consent decree.

Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever
delivered one to me...

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:yL9%a.118658$cF.32328@rwcrnsc53...
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote...
> > >
> > > The "Administrator" has no authority over the military or public
aircraft,
> > > only civil aviation.
> >
> > This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
> > acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
> > transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
> > it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.
> >
> > That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
> > maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
> > FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
> > requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
> > compared to that.
> >
> > On the other hand, Dryden is still flying F-18s with maintenence and
> > pilots entirely unchecked by the FAA. Those pilots don't even have
> > FAA medical certificates, just NASA ones.
>
>
> The FAA certainly has authority over military "aviation" -- flight
OPERATIONS,
> even if it does not have total authority over military or public AIRCRAFT.

No Weiss, FAA's ATC authority WRT the Military arises from cost and safety
considration and does not in any way imply FAA control though any other Part
of CFR 14.

> In 14 CFR 61, the language (sometimes clearly, sometimes not so clearly)
> differentiates between "civil aircraft," "public aircraft," and the
requirements
> of the pilots flying them. For example, 61.3(a) specifically says a
"Pilot
> Certificate" is required to pilot a "civil aircraft" -- public aircraft
are
> specifically excepted. While 61.3(c)(1) requires a "Medical Certificate"
for
> operation of "an aircraft" (with certain exceptions delineated in
61.3(c)(2)),
> it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the Administrator."
It is
> entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical
> certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator."

Now you are just being silly, Weiss.

> In 14 CFR 91, however, "the operation of aircraft" -- which includes both
civil
> and public aircraft -- is explicitly included in 91.1(a).

And in no way applicable to the military. Wrong Part of CFR 14, Weiss.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
> > > decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
> > > those present that think like Tarver).
> >
> > For those of us who obey the consent decree.
>
> Where is that elusive consent decree? Who is subject to it? Nobody ever
> delivered one to me...

Why would you matter WRT what FAA agrees to, Weiss?

Outside, perhaps, some large pilot giveback to fund missile defense systems
for transports.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

> > Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a
> > fully
> > automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or napalm,
> > etc.,?
>
> Where in any part of 14 CFR does it say that I *can't* attach a fully
> auto
> gun to my aircraft? If it doesn't say I can't, then the FARs allow it
> (BATF
> is another issue, however).

Doesn't some combination of part 43 and 91 require that the
aircraft be maintained iaw the type certificate? And all
modifications (useful, useless, or silly) to the aircraft
have to be made using acceptable methods, right?

I suppose if someone is prepared to go thru the safety analysis
for the gun, then there might be a chance that the FAA would
approve the modification.

--
Bob Noel

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:57:27 -0400, "Dennis O'Connor"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>And I agree with you totally - Irrational beliefs DO lead to irrational
>acts...

Neoconservative high priest Norman Podhoretz wrote: "... as a
born-again Christian, it is said, he [GWB] believes he was chosen by
God to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world."

The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli
newspaper Ha'aretz that baby Bush made the following pronouncement
during a recent meeting between the two:

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he
instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> I suppose if someone is prepared to go thru the safety analysis
> for the gun, then there might be a chance that the FAA would
> approve the modification.

Just re-certify the Maule as experimental. I still have my eye on that little
mini-gun that someone brought up in another thread. :-)

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:17:44 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:23:24 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
> > wrote:

> > This is no longer entirely true. Within the past few years, the FAA
> > acquired jurisdiction over public aircraft used primarily for the
> > transport of personnel on a commuter- or charter-like basis. I think
> > it took a couple of accidents involving planes full of pax to do this.
>
> When where?

I think one of them was a university in the midwest somewhere, one of
the state schools. They had a flight department, all unregulated, and
crashed a plane in the KingAir class, maybe in bad weather, with a
bunch of high-level folks on board. This was probably within the last
ten years.

I don't even know where to look to find the records of accidents like
this. They're not investigated by FAA or NTSB, so they're not in
either database. Maybe googling? I don't know how far back such
things go, since the WWW was only invented eight years ago. Or maybe
you can dig up some of the stuff that was going around when the NPRM
came out. There was something in AvWeek, I know.

> > That is, the NASA KingAirs that haul managers around have to be
> > maintained and operated to FAA standards. Actually, Dryden got the
> > FAA to accept the NASA maintenance standards as conforming to FAA
> > requirements. The operations and pilot licensure issues were minor
> > compared to that.
>
> Are you sure this is not just a result of Drydens misbehavior in modifying
> that Lear?

Yes, absolutely. That Lear wasn't used for pax; it was a science
airplane. The hard landing happened well after the new rule was
established. Anyway, the mods (which were done at Ames, long before
the airplane came down to Dryden) and maintenance didn't have anything
to do with the hard landing. It had no more to do with the rule than
did the MLG failure on the F-18 that ended in a barrier arrestment a
month or two earlier.

No, the cause was the kind of adjunct passenger operations run by
governmental bodies, not the research operation of modified aircraft.
Passenger operations that were totally unregulated by anyone with any
aviation experience. Say what you will about NASA or FAA or NOAA or
even the CHP, but you have to admit they know how to operate and
maintain aircraft professionally. It's the little three commuter
aircraft operations, run on-demand, by folks who don't have to
constantly justify what they're doing to IGs and advisory councils and
other outside reviews, that ended up being regulated by the FAA.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:49:53 -0400, wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:13:04 -0700, Mary Shafer
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >The FAA regulates private (civil) aviation and public (government)
> >passenger-carrying operations, but no other public operations. NASA
> >flies fighters without FAA regulation but not the KingAirs carrying
> >managers around (new FAA rule, which was justified by a couple of
> >passenger-carrying charter-like flights, I think by state agencies,
> >that had serious accidents).
>
> Lord help me for entering this thread, but it was sometime in the last
> decade that "public use" w/passengers came in under the FAR (CFR for
> those present that think like Tarver).

Late in the decade, I think.

> Was seriously under the impression that no pax still meant no regs for
> "public use" aircraft.

No regular pax. It's OK to haul someone in the back very
occasionally, like on the Orbiter ferry flights on the 747.

> We charter-hauled a Federal grant-funded duck-counter (I **** you not)
> around in an Aztec for awhile a few years back, 'cause she couldn't do
> the "mission" legally in a "public use" aircraft.

If the duck counting were part of the mission of the agency, it should
have been OK. The rule isn't against carrying people, it's against
running a charter airline in disguise. Local flights with pax doing
something agency-charter-related are OK.

In other words, carrying engineers on a KingAir while doing research
with a helmet-mounted display doesn't make that KingAir into a
passenger airplane under FAA regulation. Running a KingAir full of
managers up to the Bay Area and back twice a week does.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:17:44 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:

<snip>

> > Are you sure this is not just a result of Drydens misbehavior in
modifying
> > that Lear?
>
> Yes, absolutely.

Still, this was an N registered Lear that was incompetently and illegally
modified. I know that kind of misbehavior would have caused the Type
Certificate to be pulled, if the aircraft had been modified outside the USA.
Some sort of additional regulation of ryden's activities were in order.

> That Lear wasn't used for pax; it was a science
> airplane.

Thayt doesn't matter, Mary, Dryden did what would have canceled the Type
Certificate anywhere else. I know you didn't intend to buy the airplane.

> The hard landing happened well after the new rule was
> established.

I am refering to the battery exploding and setting the aircraft on fire.

> Anyway, the mods (which were done at Ames, long before
> the airplane came down to Dryden) and maintenance didn't have anything
> to do with the hard landing. It had no more to do with the rule than
> did the MLG failure on the F-18 that ended in a barrier arrestment a
> month or two earlier.

Mary, stop obfuscating. The incompetent wire mods on that Lear are a matter
of public record. The mod that caused the fire was done in Fresno.

> No, the cause was the kind of adjunct passenger operations run by
> governmental bodies, not the research operation of modified aircraft.

I guess that is why EG&G has an airline now.

> Passenger operations that were totally unregulated by anyone with any
> aviation experience. Say what you will about NASA or FAA or NOAA or
> even the CHP, but you have to admit they know how to operate and
> maintain aircraft professionally.

I already showed you that is not the case for NASA. When you lease an N
registerd airplane, the Type Certificate must be maintained.

As far as FAA goes, thye have no cert requirements at all for their
aircraft, or parts.

> It's the little three commuter
> aircraft operations, run on-demand, by folks who don't have to
> constantly justify what they're doing to IGs and advisory councils and
> other outside reviews, that ended up being regulated by the FAA.

Considering how dangerous unregulated scheduled service is, that is probably
a good idea. Revenue leads to "gotta get there".

John P. tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:53:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >> it also allows for "other documentation acceptable to the
Administrator." It is
> >> entirely possible NASA and the military services have had their medical
> >> certificates deemed as "acceptable to the Administrator."
> >
> >Now you are just being silly, Weiss.
> >
>
> Following is a bunch of NASA policy documentation excerpted from
> NPG7900.3A which governs the use of NASA aircraft and the aircrew
> standards - you should read it, you might get an education.
>
> from Chapter 2:
>
> 2.2.3.5. Pilots of mission management (management and staff transport)
> aircraft shall comply with the requirements contained in Federal
> Aviation Regulations, Part 65, Medical Standards and Certification.

NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are
identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive.

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are
>identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive.
>

Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency
established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the
authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by
the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about
it.

Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative
branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the
Executive. Congress enacts legislation as described in Article I,
section 8. The Executive then "executes" the legislation. There's no
"delegation" since, by definition the act of delegating implies a
subordinate/superior relationship.

As for the basic question regarding FAA authority over military
aviation operations, except in special use airspace, the military is
expected to comply fully with FAA direction. The governing regulation
for the USAF (used to be AFM 60-16 "Flight Operating Rules") specifies
that operations "will be conducted to the maximum extent practicable,
under IFR"--which includes filing of FAA flight plans and compliance
with FAA ARTC throughout. Exceptions, such as operating at higher
speed under 10,000 feet, are well coordinated with FAA.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are
> >identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive.
> >
>
> Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency
> established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the
> authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by
> the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about
> it.

Yes Ed, Congress delegates much of its authority to the Executive. That way
Administrative Law can enable the spending of money which otherwise would
have to be allocated by Congress directly.

> Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative
> branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the
> Executive.

LOL

Ed, go fly an airplane and forget about trying to understand how the system
works.

John p. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> >NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are
>> >identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive.
>> >
>>
>> Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency
>> established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the
>> authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by
>> the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about
>> it.
>
>Yes Ed, Congress delegates much of its authority to the Executive. That way
>Administrative Law can enable the spending of money which otherwise would
>have to be allocated by Congress directly.

Administrative "Law" is simply the power of "regulation" rather than
"legislation" and is well within the existing Constitutional authority
of the Executive Branch. The "enabling" to spending money is more than
adequately covered by the passage of appropriation bills. That's the
whole of idea of an "Executive" branch--it executes the policy
legislated by the Congress.
>
>> Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative
>> branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the
>> Executive.
>
>LOL
>
>Ed, go fly an airplane and forget about trying to understand how the system
>works.
>
>John p. Tarver, MS/PE
>Electrical Engineer
>
John, since you brandish your MS/PE in your sig, it indicates an
educational accomplishment. Similarly, but not brandished, my
educational accomplishments include MPS (Master of Political
Science--Auburn U. 1978) and MSIR (Master of International
Relations--Troy State U. 1981). I teach Political Science in Colorado
Springs and you are welcome any time you pass through to visit the
college and audit my classes.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Billy Beck]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>>Ed, go fly an airplane and forget about trying to understand how the system
>>works.
>>
>>John p. Tarver, MS/PE
>>Electrical Engineer
>>
>John, since you brandish your MS/PE in your sig, it indicates an
>educational accomplishment. Similarly, but not brandished, my
>educational accomplishments include MPS (Master of Political
>Science--Auburn U. 1978) and MSIR (Master of International
>Relations--Troy State U. 1981). I teach Political Science in Colorado
>Springs and you are welcome any time you pass through to visit the
>college and audit my classes.

You really ought to crawl out there and buy the man a drink,
Tarver.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

[Ed Rasimus]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:54:21 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
>>Exceptions, such as operating at higher
>>speed under 10,000 feet, are well coordinated with FAA
>
>Some times they are, and some times they're not.
>
Well, the statement I made was with regard to exceptions to FAA
regulations made in the regulations themselves. We shouldn't
reasonably expect realistic training operations in tactical jet
aircraft to be conducted below 250 KIAS and above FL 180, nor should
we expect tactical training to require detailed route of flight
clearances from FAA controllers. Deconfliction takes place through air
space management and when operating under Visual Flight Rules, through
the time-honored practice of "see-and-avoid"

That being said, I've snipped the dross of your accident report and
we'll now jump to the portions that provide an example of the type of
"exceptions" in the FAR's that I refer to:

>OTHER INFORMATION
>
>The Department of Defense's (DoD's) Flight Information Publication
>General Planning GP, Section E-Supplementary Information, Para 5-35,
>"Aircraft Speed Below 10,000 Feet Mean Sea Level" states:
>
>"(Exemption to Federal Air Regulations 91.177 issued to DOD, May 18,
>1978)-Operations below 10,000 feet Mean Sea Level at Indicated Air
>Speed in excess of 250 knots, in noncompliance with Federal Air
>Regulations 91.117 (a), are authorized for military aircraft,
>including Reserve and Air National Guard components, only under the
>following conditions:...
>
>"g. If the airspeed required or recommended in the airplane flight
>manual to maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum
>speed described in Federal Air regulations 91.117, the airplane may be
>operated at that speed."
>
>The F-16C/D flight manual, in Section VI, "Flight Characteristics,"
>recommends "a minimum of 300 knots during normal cruise operation
>below 10,000 MSL." The Air Force Instruction 11-2f-16, F-16 Operations
>Procedures states in Chapter 5, "Air to Air Weapons Employment," Para
>5.3.2, that the "minimum airspeed during low altitude offensive or
>defensive maneuvering is 350 KIAS."
>
>The DoD's Flight Information Publication Area Planning AP/1B, Military
>Training Routes, North and South America states (in Chapter 2, "VFR
>Military Training Routes (VR)," Para I, General) that "VRs are
>developed by DoD to provide for military operational and training
>requirements that cannot be met under terms of FAR 91.117
>(Aircraft Speed). Accordingly, the FAA has issued a waiver to DoD to
>permit operation of an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL in excess of 250
>knots indicated airspeed along DOD developed and published VFR
>routes." It further states (in Para IV, Flight Plans) that "operations
>to and from VRs should be conducted on an IFR flight plan.
>Pilots operating on an IFR flight plan to a VR shall file to the
>fix/radial/distance (FRD) of their entry/alternate entry point."
>
>The DoD's Flight Information Publication Area Planning AP/1, North and
>South America notes (in Chapter 3, "Flight Planning 3 f. Class B
>Airspace") that "generally that airspace from the surface to 10,000'
>surrounding the nation's busiest airports in terms of IFR operations
>or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each Class B
>Airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area
>and two or more layers and is designed to contain all published
>instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC
>clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area and all
>aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the
>airspace."
>
>CFR Part 91.113, Right-of-way rules (Paragraph (b), General), states:
>
>"When weather conditions permit, regardless of weather an operation is
>conducted 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. (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 to pass well clear. (g) Landing. Aircraft while on final
>approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other
>aircraft in flight operating on the surface, except that they shall
>not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway
>surface which has already landing is attempting to make way for an
>aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching
>an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower
>altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this
>rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or
>to overtake that aircraft."
>
>The FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual, Section 3-2-4, Class C
>Airspace, states that "two-way radio communication must be established
>with the ATC facility providing ATC services prior to entry" and that
>pilots must "thereafter maintain those communications while in Class C
>airspace." The manual adds that "radio contact should be initiated far
>enough from the Class C airspace boundary to preclude entering Class C
>airspace before two-way communications are established."

Now, having read the "exceptions" coordinated between military and FAA
with regard to the operation of tactical aircraft in a training
environment, please return to your original comments--(I've taken the
liberty to paste them here at the end of this lengthy post for easy
access:

>>Sometimes a renegade military fighter pilot just ignores FAA
>>Regulations, enters Class B airspace at ~500 knots without a
>>clearance, leads his wingman into a midair collision, and scatters the
>>remains of a Cessna 172 ATP rated pilot over 4 acres of golf course,
>>and retains his pension and rank without being criminally charged for
>>the death he caused:

How can you characterize this military pilot as "renegade"? The
accident report says nowhere that the intrusion was intentional or
even knowing action. What "criminal charge" would you bring? Certainly
not "murder" which requires intent and pre-meditation. Now for certain
that no military pilot plans to intentionally have a mid-air either
for himself or his wingman. Maybe manslaughter? Reckless endangerment?

Do you really see a case of "just ignore" FARs? Or, have you got some
kind of anti-military axe to grind? Certainly the accident report that
you posted shows nothing in the conclusions to support any portion of
your paragraph.





Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are
> >> >identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency
> >> established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the
> >> authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by
> >> the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about
> >> it.
> >
> >Yes Ed, Congress delegates much of its authority to the Executive. That
way
> >Administrative Law can enable the spending of money which otherwise would
> >have to be allocated by Congress directly.
>
> Administrative "Law" is simply the power of "regulation" rather than
> "legislation" and is well within the existing Constitutional authority
> of the Executive Branch. The "enabling" to spending money is more than
> adequately covered by the passage of appropriation bills. That's the
> whole of idea of an "Executive" branch--it executes the policy
> legislated by the Congress.

Those Federal powers in the Constitution are quite limited and intentionally
so. The three branches of Government and their powers, the military, the
postal service and coining money are eacmples of Constitutional entities.
The Executive Branch is not there to implement the will of congress, but as
a co-equal Branch of governemtn.

> >> Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative
> >> branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the
> >> Executive.
> >
> >LOL
> >
> >Ed, go fly an airplane and forget about trying to understand how the
system
> >works.
> >
> >John p. Tarver, MS/PE
> >Electrical Engineer
> >
> John, since you brandish your MS/PE in your sig, it indicates an
> educational accomplishment. Similarly, but not brandished, my
> educational accomplishments include MPS (Master of Political
> Science--Auburn U. 1978) and MSIR (Master of International
> Relations--Troy State U. 1981). I teach Political Science in Colorado
> Springs and you are welcome any time you pass through to visit the
> college and audit my classes.

In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities are
in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that Federal
power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal with;
under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that Federal
power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses. I
don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.

Please educate us, educated one.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:49:26 -0400, wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:40:53 -0700, Mary Shafer
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> We charter-hauled a Federal grant-funded duck-counter (I **** you not)
> >> around in an Aztec for awhile a few years back, 'cause she couldn't do
> >> the "mission" legally in a "public use" aircraft.
> >
> >If the duck counting were part of the mission of the agency, it should
> >have been OK. The rule isn't against carrying people, it's against
> >running a charter airline in disguise. Local flights with pax doing
> >something agency-charter-related are OK.
>
> This person wasn't a federal employee, just a professorial-type that
> had gotten a grant to count ducks from the air. She had tried to find
> a public use ride, and had been told that it wasn't possible/legal.

We not only flew contractors in Dryden research aircraft, we even sent
them for training in experimental aircraft. You wouldn't believe the
trouble that caused, mostly because of life insurance and liability,
so we had to have them sign a waiver. As if these young engineers (or
us older engineers) thought they were mortal....

I even managed to put a couple of United pilots into F-18s, looking at
unusual attitude recovery. No contract, no agreement, no nothing. A
duck counter would have been (forgive me, I can't resist) duck soup.

Did I ever tell you guys about bug collecting with the Jetstar? Or
how we simulated dead bug bodies when getting the real thing didn't
work? Nothing to do with ducks or contractors or pax operations,
although I have a story about pax-like operations in turbulence with
the Jetstar.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:54:21 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

> As for the basic question regarding FAA authority over military
> aviation operations, except in special use airspace, the military is
> expected to comply fully with FAA direction. The governing regulation
> for the USAF (used to be AFM 60-16 "Flight Operating Rules") specifies
> that operations "will be conducted to the maximum extent practicable,
> under IFR"--which includes filing of FAA flight plans and compliance
> with FAA ARTC throughout. Exceptions, such as operating at higher
> speed under 10,000 feet, are well coordinated with FAA.

NASA has a similar regulation, of course. We do not, however, file
flight plans or comply with ARTCC instructions when the Orbiter is
reentering the atmosphere. The Orbiter also don't pay much attention
to that airspeed limit below 10,000 ft. Something about L/D. We do
tell the FAA we're coming, though. We don't like to surprise them too
much, after all.

Seriously, Dryden, like the USAF, uses the restricted areas around
Edwards, which are controlled by the FAA RAPCON (SPORT) there on base,
for most of its flying. The FAA isn't very involved in the actual
operations, except to issue traffic calls and warn of possible
boundary violations. They track the aircraft on radar, obviously, and
help do vectors when new chases join up or we're looking for the
tanker. It's a nice, friendly relationship, with all three agencies
occasionally conspiring against LA Center over the Daggett Shelf, a
little piece of airspace.

When Dryden aircraft leave the restricted areas, particularly to go
cross-country, the only thing special is that we've been allocated the
call sign "NASA". Otherwise, we're just like any other civil jet
fighter or 747 carrying an Orbiter in the airspace. We even give our
aircraft N numbers, from a block of numbers reserved to us.

It's always seemed fair to me that the FAA should allocate special
airspace for special purposes, like research flying or Oil
Burner/Olive Branch routes. After all, they create special restricted
airspace for borate bombing forest fires, too. Someone has to have
the final word on how the airspace is used, after all. They just
can't tell us (or the military) what airplanes to fly or exactly how
to fly them once we get the airspace, unless it's airspace used for
regular operations.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:48:11 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:54:21 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>>wrote in Message-Id: >:
>>
>>>Exceptions, such as operating at higher
>>>speed under 10,000 feet, are well coordinated with FAA
>>
>>Some times they are, and some times they're not.
>>
>Well, the statement I made was with regard to exceptions to FAA
>regulations made in the regulations themselves.

Umm Hmmm...

>We shouldn't reasonably expect realistic training operations in tactical jet
>aircraft to be conducted below 250 KIAS and above FL 180,

Today, Military Training Routes are typically very low-leval and
high-speed in the USA.

>nor should we expect tactical training to require detailed route of flight
>clearances from FAA controllers.

Your reasoning behind that statement is not obvious to me. Care to
elaborate?

>Deconfliction takes place through air space management

What is your definition of 'airspace management'? Who participates in
this 'airspace management'?

>and when operating under Visual Flight Rules, through the time-honored
>practice of "see-and-avoid"

Actually, see-and-avoid is MANDATORY AT ALL TIMES when operating in
Visual Meteorological Conditions, under VFR and IFR; see-and-avoid is
not limited solely VFR operation.

(Center/Approach radar is seldom useful close to the surface where
military pilots rocket through joint-use airspace on MTRs.)

The issue with attempting to visually deconflict when closing speeds
are in the 500+ knot range is, that the traffic the pilot is
attempting to see appears stationary in the windscreen, presenting its
smallest profile (frontal). And because the aircraft the military
flies on MTRs are incapable of displaying a landing light, it makes
them virtually impossible for the civil pilot to spot in time to take
evasive action.

On the other hand, the military aircraft operating at high-speed need
only deconflict a much smaller region of his windscreen than the pilot
of an aircraft obeying the 250 knot limit below 10,000'. But from the
accounts of the two military-civil MACs that I've read, it appears
that the military pilot is on top of the civil aircraft before he
knows of its being in his path.

A rational assessment of the issue with an eye toward increasing
flight safety immediately presents several facts:

1. At speeds above the 250 knot limit below 10,000', reliance
on see-and-avoid FAILS to separate aircraft. Highly trained,
experienced, military pilots readily admit this publicly.

2. The inconspicuous, high-speed, low-level military aircraft
creating the public safety hazard unjustly SHARES aircraft
separation RESPONSIBILITY with the slow civil pilot when
operating in Visual Meteorological Conditions.

3. Because most military aircraft operating on MTRs are not
TCAS equipped, there is little chance to avoid a MAC.

4. Because MTRs do not lie within Special Use Airspace,
more military/civil MACs are likely.

5. ...


>That being said, I've snipped the dross of your accident report and
>we'll now jump to the portions that provide an example of the type of
>"exceptions" in the FAR's that I refer to:

Yes. I've read it.

>>OTHER INFORMATION
>>
>>The Department of Defense's (DoD's) Flight Information Publication
>>General Planning GP, Section E-Supplementary Information, Para 5-35,
>>"Aircraft Speed Below 10,000 Feet Mean Sea Level" states:
>>
>>"(Exemption to Federal Air Regulations 91.177 issued to DOD, May 18,
>>1978)-Operations below 10,000 feet Mean Sea Level at Indicated Air
>>Speed in excess of 250 knots, in noncompliance with Federal Air
>>Regulations 91.117 (a), are authorized for military aircraft,
>>including Reserve and Air National Guard components, only under the
>>following conditions:...
>>
>>"g. If the airspeed required or recommended in the airplane flight
>>manual to maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum
>>speed described in Federal Air regulations 91.117, the airplane may be
>>operated at that speed."
>>
>>The F-16C/D flight manual, in Section VI, "Flight Characteristics,"
>>recommends "a minimum of 300 knots during normal cruise operation
>>below 10,000 MSL." The Air Force Instruction 11-2f-16, F-16 Operations
>>Procedures states in Chapter 5, "Air to Air Weapons Employment," Para
>>5.3.2, that the "minimum airspeed during low altitude offensive or
>>defensive maneuvering is 350 KIAS."
>>
>>The DoD's Flight Information Publication Area Planning AP/1B, Military
>>Training Routes, North and South America states (in Chapter 2, "VFR
>>Military Training Routes (VR)," Para I, General) that "VRs are
>>developed by DoD to provide for military operational and training
>>requirements that cannot be met under terms of FAR 91.117
>>(Aircraft Speed). Accordingly, the FAA has issued a waiver to DoD to
>>permit operation of an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL in excess of 250
>>knots indicated airspeed along DOD developed and published VFR
>>routes." It further states (in Para IV, Flight Plans) that "operations
>>to and from VRs should be conducted on an IFR flight plan.
>>Pilots operating on an IFR flight plan to a VR shall file to the
>>fix/radial/distance (FRD) of their entry/alternate entry point."
>>
>>The DoD's Flight Information Publication Area Planning AP/1, North and
>>South America notes (in Chapter 3, "Flight Planning 3 f. Class B
>>Airspace") that "generally that airspace from the surface to 10,000'
>>surrounding the nation's busiest airports in terms of IFR operations
>>or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each Class B
>>Airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area
>>and two or more layers and is designed to contain all published
>>instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC
>>clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area and all
>>aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the
>>airspace."
>>
>>CFR Part 91.113, Right-of-way rules (Paragraph (b), General), states:
>>
>>"When weather conditions permit, regardless of weather an operation is
>>conducted 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. (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 to pass well clear. (g) Landing. Aircraft while on final
>>approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other
>>aircraft in flight operating on the surface, except that they shall
>>not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway
>>surface which has already landing is attempting to make way for an
>>aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching
>>an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower
>>altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this
>>rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or
>>to overtake that aircraft."

I'm happy you brought Part 91.113 up. The NTSB didn't, in 1988, when
the A-7 on a MTR hit the glider.
The pilot's stories are here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=It%20was%20a%20beautiful%20sunday%20 afternoon%20in%20southern%20California.&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_ugroup=rec.aviation.piloting&lr=&hl=en
NTSB report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1

>>The FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual, Section 3-2-4, Class C
>>Airspace, states that "two-way radio communication must be established
>>with the ATC facility providing ATC services prior to entry" and that
>>pilots must "thereafter maintain those communications while in Class C
>>airspace." The manual adds that "radio contact should be initiated far
>>enough from the Class C airspace boundary to preclude entering Class C
>>airspace before two-way communications are established."

Flight lead, Parker, Failed to comply with that required communication
to enter Class C airspace. He also violated the requirement to
receive ATC clearance into Miami Class B!

>Now, having read the "exceptions" coordinated between military and FAA
>with regard to the operation of tactical aircraft in a training
>environment, please return to your original comments--(I've taken the
>liberty to paste them here at the end of this lengthy post for easy
>access:
>
>>>Sometimes a renegade military fighter pilot just ignores FAA
>>>Regulations, enters Class B airspace at ~500 knots without a
>>>clearance, leads his wingman into a midair collision, and scatters the
>>>remains of a Cessna 172 ATP rated pilot over 4 acres of golf course,
>>>and retains his pension and rank without being criminally charged for
>>>the death he caused:
>
>How can you characterize this military pilot as "renegade"? The
>accident report says nowhere that the intrusion was intentional or
>even knowing action.

The flight lead, Parker, was still above Miami Class B when he became
unable to contact Approach Control for further clearance. Instead of
aborting the MTR practice flight, he canceled his IFR flight plan,
rejected Radar Traffic Advisory Service, and went blazing into the
congested terminal areas of Miami and Tampa which resulted in the
grizzly death of an ATP rated flight instructor and president of the
local business association. That's why.

>What "criminal charge" would you bring?

A charge of Third Degree Murder would be appropriate in Florida.

>Certainly not "murder" which requires intent and pre-meditation. Now
>for certain that no military pilot plans to intentionally have a
>mid-air either for himself or his wingman. Maybe manslaughter?
>Reckless endangerment?
>
>Do you really see a case of "just ignore" FARs?

In the F-16 v Cessna 172 MAC, I see a flight lead military pilot who
violated several military and civil regulations, made many piloting
mistakes, lacked any regard for the safety of the civil aircraft
operating in congested Terminal airspace, which resulted in Jacques
Olivier's death. His Commanding Officer, John Rosa, felt a verbal
reprimand was appropriate in this fatal mishap. Parker continued with
his planned retirement with full pension and rank. An example of fine
military (in)justice. :-(

>Or, have you got some kind of anti-military axe to grind?

Prior to reading of these two civil/military MACs, I always thought
highly of the US military (and the NTSB).

>Certainly the accident report that you posted shows nothing in the
>conclusions to support any portion of your paragraph.

Below is the military AIB's report. See if you can tell me how many
days elapsed between the date of the accident and the date of the
medical reports.

Incidently, this accident has been discussed at length in this forum.
These two links contain ~600 articles on the subject of the
F-16/Cessna 172 midair:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=pnn63ukhb36ij9vhdf817jvkh575eg1b0d%404ax.c om&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fas_usubject%3DF-16/cessna%2520crash%2520near%2520sarasota%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=4kcq6.40489%24LO3.4592844%40typhoon.we.rr. com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_usubject%3DF-16/cessna%2520crash%2520near%2520sarasota%26hl%3Den
There you will find a lot of other analytical information.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF OPINION
F-16CG/CESSNA 172 MIDAIR COLLISION ACCIDENT
16 NOVEMBER 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS iii

GLOSSARY AND TERMS iv

SUMMARY OF FACTS 1

1. AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND CIRCUMSTANCES 1
a. Authority 1
b. Purpose. 1
c. Circumstances. 1

2. ACCIDENT SUMMARY 1

3. BACKGROUND 2

4. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 2
a. Mission. 2
b. Planning. 2
c. Preflight. 3
d. Flight. 3
e. Impact. 7
f. Life Support Equipment, Egress and Survival. 7
g. Search and Rescue. 7
h. Recovery of Remains. 7

5. MAINTENANCE 8
a. Forms Documentation. 8
b. Inspections. 8
c. Maintenance Procedures. 8
d. Maintenance Personnel and Supervision: 8
e. Fuel, Hydraulic and Oil Inspection Analysis. 9
f. Unscheduled Maintenance. 9

6. AIRCRAFT AND AIRFRAME, MISSILE, OR SPACE VEHICLE SYSTEMS
9
a. Condition of Systems. 9
b. Testing. 10

7. WEATHER 10
a. Forecast Weather. 10
b. Observed Weather. 10
c. Space Environment. 10
d. Conclusions. 10

8. CREW QUALIFICATIONS 11
a. Ninja 1, Flight Lead 11
b. Ninja 2, Mishap Pilot 11
c. Cessna 829, Mishap Pilot 11

9. MEDICAL 12
a. Qualifications. 12
b. Health. 12
c. Pathology. 12
d. Lifestyle. 13
e. Crew Rest and Crew Duty Time. 13

10. OPERATIONS AND SUPERVISION 13
a. Operations. 13
b. Supervision. 13

11. HUMAN FACTORS ANALYSIS 13
a. Lieutenant Colonel Parker, Ninja 1 13
b. Captain Kreuder, Ninja 2 14
c. Mr. Olivier, Cessna 829 14

12. AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ANALYSIS 15
a. Class B Airspace 15
b. Class C Airspace 15
c. VR-1098 16
d. Air Traffic Control 16
e. Airspeed Requirements 17

13. GOVERNING DIRECTIVES AND PUBLICATIONS 17
a. Primary Operations Directives and Publications. 17
b. Maintenance Directives and Publications. 18
c. Known or Suspected Deviations from Directives or Publications.
18
(1) Mishap Pilots . 18
(2) Lead Pilot 18
(3) Air Traffic Control. 18

14. NEWS MEDIA INVOLVEMENT 18

STATEMENT OF OPINION 18


COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS


AB After Burner
ACC Air Combat Command
ACES-II Air Crew Ejection System-II
ACM Air Combat Maneuvering
ACMI Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation
AF Air Force
AFB Air Force Base
AFI Air Force Instruction
AFM Air Force Manual
AFTO Air Force Technical Order
AFTTP Air Force Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
AGL Above Ground Level
AIM Aeronautical Information Manual
AIM-9 Air Intercept Missile-9
ALE-50 Active towed decoy
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATIS Automatic Terminal Information Service
ATP Airline Transport Pilot
BAM Bird Avoidance Model
BDU Bomb Dummy Unit
BSA Basic Surface Attack
CAMS Core Automated Maintenance System
CAP Critical Action Procedure
CBU Cluster Bomb Unit
CCIP Continuously Computed Impact Point
CCRP Continuously Computed Release Point
CFPS Combat Flight Planning System
CJs F-16CJ Aircraft
COMACC Commander, Air Combat Command
CSMU Crash Survivable Memory Unit
CT Continuation Training
DED Data Entry Display
DLO Desired Learning Objective
DME Distance Measuring Equipment
DMPI Desired Munitions Point of Impact
DoD Department of Defense
EMS Emergency Medical Service
EOR End of Runway
EP Emergency Procedure
EPU Emergency Power Unit
EST Eastern Standard Time
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAAO Federal Aviation Administration Order
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FCC Fire Control Computer
FLIP Flight Information Publication
FOD Foreign Object Damage
FS Fighter Squadron
Ft Feet
G Gravitational
GAC General Avionics Computer
GeoRef Geographic Reference
G-Suit Anti-gravity suit
GP General Planning
GPS Global Positioning System
HSD Horizontal Situation Display
HSI Horizontal Situation Indicator
HUD Heads Up Display
IAW In Accordance With
IFF Identification Friend or Foe
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions
INS Inertial Navigation System
INU Inertial Navigation Unit
IP Initial Point or Instructor Pilot
JFS Jet Fuel Starter
JOAP Joint Oil Analysis Program
KIAS Knots Indicated Airspeed
KCAS Knots Calibrated Airspeed
KTAS Knots True Airspeed
L Local
LANTIRN Low Altitude Navigation Targeting Infrared for Night
LPU Life Preserver Unit
MANTIRN Medium Altitude Navigation Targeting Infrared for Night
MANT Short for MANTIRN
MARSA Military Authority Assumes Responsibility for Separation of
Aircraft
MAU Miscellaneous Armament Unit
MIA Miami Center
MFD Multi-function Display
MOA Military Operations Area
MPS Mission Planning Software
MSL Mean Sea Level
MTR Moving Target Reject
NM Nautical Mile
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
OCA Offensive Counter-Air
PA-2000 Phoenix Aviator-2000
PCS Permanent Change of Station
PFPS Portable Flight Planning System
PLF Parachute Landing Fall
PRC-90 Survival Communication Radio
RALT Radar Altimeter
RAP Ready Aircrew Program
RCC Rescue Coordination Center
RPM Revolutions per Minute
RTB Return to Base
SA Situational Awareness
SA-3 Surface-to-Air Missile
SAR Search and Rescue
SAT Surface Attack Tactics
SDR Seat Data Recorder
SEC Secondary Engine Control
SFO Simulated Flame Out
SIB Safety Investigation Board
SII Special Interest Item
S/N Serial Number
SOF Supervisor of Flying
SUU-20 Suspension Utility Unit
SRQ Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport
SWA Southwest Asia
TAC Tactical
TACAN Tactical Air Navigation
TCI Time Change Item
TCTO Time Compliance Technical Order
TPA Tampa Approach Control
TD Target Designator
TDY Temporary Duty
T.O. Technical Order
UFC Up-Front Controls
USAF United States Air Force
U.S.C. United States Code
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
VORTAC Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air
Navigation
VR Visual Route
Z Zulu or Greenwich Meridian Time (GMT)
ZVEL Zero Velocity



The above list was compiled from the Summary of Facts, the Statement
of Opinion, the Index of Tabs, and witness testimony (Tab V).

GLOSSARY AND TERMS

Class A accident: A mishap in which there is loss of life, permanent
total disability, destruction of a USAF aircraft, or at least
$1,000,000 property damage or loss.

Cursor slew: An adjustment to the aircraft General Avionics Computer
(GAC) navigational solution normally used to correct small position
errors and refine attack steering. These refinements are typically
used to aid in target acquisition and on-board sensor cueing.

Cursor slew bias: A change to the navigational guidance symbology
resulting from a cursor slew input.

Fence check: A cockpit procedure used to ensure all switches and
avionics are set up properly for entry into a tactical environment.
The actions accomplished in the fence check are threat/scenario
dependent.

Fighting wing formation: A two-ship formation which gives the wingman
a maneuvering cone from 30 to 70 degrees aft of line abreast and
lateral spacing between 500 feet (ft) and 3000 ft from lead’s
aircraft.

G-awareness exercise: Moderate increased G maneuvers used to
determine aircraft and pilot capabilities in terms of tolerance for
increased G maneuvering on a given day.

Hot-pit refueling: Aircraft refueling that is accomplished on the
ground with aircraft engine running.

HUD/INS steering cue: The steering symbology displayed in the HUD
that shows the direction of turn necessary to follow the most direct
route to the selected INS steer point.

Mark 82/Mark 84: General purpose bombs.

Mode C: Automatic altitude reporting equipment.

Mode III: Four-digit beacon code equipment used to identify aircraft
in the National Airspace System.

Motherhood items: Non-tactical, administrative items in a pre-flight
briefing that are required for mission completion.

Radar in the notch: Positioning the radar elevation search in such a
manner that the radar scan pattern is oriented in the direction of the
aircraft’s flight path.

Sensor of interest: The avionics system that the pilot has selected
for hands-on control (e.g., radar, targeting pod, HUD, Maverick
missile, etc.).

Situational Awareness: The continuous perception of self and aircraft
in relation to the dynamic environment of flight, threats, and
mission, and the ability to forecast, then execute tasks based on that
perception.

Spin entry: The initial stages of an aircraft departing controlled
flight.

Stereo flight plan/Stereo route: A pre-coordinated flight plan.

10/10 trap attack: A tactical element air-to-ground attack.

Top-3: Squadron operations officer or designated representative
responsible for oversight of daily flying operations at the squadron
level.

VAD-2: Moody AFB stereo departure route.

VAD-25: Moody AFB stereo departure route.

Windscreen: Aircraft canopy or windshield.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND CIRCUMSTANCES
Authority.

On 12 December 2000 General John P. Jumper, Commander, Air
Combat Command (COMACC), appointed Brigadier General Robin E. Scott to
conduct an aircraft accident investigation of the midair collision
involving an Air Force F-16 fighter and civilian Cessna 172 that
occurred near Bradenton, Florida on 16 November 2000. The
investigation was conducted at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB), Florida,
and Moody AFB, Georgia, from 15 December 2000 through 19 January 2001.
Technical advisors were Lieutenant Colonel Robert B. Tauchen (Legal),
Lieutenant Colonel Marcel V. Dionne (Medical), Captain Jay T. Stull
(Air Traffic Control), Captain John R. Fountain (Maintenance), and
Captain Todd A. Robbins (Pilot) (Tabs Y-2, Y-3).
Purpose.

This aircraft accident investigation was convened under Air Force
Instruction (AFI) 51-503. The primary purpose was to gather and
preserve evidence for claims, litigation, and disciplinary and
administrative actions. In addition to setting forth factual
information concerning the accident, the board president is also
required to state his opinion as to the cause of the accident or the
existence of factors, if any, that substantially contributed to the
accident. This investigation was separate and apart from the safety
investigation, which was conducted pursuant to AFI 91-204 for the
purpose of mishap prevention. This report is available for public
dissemination under the Freedom of Information Act (5 United States
Code (U.S.C.) §552) and AFI 37-131.
Circumstances.

This accident board was convened to investigate the Class A accident
involving an F-16CG aircraft, serial number (S/N) 89-2104, assigned to
the 69th Fighter Squadron (FS), 347th Wing, Moody AFB, Georgia, which
crashed on 16 November 2000, after a midair collision with a Cessna
172, registration number N73829.
ACCIDENT SUMMARY

Aircraft F-16CG, S/N 89-2104 (Ninja 2), and a Cessna 172,
N73829 (Cessna 829), collided in midair near Bradenton, Florida. The
F-16 was part of a two-ship low-level, Surface Attack Tactics (SAT)
sortie. The F-16 pilot, Captain Gregory Kreuder of 69 FS, ejected
safely less than a minute after the collision. The Cessna 172,
registered to Crystal Aero Group, had taken off from the
Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport. The pilot, Mr. Jacques
Olivier of Hernando, Florida, was killed in the mishap (Tabs, A-2,
B-2-4). The F-16 crashed in an unpopulated area, causing fire damage
to surrounding vegetation, but there was no damage to any structures.
The Cessna 172 broke up in midair, with the major portions of the
wreckage impacting a golf course and surrounding homes causing minor
damage. There were no injuries to civilians on the ground (Tab P-2).
Both aircraft were totally destroyed in the accident. The loss of the
F-16 was valued at $24,592,070.94 (Tab M-2). Media interest was
initially high, with queries from local, regional, and national news
outlets. Air Combat Command (ACC) Public Affairs handled media
inquiries with support from the 347th Wing Public Affairs, Moody AFB,
Georgia, and 6th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs, MacDill AFB,
Florida.
BACKGROUND

The 347th Wing, stationed at Moody AFB, Georgia, is host to
two operational F-16C/D fighter squadrons, one HH-60G rescue squadron,
one HC-130P rescue squadron, 17 additional squadrons, and several
tenant units. The Wing has operational control over Avon Park Air
Force Range in central Florida and a deployed unit complex at MacDill
AFB, Florida. The mission of the 347th Wing is to rapidly mobilize,
deploy and employ combat power in support of theater commanders. The
69th FS is an F-16 fighter squadron assigned to the 347th Wing,
capable of employing aircraft in conventional surface attack and
counter-air roles. The wing and its subordinate units are all
components of ACC (Tab CC-4).
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Mission.

The mishap mission was scheduled and planned as the second of
two SAT sorties, with hot-pit refueling between the sorties. The
first sortie was scheduled for the local training areas around Moody
AFB. The mishap sortie profile included a medium altitude cruise to
Lakeland, Florida, an enroute descent for low-level tactical
navigation on the published low-level visual route VR-1098, simulated
air-to-surface attacks on the Avon Park Air Force Range, and climbout
to medium altitude for return to Moody AFB (Tab V-6.21-22).
Lieutenant Colonel James Parker was the flight lead (Ninja 1) for both
sorties, and Captain Gregory Kreuder was the wingman (Ninja 2). The
sorties were continuation training for both pilots (Tab V-6.16).
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Picton, 69 FS Director of Operations,
authorized the flight (Tab K-2).
Planning.

(1) Most of the mission planning was accomplished the
evening prior to the mishap (Tabs
V-6.9, V-8.7). Based on fuel considerations, the pilots determined
that VR-1098 would be the best low-level route for their mission.
Lieutenant Colonel Parker tasked Captain Kreuder to produce a
low-level route map and schedule the route with the appropriate
scheduling agency (Tabs V-6.10, V-8.7, V-8.8, V-8.9, V-8.13, CC-10).
Neither pilot had flown VR-1098 before (Tabs V-6.24, V-8.12). As part
of his mission planning, Lieutenant Colonel Parker referred to a FLIP
L-19 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Enroute Low Altitude Chart and
determined that their planned route of flight would keep them clear of
the Tampa Class B and the Sarasota-Bradenton Class C airspace
(hereafter referred to as Sarasota Class C airspace) (Tabs V-6.11,
V-6.59). Lieutenant Colonel Parker also planned the simulated attack
for the Avon Park targets and prepared the briefing room for the next
day’s mission. The next morning, Captain Kreuder reviewed the weather
and NOTAMs prior to the flight briefing and filed a composite
IFR/VFR/IFR flight plan in accordance with unit procedures (Tabs K-2,
K-5, V-8.13). He also checked the Bird Avoidance Model (BAM) for
forecast bird activity in the Florida area (Tab
V-8.13).

(2) The mission briefing included a mission overview,
scenario of simulated threats for the mission, routing to the
low-level entry point, and possible divert airfields along the route
of flight. Additionally, the flight lead covered wingman
responsibilities and formation positions. The pilots discussed the
specific details of VR-1098, the planned attacks on Avon Park, and
tactical considerations during the simulated attacks (Tab V-6.19).
Lieutenant Colonel Parker did not specifically brief Class B and Class
C airspace restrictions in the Tampa area during the flight briefing
(Tab V-6.28). Air Force directives require the flight lead to brief
applicable airspace restrictions (Tabs BB-2.2, BB-2.7). Although
Lieutenant Colonel Parker checked to make sure their planned route to
the low-level would not enter these areas, they would be flying in
close proximity to them. This information would have enhanced the
wingman’s awareness of the boundaries of these controlled airspaces
and their accompanying altitude restrictions (Tabs R-2, V-6.11,
V-8.14, V-8.15). All other appropriate items were covered in adequate
detail in accordance with Air Force directives (Tabs V-6.19-6.28,
BB-2.2, BB-2.6). According to Captain Kreuder, the briefing was
thorough and understood by him (Tab V-8.15).
Preflight.

(1) After the mission briefing, the pilots gathered their
flight equipment and assembled at the 68th FS duty desk, where they
received a final update from squadron operations system management
personnel before proceeding to the aircraft (Tabs V-6.29, V-8.19,
V-8.22). Aircraft pre-flight inspections, engine starts, before taxi
checks, taxi, and end-of-runway inspections were all uneventful (Tabs
V-6.29, V-8.19).

(2) Both aircraft were configured with two 370-gallon
wing tanks, a training Maverick air-to-ground missile, a training
heat-seeking Air Intercept Missile-9 (AIM-9), an Air Crew Maneuvering
Instrumentation (ACMI) pod, a Suspension Utility Unit-20 (SUU-20), and
a targeting pod (Tab M-2). The SUU-20 was empty for the mishap flight
because the training ordnance had been expended during the first
sortie of the day (Tabs V-6.30, V-8.19).
Flight.

(1) The first sortie was flown uneventfully and both
aircraft landed with no noted discrepancies (Tabs V-6.36-6.37,
V-8.19). Ninja 2 landed first and proceeded to the hot-pit for
refueling. Ninja 1 landed shortly thereafter, completed hot-pit
refueling, and taxied to the departure end of the runway (Tabs V-6.30,
V-8.19).

(2) Ninja flight took off for their second sortie at 1513
(Tab CC-11). The takeoff, rejoin, and climbout to 25,000 ft mean sea
level (MSL) were uneventful (Tabs V-6.38, V-8.23). Ninja 2
accomplished a targeting pod check on the Taylor TACAN and confirmed
that the flight was navigating correctly to that steer point (Tab
V-8.30). With the exception of Ninja 2’s check on the Taylor TACAN,
neither flight member recalled confirming their INS system accuracy
with ground based navigational aids (Tabs V-6.41, V-8.28). Enroute to
the Lakeland TACAN, Ninja flight was cleared direct to the VR-1098
start route point by Miami Center (Tab V-7). The flight then received
step-down altitude clearances for their descent to low level (Tabs
N-18, CC-3.2).

(3) At some time, between when Ninja 1’s aircraft tape
recorder was turned off on the first sortie to when the aircraft tape
was turned on during the second sortie, Ninja 1’s Inertial Navigation
System (INS) had developed a 9-11 NM error (Tab J-15). The true
extent of the INS position error could only be determined in
post-mishap flight review of aircraft components and tapes (Tab J-13).
The error was such that following INS steering to a selected point
would place the aircraft 9-11 NM south of the desired location (Tab
J-13). Ground radar plots of the flight’s ground track during the
medium altitude cruise revealed no significant course deviations. (Tab
CC-5.4). Ninja 1 pointed out landmarks to Ninja 2 during the medium
altitude portion of the flight, reinforcing the fact that Ninja flight
seemed to be navigating properly (Tab V-8.24).

(4) Also during this time period, a cursor slew of
approximately 26 NM and 20-30 degrees of right bias had been input to
the General Avionics Computer (Tab J-14). In certain ground-attack
steering modes, this cursor bias is added to the current INS steer
point and repositions various avionics symbology, including the Heads
Up Display (HUD) steering cues. In short, the cursor bias adjusts
navigation symbology. Normally, cursor inputs are used to correct for
small position errors, refine attack steering, and aid in target
acquisition. It is possible, however to inadvertently enter cursor
biases (Tab V-6.62). The cursor switch is a multifunction switch
dependent on the specific avionics mode and location of the sensor of
interest. Therefore, it is possible to enter unintentional cursor
slews when changing between modes and sensors (Tab
V-6.62). A crosscheck of system indications is required so that
unintentional slews are recognized and zeroed out. These errors came
into play later when Ninja flight began maneuvering for low-level
entry.

(5) Miami Center cleared Ninja flight to 13,000 ft and
directed them to contact Tampa Approach on radio frequency 362.3 (Tab
N-18, CC-3.2). The use of this frequency for Tampa Approach was
discontinued in August 2000 (Tabs N-18, CC-9). Ninja 1 thought he was
given frequency 362.35 and attempted contact there. (Tab V-6.40). In
either case, Ninja 1 would have been on the wrong frequency for Tampa
Approach. After his unsuccessful attempt to contact Tampa Approach,
Ninja 1 returned to the previous Miami Center frequency (Tabs N-19,
CC-3.2). Ninja 1 then determined that the flight was rapidly
approaching the low-level route start point and they needed to descend
soon for low-level entry (Tab V-6.40). At 1544:34, Ninja 1 cancelled
IFR with Miami Center. Miami Center acknowledged the IFR cancellation
and asked if he wanted flight following service, which Ninja 1
declined. Miami Center then terminated radar service and directed
Ninja 1 to change his Mode III transponder code to a VFR 1200 code
(Tabs J-38, N-19, CC-3.3, CC-5.1). Miami Center also gave Ninja
flight a traffic advisory on a Beech aircraft 15 NM away at 10,000 ft
MSL, which Ninja acknowledged. Ninja flight started a descent and
maneuvered to the west in order to de-conflict with that traffic (Tabs
N-19, V-6.41, V-8.26, CC-3.3). Ninja 1 was above the Class B airspace
at the time he cancelled IFR (Tabs J-38, CC-2, CC-5).

(6) At 1540:59, Sarasota Tower cleared Cessna 829 for
takeoff. The pilot, Mr. Jacques Olivier, was the only person onboard
the aircraft (Tab CC-3.2, CC-6.2). The Cessna’s planned profile was a
VFR flight at 2,500 ft MSL to Crystal River Airport (Tab N-3).
Shortly after departure, Cessna 829 contacted Tampa Approach, and the
controller called Cessna 829 radar contact at 1545:23 (Tabs N-6,
CC-3.3).

(7) At 1545:42, Ninja flight descended into Tampa Class B
airspace, approximately 15 NM northeast of Sarasota-Bradenton
International Airport, without clearance from Tampa Approach (Tabs
J-38, CC-5.1). Since Ninja 1 had already cancelled IFR and was
unaware that he was in Tampa airspace, he directed the flight to
change to UHF channel 20 (frequency 255.4, Flight Service Station) in
preparation for entry into VR-1098 (Tabs AA-2.2, BB-3.2, CC-3.3).
Ninja flight then accomplished a G-awareness exercise. This exercise
involves maneuvering the aircraft under moderate gravitational (G)
loads for 90-180 degrees of turn to ensure pilots are prepared to
sustain the G forces that will be encountered during the tactical
portion of the mission (Tabs BB-2.3, BB-4.2, BB-6.6, BB-13.3). Ninja
flight accelerated to approximately 440 knots calibrated airspeed
(KCAS) and accomplished two 90-degree turns while continuing their
descent (Tab CC-3.3). Following the G-awareness exercise, Ninja 1
directed his wingman to a fighting wing position (Tabs V-8.32,
CC-3.3).

(8) At 1547, Ninja 1 turned the flight to center up the INS
steering cues for the low-level start route point. As previously
mentioned, the INS had a 9-11 NM position error. (Tab J-15). Ninja
1’s airspeed was decreasing through approximately 390 KCAS (Tab
CC-3.4). Ninja 1 thought he was due north and within 9 NM of the
start route point, which was Manatee Dam. In reality, he was
approximately 5 NM west of the steer point (Tabs V-6.47, J-38,
CC-5.1). Also at 1547, Tampa Approach directed Cessna 829 to turn
left to a heading of 320-degrees and then follow the shoreline
northbound. Tampa also directed a climb to 3,500 ft MSL. Cessna 829
acknowledged and complied with the instructions (Tabs N-7, CC-3.4).

(9) Ninja 1 next called for a “fence check,” directing the
flight to set up the appropriate switches and onboard avionic systems
for the tactical phase of the mission (Tab CC-3.4). Shortly after
calling “fence check,” Ninja 1 entered Sarasota Class C airspace in a
descent through 4,000 ft MSL. During the descent, Ninja 1 called
“heads up, birds,” alerting his wingman of birds flying in their
vicinity (Tabs V-6.48, V-8.37, CC-3.5). As part of his “fence check,”
Ninja 1 changed from a navigational mode to an air-to-ground attack
mode (Tabs
V-6.46, CC-3.4). This mode adjusted the system steering 20 degrees
right, commanding a new heading of approximately 180-degrees (Tab
CC-3.4). This steering was the result of the cursor slew bias that
had previously been input to the system (Tab J-12). The HUD also
displayed a range of approximately 35 NM (Tabs J-10, CC-3.4). Ninja
1 turned to follow the steering cues (Tabs J-37, J-38, CC-2, CC 3.5,
CC-5.1).

(10) In addition, this air-to-ground mode displays a metric of
navigational system accuracy when the system determines anything less
than “high” accuracy (Tab J-11). When Ninja 1 switched to this mode,
the system showed a navigational system accuracy of “medium”, which
eventually degraded to “low” prior to the collision (Tab J-13). Ninja
1 did not notice this degradation in system accuracy (Tab V-6.49).
Ninja 2 thought they were on course and close to the start route
point. However, he did not recall specifically checking his own INS
steering to confirm they were on track to the point (Tabs V-8.34,
V-8.35, V-8.36).

(11) At 1547:39, approximately 30 seconds prior to the
midair collision, the Tampa Approach radar system generated an initial
Mode C Intruder (Conflict) Alert between Cessna 829 and Ninja 1’s 1200
code (Tab CC-8.2). Between 1547:55 and 1548:05, Tampa Approach
communicated with Miami Center and discussed the altitude of Ninja 1
(Tabs N-7, CC-3.5). No safety alert was ever transmitted to Cessna
829 (Tabs N-7, CC-3.5).

(12) At 1548:09, Ninja 2 and Cessna 829 collided near
Bradenton, Florida (Tabs U-5.1,
CC-3.5). The collision happened approximately 6 NM from the
Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport at approximately 2000 ft,
within the confines of the Sarasota Class C airspace (Tabs J-36, J-37,
J-40, R-2, BB-7.2, CC-2, CC-5.1). Ninja 1 was not aware that the
flight was in Class C airspace when the collision occurred (Tab
V-6.69). Ninja 1’s displayed airspeed at the time of the midair was
356 KCAS with a heading of 178 degrees (Tab CC-3.5). Ninja 1’s
attention was focused on finding the start route point and looking
where the HUD steering was pointed (Tab V-6.51). Again, these
indications were incorrect due to the INS position error and cursor
slew, neither of which was recognized by the pilot. Ninja 1 was
unable to find the start route in front of his aircraft because it was
actually about 5 NM at his left eight-o’clock (Tabs J-38, V-6.47,
CC-2). Ninja 1 looked over his left shoulder at approximately one
second prior to impact and saw the Cessna in a turn just in front of
his wingman (Tab V- 6-52).

(13) Ninja 2 was looking in the direction of Ninja 1,
anticipating a left turn for entry into the low-level route. He was
clearing his flight path visually, primarily looking for birds (Tabs
V-8.37, V-8.38). He was flying about 60-degrees aft of his flight
lead and 3,000-5,000 feet in trail (Tab V-8.38). Ninja 2 saw a white
flash that appeared to travel from low left ten- to eleven-o’clock and
simultaneously felt a violent impact (Tab V-8.38). There are
conflicting witness statements about the flight attitude of Cessna 829
immediately prior to the midair (Tabs V-2,
V-3, V-4, V-5, V-6.53). The nearest witnesses on the ground stated
that they saw no evasive maneuvering by the Cessna immediately prior
to the collision (Tabs V-2, V-3, V-4). Other witnesses, including
Ninja 1, perceived that Cessna 829 turned or banked immediately prior
to the collision (Tabs V-5, V-6.53).

(14) Also at 1548:09, Tampa Approach issued Cessna 829 a
traffic advisory on Ninja 1’s position (Tabs N-7, CC-3.5).

(15) The collision created a large hole in the left side of
Ninja 2’s canopy and there was accompanying airflow noise (Tab S-5).
The impact disabled all of his primary flight instruments, and there
was nothing displayed in the HUD (Tab V-8.39). Ninja 2 initially
turned the jet right to the west in an attempt to recover at MacDill
AFB. The aircraft then decelerated and the engine began to spool
down. A few moments later, he determined he would be unable to fly
the aircraft to MacDill AFB, based on its current altitude and
airspeed. Ninja 2 then began a turn back to the left, looking for an
unpopulated area in the event he had to eject (Tabs V-8.39, V-8.40,
V-8.41). Ninja 2 initiated the critical action procedures to restart
the engine, which was unsuccessful due to foreign object ingestion
(Tabs J-24, V-8.40, V-8.41). As altitude and airspeed continued to
decrease, he maneuvered his aircraft towards an uninhabited area (Tab
V-8.42). The aircraft then began an uncontrollable roll to the left
and Ninja 2 ejected (Tabs
V-8.2, V-8.43).
Impact.

After ejection, the aircraft continued to roll left and
transitioned to what appeared to be a spin entry (Tabs V-8.43,
V-8.44). It impacted the terrain at approximately 1549, at
coordinates N 27 23.5, W 82 27.5 (Tabs U-5.1, R-2). The aircraft
impacted the ground in a level attitude, pointing to the north (Tab
V-8.43). It crashed in an uninhabited area in a sparsely wooded
location (Tab S-3). Aside from fire damage to the surrounding
vegetation, there was little damage to the area surrounding the crash
site (Tab S-4).
Life Support Equipment, Egress and Survival.

(1) Upon impact with the Cessna, the left side of Ninja
2’s canopy was shattered, and Ninja 2’s helmet visor was lost (Tab
V-8.39). Ninja 2 safely ejected from his disabled aircraft in a
low-speed, nose-low, approximate 135-degree left-bank at an altitude
of approximately 700 ft (Tab V-8.43).

(2) The helmet, aviator mask, G-suit, Air Crew Ejection
System-II (ACES-II) seat, parachute and seat-kit functioned normally
(Tabs V-8.43, V-8.44, V-8.45). There was a twist in the parachute
risers after the chute opened, but Ninja 2 was able to untwist them
before he reached the ground (Tab V-8.44). Ninja 2 stated that his
PRC-90 radio had marginal reception during his communications with
Ninja 1, who was orbiting overhead the crash site (Tab V-8.45). All
life support and egress equipment had current inspections (Tab U-3).
Life support and egress equipment were not factors in the mishap.
Search and Rescue.

Within moments of his parachute landing, Captain Kreuder was
approached by a civilian who loaned him a cell-phone to call the
operations desk at Moody AFB (Tab V-8.44). Ninja 2 was evaluated by
civilian Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel at the crash site.
Within a couple hours of the crash, he was flown by helicopter to the
6th Medical Group Hospital at MacDill AFB (Tabs X-2, V-8.45).
Recovery of Remains.

The remains of the Cessna pilot were recovered in the vicinity of the
Rosedale Golf and Country Club. An autopsy was performed on 18
November 2000 at the District Twelve Medical Examiner Facility (Tab
X-4).
MAINTENANCE
Forms Documentation.

(1) A complete review was performed of active Air Force
Technical Order (AFTO) 781 series forms along with automated
maintenance/equipment history stored in the Core Automated Maintenance
System (CAMS) for both F-16 aircraft involved. This review covered
the time period from the last major phase inspection to the mishap
sortie and yielded no indication of any pending mechanical, electrical
or jet engine failure (Tabs H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5).

(2) A detailed listing of open items in both the AFTO 781
series forms and CAMS is included at Tab H. There is no evidence that
any of the open items were factors in the mishap (Tabs H-2, H-3).

(3) A detailed review of the AFTO Form 781K and the
automated history report showed no airframe or equipment Time
Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) overdue at the time of the mishap
(Tabs H-2, H-3).
Inspections.

All required scheduled inspections and Time Change Items (TCI)
for aircraft 89-2104 were properly completed and documented (Tabs H-2,
H-3). There was an overdue 50-hour throttle inspection on aircraft
89-2058 (Tab H-4). This overdue inspection was not a factor in the
mishap (Tabs H-4, H-5).
Maintenance Procedures.

There is no evidence that maintenance procedures or practices
with respect to daily operations of aircraft 89-2058 and aircraft
89-2104 were factors in this mishap (Tabs H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5, U-2,
U-3, U-4, U-6).
Maintenance Personnel and Supervision:

(1) All personnel involved with servicing, inspections
(pre-flight and thru-flight), and aircraft launches were adequately
trained to complete all of these tasks, as documented in their AF Form
623s, On the Job Training Records, and AF Form 797s, Job Qualification
Standard Continuation/Command Job Qualification Standard (Tab U-2).

(2) Quality Verification Inspection and Personnel
Evaluation results for the four months prior to the mishap, provided
by the 347th Wing Quality Assurance section, demonstrated a trend of
quality job performance in the 69th FS (Tab U-2).
Fuel, Hydraulic and Oil Inspection Analysis.

(1) Joint Oil Analysis Program (JOAP) samples taken from
the mishap aircraft prior to the last sortie revealed no engine oil
abnormalities (Tab U-7.1). Aircraft 89-2104 was destroyed upon impact
with the ground and post-impact fire; thus, no post-flight JOAP
samples were taken (Tab D-3).

(2) The JOAP Lab at Moody AFB, GA noted no deficiencies in
fuel taken from fuel storage tank samples (Tabs U-8.1, U-8.2, U-8.3,
U-8.4, U-8.5, U-8.6, U-8.7).

(3) Sample results from the oil-servicing, liquid nitrogen
and liquid oxygen carts met required limits (Tabs U-7.3, U-7.4, U-7.5,
U-7.6, U-7.7, U-9, U-10).
Unscheduled Maintenance.

(1) A review of the Maintenance History Report for
aircraft 89-2104, covering the period from 14 January 2000 to 16
November 2000, revealed 192 unscheduled on-equipment maintenance
events. Maintenance History Report review revealed no evidence that
unscheduled maintenance was a factor in the mishap (Tab U-4).

(2) A review of the Maintenance History Report for
aircraft 89-2058, covering the period from 15 May 2000 to 16 November
2000, revealed 194 unscheduled on-equipment maintenance events.
Maintenance History Report review revealed no evidence that
unscheduled maintenance was a factor in the mishap (Tab U-4).

(3) Maintenance personnel working both aircraft the day of
the mishap were unaware of any undocumented discrepancies (Tabs V-11,
V-12). A hot-pit crewmember indicated that both aircraft were
functioning properly at the completion of all launch procedures (Tab
V-11). Lockheed Martin analysis of Crash Survivable Memory Unit
(CSMU), Seat Data Recorder (SDR), Global Positioning System (GPS),
General Avionics Computer (GAC) and INS data, as well as both pilots’
testimony, show no evidence of system performance outside of normal
operating parameters (Tabs J-12, J-13, J-14, V-6.29, V-6.32, V-8.19,
V-8.20).
AIRCRAFT AND AIRFRAME, MISSILE, OR SPACE VEHICLE SYSTEMS
Condition of Systems.

(1) Aircraft 89-2104 was completely destroyed by ground impact
and post-impact fire (Tabs M-2, S-3, S-4).

(2) Prior to the midair collision, aircraft 89-2104 had all
required equipment (Tab H-2). The equipment was functioning properly
and not a factor in the mishap (Tabs J-14, U-4, V-8.19,
V-8.20).
Testing.

(1) The CSMU and SDR from aircraft 89-2104 were
successfully retrieved and sent to Lockheed Martin Flight and System
Safety, Fort Worth, Texas, for analysis (Tab J-2). The HUD and
Multi-Function Display (MFD) recording tapes were destroyed in the
post impact fire (Tab J-3.31). Components retrieved from aircraft
89-2058 included: GAC, Inertial Navigation Unit (INU), GPS receiver
and recorded HUD and MFD tapes. All components were sent to Lockheed
Martin Flight and System Safety, Fort Worth, Texas for analysis (Tab
J-2).

(2) Analysis of data received from Lockheed Martin Flight
and System Safety of component downloads from both aircraft 89-2058
and 89-2104 substantiate that all systems were functional and
operating within design parameters (Tabs J-14, J-15). Evaluation of
system operation showed that aircraft 89-2058’s INS had a 9-11 NM
steering error on the mishap sortie (Tab
J-15). There is no indication that any other system operations of
either aircraft were a factor in this mishap.
WEATHER
Forecast Weather.

Forecast weather for MacDill AFB, Florida, located
approximately 27 nautical miles north of Sarasota, received on 16
November 2000, at 1217L (1717Z), was wind 160 degrees at 8 knots and
unlimited visibility. Sky condition forecast was few clouds at 5,000
ft. After 1500L, wind was forecasted to be 250 degrees at 10 knots.
No turbulence was forecasted at the time of the mishap (Tab K-6).
Observed Weather.

Observations were taken for Sarasota, Florida, at 1453L and
1553L. Observed winds were 210 degrees at 9-11 knots. Reported
visibility was 10 statute miles and sky condition was clear (Tab K-7).
Ninja 2 observed visibility to be better than 5 statute miles and sky
condition better than 3,000 ft, with “typical Florida haze” (Tabs
V-8.36, V-8.37). Ninja 2 also stated that the sun was in his
two-o’clock position (southwest) and not a factor in the mishap (Tabs
V-8.37,
V-8.38).
Space Environment.

There were no space weather-related events affecting the GPS
during the time of the mishap (Tab J-27).
Conclusions.

The flight was conducted during the day in visual
meteorological conditions (VMC). Weather conditions were good, and
there is no evidence that weather was a factor in the mishap.
CREW QUALIFICATIONS
Ninja 1, Flight Lead

(1) Lieutenant Colonel Parker was a qualified four-ship
flight lead. He completed his four-ship flight lead qualification in
February 2000 (Tab T-3). He had previously finished two-ship flight
lead upgrade in September 1999 (Tab T- 3). Lieutenant Colonel Parker
had a total of 2865.1 hours in USAF aircraft to include 991.9 hours in
the F-16, 701.4 hours in the F-106, and 954.5 in the T-33 (Tab G-3).
He also had 36.6 hours as an instructor in the F-106 and 80.5 hours as
an instructor in the T-33 (Tab G-3). He was current and qualified in
all areas of the briefed mission.

(2) Recent flight time is as follows (Tab G-2):
Ninja 2, Mishap Pilot

(1) Captain Kreuder was a qualified four-ship flight lead,
mission commander, functional check flight pilot and Supervisor of
Flying (SOF). He finished his mission commander upgrade on 21 August
2000 and had been a four-ship flight lead since 11 January 2000. He
was initially certified as a two-ship flight lead in March 1999. He
was certified combat mission ready at Moody AFB in December 1998 (Tab
T-2). Captain Kreuder had 706.3 hours in the F-16 (Tab G-9). He was
current and qualified in all areas of the briefed mission.

(2) Recent flight time is as follows (Tab G-7):

c. Cessna 829, Mishap Pilot

Mr. Jacques Olivier was a qualified Airline Transport Pilot
(ATP). He was issued his ATP qualification on 15 December 1999 (Tab
T-4).
MEDICAL
Qualifications.

(1) The medical and dental records of Lieutenant Colonel
Parker (Ninja 1) and Captain Kreuder (Ninja 2) were reviewed. Both
pilots were medically qualified for flight duties and had current USAF
class II flight physicals at the time of the mishap (Tabs X-2, X-3).

(2) The Cessna pilot (Mr. Olivier) was medically qualified
and had a current 1st class Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
airman medical certificate at the time of the mishap (Tab X-2).
Health.

(1) Lieutenant Colonel Parker sustained no injuries from
the mishap and did not seek medical attention. He had a normal
post-mishap physical examination on 24 November 2000 (Tab X-4).

(2) On the day of the mishap, Captain Kreuder was
hospitalized overnight for observation and evaluation. The only
significant findings on exam were a small superficial skin abrasion on
the left leg and a minor scratch on the right forearm. There was no
evidence of other injury, and full spine x-rays did not reveal any
acute abnormality or fracture (Tab X-4).

(3) Mr. Olivier sustained fatal injuries from the mishap
(Tab X-4).

(4) Neither the F-16 pilots nor the Cessna pilot appeared
to have any pre-existing medical condition that may have been a factor
in this mishap (Tab X-2).
Pathology.

(1) Blood and urine samples from Lieutenant Colonel Parker
and Captain Kreuder were submitted to the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology for toxicological analysis. Carbon monoxide levels for both
pilots were within normal limits. No ethanol was detected in the
urine or blood samples. Furthermore, no amphetamines, barbiturates,
benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates or phencyclidine were
detected in the urine samples of either pilot (Tabs X-2,
X-5).

(2) Mr. Olivier’s autopsy report from the District Twelve
Medical Examiner Office in Sarasota, Florida was reviewed. He died
instantly in the midair collision as a result of blunt force trauma
(Tab X-4). Post-mortem comprehensive toxicological analysis was
negative (Tab X-2).
Lifestyle.

Based on the 72-hour history questionnaires and interviews
with both Lieutenant Colonel Parker and Captain Kreuder, there is no
evidence that unusual habits, behavior, or stress were a factor in the
mishap (Tabs V-6.5, V-6.6, V-6.7, V-8.5, V-8.6, X-6).
Crew Rest and Crew Duty Time.

Both Lieutenant Colonel Parker and Captain Kreuder had
adequate crew rest and were within maximum aircrew duty limitations
when the mishap occurred (Tabs V-6.7, V-8.5, X-6, BB-10.3, BB-10.4).
OPERATIONS AND SUPERVISION
Operations.

The operations tempo at the time of the mishap was moderate
for an F-16 fighter squadron. The squadron had last deployed in
August 2000, when it participated in a Green Flag Exercise (Tabs V-9,
V-10). The squadron was in the process of deactivating. The
deactivation was going according to plan and morale in the unit
remained high. As personnel left the unit, those who remained were
picking up some additional duties. However, the unit had not received
any new pilots for some time; thus, there was minimum additional
upgrade training. The paperwork load continued to decrease as
personnel left the unit (Tab V-10). The experience level of the
pilots was higher than a typical operational fighter squadron.
Operations tempo was not a factor in this mishap (Tab V-10).
Supervision.

The squadron commander and the operations officer both felt
that Lieutenant Colonel Parker and Captain Kreuder were very
professional, disciplined and competent aviators (Tabs V-9,
V-10). The squadron leadership applied the proper supervisory role
for the experience level of the pilots involved. Due to the
deactivation of the 69th FS, they had combined duty desk operations
with the 68th FS. The 68th FS Top-3 was not available for the
step-brief because he was giving a mass brief. He did, however, tell
the Squadron Operations Systems Manager to pass along to the pilots
that he had no additional words for them (Tab V-6.29). Squadron
supervision was not a factor in this mishap.
HUMAN FACTORS ANALYSIS

a. Lieutenant Colonel Parker, Ninja 1

(1) Mis-prioritization of tasks: Lieutenant Colonel
Parker was navigating VFR and focusing his attention on the ground in
an attempt to find the Manatee Dam (Tabs V-6.46,
V-6.48). This focus on locating the low-level entry point likely
detracted from his flight path deconfliction responsibilities. He did
not see the collision threat in sufficient time to warn his wingman
(Tab V-6.52).

(2) Lost situational awareness: Lieutenant Colonel Parker
did not have proper situational awareness, as demonstrated by his
failure to recognize INS inaccuracies and cursor slew biases, and
flying through Class B and Class C airspace without proper clearance
or communications. As a result of his loss of SA, he ultimately
navigated his flight onto a collision course with Cessna 829.

b. Captain Kreuder, Ninja 2

(1) Mis-prioritization of tasks: In the moments prior to
the mishap, Ninja 2 was in fighting wing formation, slightly low and
to the left, 3,000-5,000 ft behind his flight lead. Captain Kreuder
was looking out for birds and expecting Ninja 1 to turn onto the
low-level route at any moment (Tab V-8.34). His immediate focus was
to “see and avoid” Ninja 1, since he expected him to turn sharply
across his flight path. However, Captain Kreuder did not properly
prioritize his visual lookout for other aircraft, as evidenced by his
failure to see Cessna 829, who was on a collision course to his left.
Captain Kreuder does not recall where he was looking at the instant of
impact, but reported that he saw a white flash at his ten- to
eleven-o’clock position just a split second prior to collision (Tab
V-8.38).

(2) Failure to adequately deconflict flight path: If two
aircraft are on a collision course, the flight geometry results in
little to no relative movement of the other aircraft on their
respective windscreens. The peripheral visual acuity of the average
human eye with 20/20 central vision is in the range of 20/200 to
20/400 (Tabs X-7.3, X-7.4). The eye relies more heavily on an
object’s relative motion and less on visual acuity in the peripheral
field of vision to detect oncoming threats. Cessna 829’s contrast and
small size against a featureless sky with very little or no relative
motion in Ninja 2’s left windscreen would render the collision threat
difficult to detect in the pilot’s peripheral vision. Therefore, a
disciplined and methodical visual scan of all forward sectors is
critical for acquiring flight path conflicts.

c. Mr. Jacques Olivier, Cessna 829

No historical human factors information was available on the
Cessna 829 pilot. However, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr.
Olivier did not perceive the collision threat in time to avoid the
collision. He would have faced the same visual perception problems as
Ninja flight: a small aircraft in a featureless sky with little or no
relative movement across his windscreen.

AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ANALYSIS
Class B Airspace.

(1) The airspace surrounding Tampa International Airport
is categorized as Class B airspace. Class B airspace normally extends
upward from the surface to 10,000 ft MSL surrounding the nation’s
busiest airports. The configuration of each Class B airspace area is
individually tailored and consists of a surface area and two or more
layers. For the specific dimensions of the Tampa Class B airspace,
refer to the legal description contained in Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9H (Tab BB-7.2). For a visual depiction of
the southeast corner of this airspace, refer to the Tampa/Orlando VFR
Terminal Area Chart (Tab R-2).

(2) Aircraft operating in Class B airspace are required to
obtain Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearance, have an operable two-way
radio capable of communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies,
and be equipped with an operating transponder and automatic altitude
reporting equipment (Tabs BB-8.6, BB-9.10).

(3) Ninja 1 entered the Tampa Class B airspace approximately
15 NM northeast of Sarasota without clearance from Tampa Approach. On
17 November 2000, Tampa Approach filed a Preliminary Pilot Deviation
Report against Ninja 1 for this violation (Tab CC-7.1).
Class C Airspace.

(1) The airspace surrounding Sarasota-Bradenton
International Airport is categorized as Class C airspace. This
airspace extends from the surface up to and including 4,000 ft MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Sarasota-Bradenton International
Airport. It also includes the airspace extending from 1,200 ft MSL up
to and including 4,000 ft MSL within a 10-mile radius of the airport
(Tabs R-2, BB-7.3).

(2) Aircraft operating in Class C airspace are required to
establish two-way radio communications with ATC before entering the
airspace and have an operational transponder (Tabs BB-8.5, BB-9.8).

(3) Ninja 1 entered the Sarasota Class C airspace 9 NM
northeast of Sarasota without establishing two-way radio
communications with Tampa Approach. On 17 November 2000, Tampa
Approach filed a Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report against Ninja 1
for this violation (Tab CC-7.1).
VR-1098.

VR-1098 is a military training route used for flights entering
the Avon Park Bombing Range (R-2901). The entry point (Point A) for
VR-1098 is located approximately 12 NM northeast of the
Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport at an altitude between 500 ft
above ground level (AGL) and 1,500 ft AGL. At Point A, the route
extends 3 NM southwest (right) of centerline, slightly penetrating the
Sarasota Class C airspace, and 8 NM northeast (left) of centerline,
underlying the Tampa Class B airspace (Tabs R-2, BB-3.3).
Air Traffic Control.

(1) According to Federal Aviation Administration
directives, the primary purpose of the Air Traffic Control (ATC)
system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the
system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic. An air
traffic controller’s first duty priority is to separate aircraft and
issue safety alerts. Controllers also have the regulatory
responsibility to issue mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts
to VFR aircraft operating in Class C airspace (Tabs BB-9.3, BB-9.8).

(2) An air traffic controller receives a Mode C Intruder
Alert when the ATC automated radar system identifies an existing or
pending situation between a tracked radar target and an untracked
radar target that requires immediate attention or action by the
controller. Once a controller observes and recognizes this situation,
his or her first priority is to issue a safety alert. A safety alert
is issued to an aircraft if the controller is aware the aircraft is in
a position which, in the controller’s judgment, places it in unsafe
proximity to other aircraft (Tabs BB-9.4, BB-9.5,
BB-9.6, BB-9.15, BB-9.16).

(3) At the time of the mishap, Cessna 829 was operating
in the Sarasota Class C airspace under the control of Tampa Approach.
At 1547:39, Tampa Approach’s radar system generated the first of a
series of five Mode C Intruder Alerts between Cessna 829 and Ninja 1.
The Mode C Intruder Alerts continued for 19 seconds, until 1547:58,
when the automated radar system no longer identified a conflict
between these two aircraft (Tabs CC-8.2, CC-8.3, CC-8.4). The system
did not identify a conflict between Cessna 829 and Ninja 2 because
Ninja 2 was not squawking a Mode III beacon code. In accordance with
Air Force directives, a wingman in standard formation does not squawk
a Mode III beacon code since the lead aircraft is already squawking a
code for the flight (Tab V-6.39, V-8.25, BB-10.5).

(4) Tampa Approach never issued a safety alert to Cessna
829, despite receiving the first Mode C Intruder Alert approximately
30 seconds before the mishap. The written transcripts do not show any
radio or landline communications by Tampa Approach when the Conflict
Alert activated. Tampa Approach also failed to issue a timely traffic
advisory to Cessna 829, with the first and only traffic advisory being
issued at the approximate time of impact (Tabs N-7,
CC-3.5). This traffic advisory was actually on Ninja 1, who had
already passed in front of Cessna 829.

(5) The accident board was unable to determine why Tampa
Approach failed to issue a safety alert to Cessna 829 because the air
traffic controllers involved in the mishap declined our request for
interviews (Tab CC-12).

e. Airspeed Requirements.

(1) Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91 states “no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
more than 250 knots.” However, it also states that “[i]f the minimum
safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum
speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that
minimum speed” (Tab BB-8.4).

(2) According to Air Force T.O. 1F-16CG-1 Flight Manual,
page 6-3, the F-16CG should be operated at a minimum airspeed of 300
KIAS during normal cruise operations below 10,000 ft. The closure
rate of Cessna 829 and Ninja 1 based on radar-measured conflict alert
data just prior to the collision was approximately 480 KTAS (Tabs
CC-8.3, CC-13).
GOVERNING DIRECTIVES AND PUBLICATIONS
Primary Operations Directives and Publications.

(1) AFI 11-2F-16 Volume 3, F-16 Flight Operations, 1
July 1999 (Tab BB-2).

(2) Area Planning Military Training Routes North and South
America (AP/1B), 5 October 2000 (Tab BB-3).
(3) AFI 11-2F-16 Volume 3, Chapter 8 Moody AFB Supplement
1, 15 October 2000
(Tab BB-4).
(4) AFI 11-214, Aircrew, Weapons Director, and Terminal
Attack Controller
Procedures for Air Operations, 25 February 1997 (Tab BB-5).

(5) AFTTP 3-3 Volume 5, Combat Aircraft Fundamentals -
F-16, 9 April 1999 (Tab
BB-6).

(6) FAAO 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, 1 September 2000
(Tab BB-7).

(7) FAR Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, 25 April 2000
(Tab BB-8).

(8) FAAO 7110.65M, Air Traffic Control, 24
February 2000 (Tab BB-9).

(9) AFI 11-202 Volume 3, General Flight Rules, 1
June 1998 (Tab BB-10).

(10) General Planning (GP), 18 May 2000 (Tab
BB-11).

(11) AIM, 10 August 2000 (Tab BB-12). (Advisory only).

(12) 347th Wing F-16 Employment Standards, March 1999 (Tab
BB-13).

(13) T.O. 1F-16CG-1, Flight Manual, 27 May 1996.
Maintenance Directives and Publications.

AFM 37-139, Records Disposition Schedule, 1 March 1996.
Known or Suspected Deviations from Directives or Publications.
Ninja 2 and Cessna 829: Failure to See and Avoid
AFI 11-202 Volume 3, Paragraph 5.2, See and Avoid (Tab BB-10.2)
General Planning, Page 2-42, See and Avoid (Tab BB-11.4)
AIM, Paragraph 5-5-8, See and Avoid (Tab BB-12.2) (Advisory only).
FAR Part 91, Section 91.111, Operating near other aircraft; and FAR
Part 91 Section 91.113, Right-of-way rules (Tabs BB-8.2, BB-8.3)
Tampa Approach: Failure to issue a safety alert to Cessna 829
FAAO 7110.65M, Paragraph 2-1-6, Safety Alert (Tab BB-9.4)
Ninja Flight: Failure to establish two-way radio communications with
Tampa Approach prior to entering Sarasota Class C airspace
FAR Part 91, Section 91.130, Operations in Class C airspace (Tab
BB-8.5)
(4) Ninja Flight: Failure to obtain ATC clearance with Tampa
Approach for entry into the Tampa Class B airspace
FAR Part 91, Section 91.131, Operations in Class B airspace (Tab
BB-8.6).
NEWS MEDIA INVOLVEMENT

News media outlets in the area around the crash site covered
this mishap extensively. Air Force officials conducted several press
conferences on-scene, and numerous television, radio, and print
reporters visited the crash site. Several live interviews were
conducted. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board held
press conferences and gave interviews.




18 January 2001 ROBIN E. SCOTT, Brigadier
General, USAF
President, Accident
Investigation Board
STATEMENT OF OPINION
F-16CG/Cessna 172
16 November 2000

1. Under 10 U.S.C. 2254(d) any opinion of the accident investigators
as to the cause of, or the factors contributing to, the accident set
forth in the accident investigation report may not be considered as
evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding arising from an aircraft
accident, nor may such information be considered an admission of
liability of the United States or by any person referred to in those
conclusions or statements.

2. OPINION SUMMARY.

There were two causes of the midair collision between an Air
Force F-16 and civilian Cessna aircraft near Bradenton, Florida, on 16
November 2000, both supported by clear and convincing evidence.
First, Ninja 2 and Cessna 829 failed to “see and avoid” each other in
sufficient time to prevent the mishap. Second, Tampa Approach failed
to transmit a safety alert to Cessna 829 when their radar system
generated “Conflict Alert” warnings.

In addition, there were three factors that substantially
contributed to the mishap, all supported by substantial evidence.
First, Ninja 1 lost situational awareness (SA) and descended under
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) into Tampa Class B airspace without
clearance. Second, Ninja 1 failed to recognize a significant position
error in his aircraft’s Inertial Navigation System (INS) and
unknowingly navigated the flight into Sarasota Class C airspace
without the required communications with Tampa Approach. Third, Ninja
1 failed to recognize a cursor slew bias in his ground attack steering
and unknowingly navigated the flight onto a collision course with
Cessna 829.

I base my opinion of these causes and contributing factors on
review and analysis of the following evidence: data released by the
Air Force Safety Investigation Board (SIB), interviews with the two
Air Force pilots, other military personnel from the mishap pilots’
unit, individuals on the ground who witnessed the mishap, applicable
Air Force and FAA directives, videotapes from the lead F-16 aircraft,
radar plots from various ground radar facilities, surveys and
photographs of the crash scenes, and examination of the F-16 wreckage.

3. DISCUSSION OF OPINION.

Three important conditions must be met in order for a midair
collision to occur. First, two aircraft must be in close proximity to
each other in time and space. Second, their flight paths must place
the aircraft on a collision course. Finally, the pilots must fail to
see each other in sufficient time and/or fail to alter their flight
paths enough to avoid the collision. In order to determine the causes
and significant factors that contributed to this mishap, it is
important to understand the circumstances surrounding the critical
chain of events that led to the midair collision.



The First Link in the Chain: The critical chain of events
began at 1544 when Ninja 1 elected to cancel Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR). He based this decision on his determination that the low-level
entry point was fast approaching and he needed to continue the
descent, as well as complete numerous tasks (G-awareness exercise,
fence check, and deploying his wingman to fighting wing position)
before they entered the low-level route. Earlier in the flight, Miami
Center had cleared Ninja 1 to proceed direct to the VR-1098 start
point with a descent to 13,000 ft mean sea level (MSL). When Ninja 1
cancelled IFR, the flight was well inside the lateral confines of
Tampa Class B airspace but still 3,000 ft above its upper limit.
Ninja 1 was not aware of this fact (i.e., he had lost his SA) and
descended the flight into controlled airspace without the required
clearance.

Ninja 1’s loss of SA during his VFR descent was a
substantially contributing factor to this mishap. While proceeding
VFR was permissible under the rules, he was still required to either
avoid entry into the Class B airspace or contact Tampa Approach for
clearance to enter. This loss of SA is the first critical link in the
mishap chain of events.

In Close Proximity: The midair collision occurred within the
confines of Sarasota Class C airspace. Cessna 829 had taken off from
Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport on a VFR flight to Crystal
River Airport and was on a radar-vector climbout with Tampa Approach.
Meanwhile, Ninja flight was still in their VFR descent proceeding to
the low-level start route point, located just northeast of the Class C
airspace. By this time, Ninja 1’s INS had developed a 9-11 nautical
mile (NM) position error that went unnoticed by the pilot. He had
experienced no problems with the INS on the first sortie of the day
and assumed it was still accurate. He did not crosscheck the INS
accuracy with other systems during the medium-altitude portion of the
mishap sortie. However, a review of ground radar plots depicting his
actual ground track on the first three legs of the sortie revealed no
apparent deviations. As he began his descent, the next opportunity to
check his INS accuracy was at the start route point.

Approximately one minute prior to the midair collision, Ninja
1 centered his INS steering and started looking for the start route
ground reference, Manatee Dam. Since both pilots in Ninja flight were
flying VR-1098 for the first time, neither had seen the actual ground
references or local terrain features before. Ninja 1’s INS was
steering him 9-11 NM south of the actual turn point so Manatee Dam
was, in reality, several miles to his left. Consequently, Ninja 1
would never visually acquire the ground reference that could have
clued him in to the INS error.

During this time, Ninja 2 was focused on maintaining his
fighting wing position and looking for birds in the vicinity of his
flight path. His impression was that they were close to the start
route point, and he was anticipating a turn onto the route at any
moment. However, he could not recall checking his own navigation
indications to confirm that their course to the start route point was
correct. Although Ninja 2’s primary non-critical task was to maintain
proper formation, he also had the responsibility to back up his flight
lead on navigation tasks. An opportunity to help his flight lead
regain situational awareness and break the mishap chain of events was
lost.





The INS position error, combined with Ninja 1’s failure to
detect the discrepancy, was another substantially contributing factor
to the mishap. By following this erroneous steering,
Ninja 1 violated Sarasota Class C airspace without the required
communications with Tampa Approach and navigated the flight into the
same airspace with Cessna 829.

On a Collision Course: As stated above, Cessna 829 was under
control of Tampa Approach on a radar-vector climbout. Tampa Approach
issued Cessna 829 a left turn to a 320-degree heading and climb to
3,500 ft MSL at about the time Ninja flight was descending through
4,000 ft MSL and entering the Class C airspace. Ninja 1 directed the
flight to conduct a “fence check” and switched his navigation system
to a ground-attack steering mode. This new mode shifted the steering
indications in the HUD, showing a 180-degree bearing for 35 NM to the
start route point. This shift in the steering indications was the
result of an unintentional cursor slew bias by the pilot. Ninja 1
failed to note this bias, turned the flight south to center up the new
steering, and continued looking for the start route ground reference.
Combined with the Cessna’s 320-degree vector, the collision geometry
for the mishap was complete.

Ninja 1’s failure to recognize and correct the unintentional
cursor slew bias was a substantially contributing factor to the
mishap. Even with the existing INS position error in the system, if
Ninja 1 had noted the cursor bias and zeroed it out, the flight would
still have flown in close proximity to Cessna 829 but would likely not
have ended up on a collision course.

Failure to “See and Avoid”: One cause of this mishap was the
failure of Ninja 2 and Cessna 829 to see each other in sufficient time
to maneuver their aircraft and avoid the midair collision. Both Ninja
flight and Cessna 829 were operating VFR in visual meteorological
conditions (VMC). Under VFR, all pilots are charged with the
responsibility to observe the presence of other aircraft and to
maneuver their aircraft as required to avoid a collision. In aviation
parlance, this responsibility is known as “see and avoid.” Air Force
training manuals emphasize that flight path deconfliction is a
critical task, one that can never be ignored without catastrophic
consequences.

The geometry of a collision intercept and associated visual
perceptions require pilots to conduct a disciplined visual scan in
order to effectively spot potential conflicts. When two aircraft are
on a collision course, there is little to no relative movement of the
other aircraft on their respective windscreens. Therefore, pilots
must constantly scan the airspace around their aircraft in a
disciplined, methodical manner in order to effectively “see and
avoid.”

Visual lookout is a priority task for all flight members,
flight leads as well as wingmen.
In this mishap, Ninja 2 failed to effectively accomplish his visual
lookout responsibilities. His attention, just prior to the mishap,
was on maintaining formation position and looking out for birds in the
vicinity of his aircraft. When the collision occurred, he was focused
on the flight lead’s aircraft at his right one- to two-o’clock
position and anticipating Ninja 1’s left turn onto the low-level
route. Just prior to the midair collision, Ninja 2 saw a white flash
at his ten- to eleven-o’clock position. He thought he had hit a bird.



Nor did Ninja 1’s own visual lookout provide his wingman
effective mutual support in flight path deconfliction. As the flight
leveled off at 2,000 ft MSL, Ninja 1 was focused on navigation tasks,
and his visual scan was towards the ground, looking for Manatee Dam.
Just prior to impact, Ninja 1 looked over his left shoulder to check
his wingman’s position and saw Cessna 829 for the first time. There
was insufficient time for him to warn his wingman before the two
aircraft collided.

There is conflicting testimony as to whether Cessna 829 saw
the impending midair collision at the last moment and attempted to
maneuver his aircraft or whether his aircraft was in wings level
flight at the time of impact. In either case, Cessna 829 failed to
“see and avoid” Ninja 2 in sufficient time to avoid the midair
collision.

Failure to Issue a Warning: ATC directives state that the
primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between
aircraft operating in the system. Additionally, controllers are to
give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts,
as required.

Approximately 30 seconds prior to the midair collision, Tampa
Approach’s ATC radar computer system recorded a series of Mode C
Intruder Alert warnings that lasted for 19 seconds. Air Traffic
Control is supposed to issue a safety alert to aircraft under their
control if they are aware of an aircraft that is not under their
control at an altitude that, in the controller’s judgment, places both
aircraft in close proximity to each other. At the time of the
Intruder Alerts, Cessna 829 was under the control of Tampa Approach
while Ninja flight was flying VFR. Ninja 1 had a 1200 Mode III squawk
in his transponder. All three aircraft were at approximately 2,000 ft
MSL.

In the event of a safety alert, Air Traffic Control is
supposed to offer the pilot an alternate course of action when
feasible (e.g., “Traffic alert, advise you turn right heading zero
niner zero or climb to eight thousand feet”). The only transmission
Tampa Approach gave Cessna 829 was a normal traffic advisory at the
approximate time of the midair collision. This advisory was actually
on Ninja 1, who had already passed in front of Cessna 829. Ninja 2
was still behind his flight lead in a fighting wing position to the
left and approximately 3000-6000 ft in trail. The accident board was
unable to determine why no safety alert was issued to Cessna 829. The
controllers on duty at the time of the mishap declined our request for
interviews.

The failure of Tampa Approach to issue a safety alert to
Cessna 829 was also a cause of this mishap. If Tampa Approach had
issued a safety alert to Cessna 829 when the first Conflict Alerts
began, it is likely the pilot would have had sufficient time to
maneuver his aircraft and avoid Ninja 2.

4. CONCLUSION.

Technological advances, improvements in training, and
refinements in the airspace structure over the past several decades
have served to improve both civilian and military aviation safety
records. Redundancy is designed into the aviation “system,” with
overlapping responsibilities between pilots and air traffic
controllers. On occasion, though, equipment will malfunction and
competent professionals will make mistakes. These are normally
isolated events that are quickly rectified with little or no impact on
the safe conduct of flying operations. There are, however, times when
several such events occur in close sequence to each other and in a
synergistic way to produce tragic results--this mishap is one such
case.

The critical chain of events began when Ninja 1 elected to
cancel IFR and ended three and a half minutes later with a midair
collision between Ninja 2 and Cessna 829, resulting in the death of
the Cessna pilot and the total destruction of two aircraft. The
evidence shows that a combination of avionics anomalies, procedural
errors, and individual mistakes, both on the ground and in the air,
led to this midair collision.

Media interest in this mishap was high. One of the issues
raised in the press concerned the speed of the fighters. Ninja flight
did, in fact, accelerate to 441 KCAS to start their G-awareness
exercise in Class B airspace and then slowly decelerated to
approximately 350 KCAS just prior to the mishap. These are speeds
normally used by fighter aircraft to safely perform tactical
maneuvering, but not appropriate for controlled airspace around busy
airports. Ninja flight’s mistake was in transitioning to the tactical
portion of their flight too early, unaware that they were in
controlled airspace. That being said, it is my opinion that speed was
not a factor in this mishap. Based on their closure rate of
approximately 480 knots, if neither pilot had seen the other until
they were only 1 NM apart, they would have still had seven seconds to
react and maneuver their aircraft enough to avoid the collision.

Both F-16 pilots were experienced aviators and qualified
four-ship flight leads with proven track records of competency in the
air. There is no evidence to suggest either of them acted with a
deliberate disregard for the safety of others. The mishap sortie
began to unravel when Ninja 1 lost situational awareness and descended
into Tampa Class B airspace without clearance. Although training and
experience minimize one’s susceptibility to losing SA, it does not
make you immune. There is an aviator expression, “you never know
you’ve lost your SA until you get it back.” In this case, Ninja
flight did not realize they had lost SA, and the other substantially
contributing factors quickly led to this midair collision before they
could they could get it back.




18 January 2001 ROBIN E. SCOTT, Brigadier
General, USAF
President, Accident
Investigation Board
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Cub Driver]

I once did a story about the Missing Man Formation, and had a
wonderful exchange of emails with a navy pilot who'd recently flown
one at Arlington Natl Cemetery.

Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that
he was under the control of ATC for the overflight.

He did get a "discrete", however--a radio frequency all to his own.

And he did bust the speed limit for low altitude work.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities are
>in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
>Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
>disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
>Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
>through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that Federal
>power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal with;
>under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that Federal
>power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses. I
>don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
>without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.
>
>Please educate us, educated one.

In discerning "what entities are in the Constitution" you will find
upon searching for the Cabinet--and all of the agencies included--that
not a single one of them is mentioned. Not only do you not find NASA
or DOT or DOE which you mention, you also don't find State, Defense,
the AG, SG, Interior, et. al. Not a one. You also don't find NSA--and
didn't until Eisenhower; or CIA, not till Truman, or SEC or FDA or any
mention of the Executive Office of the President. All you find listed
for the Executive branch is a Prez and VP. They are charged with a
number of functions and given the authority to organize as they see
fit to accomplish them.

Your initial description of NASA as an "extra-Constitutional entity"
is probably linquistically correct in that it is an agency not
described in the document, but legally incorrect in that agencies
would be described as "Constitutional" or un-Constitutional.

Libertarian thought, while enlightening in some instances it certainly
would create a workload for the President if it disbanded those
entities which are not described in the Constitution. Wonder how long
it would take George Dubya to deliver the mail to the entire country
with just him and Cheney doing the job?

Your description of (R)epublican "thinking" as the Feds only doing
what the States can't is really the "Anti-Federalist" thinking of
Thomas Jefferson--father of the Democratic Party. And your description
of the (D)emocratic idea that Federal power should be unlimited and
seek to satisfy the masses is really the great shift instituted by FDR
in response to the political process. The people in the depths of the
Great Depression demanded that the great White Father in Washington
rescue them--and, of course he responded. Today, both Republicans and
Democrats routinely beg Washington to solve every problem that society
encounters.

We are indeed "an experiment in Democracy", but if you examine the
Constitution (which you so freely refer to) you'll see that the
Founding Fathers weren't all that confident in the ability of the
"great unwashed" to govern themselves. Until the 17th Amendment,
ratified in 1913, the Senate was "appointed" by the various state
legislatures--not popularly elected. For the first 126 years of the
Republic, only the House was popularly elected. The Senate, the Prez,
the Judiciary, all were selected by a process that was isolated from
"we the people"--insuring the control of the elites, the Founders
themselves.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Billy Beck]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>I once did a story about the Missing Man Formation, and had a
>wonderful exchange of emails with a navy pilot who'd recently flown
>one at Arlington Natl Cemetery.
>
>Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that
>he was under the control of ATC for the overflight.

I don't understand at all why that should surprise you. Have you
ever looked at Arlington and where it lays in the D.C. Terminal Area?


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

[Ed Rasimus]

(Jake McGuire) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> We are indeed "an experiment in Democracy", but if you examine the
>> Constitution (which you so freely refer to) you'll see that the
>> Founding Fathers weren't all that confident in the ability of the
>> "great unwashed" to govern themselves. Until the 17th Amendment,
>> ratified in 1913, the Senate was "appointed" by the various state
>> legislatures--not popularly elected. For the first 126 years of the
>> Republic, only the House was popularly elected. The Senate, the Prez,
>> the Judiciary, all were selected by a process that was isolated from
>> "we the people"--insuring the control of the elites, the Founders
>> themselves.
>
>While deferring to your expertise in this matter, isn't the opposite
>spin of "The founders thought that it was wise to add some inertia
>between the sometimes erratic and fickle vote of the populace and the
>actual mechanism of power, while still leaving the people in ultimate
>control" just as valid?
>
>I think that there's a lot to be said for "Give someone the
>responsibility and the authority to do the job, give them time to do
>it, and then review their performance at appropriate intervals"
>instead of "micromanage every aspect of everything." I don't trust
>myself to make an informed decision on everything that comes down the
>pike, and I sure as hell don't trust my fellow citizens. Especially
>since I live in California.
>
>-jake

I couldn't agree more. Just as in California, we in Colorado are
plagued by "initiatives" (what you in CA refer to as
"propositions")--the "take-it-or-leave-it" simple majority, populist
vote without regard to budget cost, priority, long-term consequence or
even Constitutionality. No debate, no amendment, no compromise, no
consensus-building required--a simple up or down vote on something
that everyone wants and no one wants to pay for. Yeahh, this democracy
is sure great!!!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[BUFDRVR]

>>Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that
>>he was under the control of ATC for the overflight.
>
> I don't understand at all why that should surprise you. Have you
>ever looked at Arlington and where it lays in the D.C. Terminal Area?

I'm sure Reagan Tower wouldn't appreciate you overflying their runways
(perpendicular) at 500'.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[John R Weiss]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote...
>
> I'm sure Reagan Tower wouldn't appreciate you overflying their runways
> (perpendicular) at 500'.

Better Pk with an acute nagle to the runway, anyway... :-)

[Eric Chevalier]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:32:01 -0700,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

>I think one of them was a university in the midwest somewhere, one of
>the state schools. They had a flight department, all unregulated, and
>crashed a plane in the KingAir class, maybe in bad weather, with a
>bunch of high-level folks on board. This was probably within the last
>ten years.
>
>I don't even know where to look to find the records of accidents like
>this. They're not investigated by FAA or NTSB, so they're not in
>either database.

[Snip]

Might you be thinking about the crash of a Super King Air 200 on
January 27, 2001? This was a flight carrying 8 members of the OSU
basketball team back to Stillwater, OK after a game in Colorado. The
two pilots and 8 passengers were all killed in that accident. During
the investigation, it was found that the university's Flight
Department had not exercised proper oversight over the operation of
this flight. However, the NTSB determined that this was not "causal to
the accident," see:

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2003/030123a.htm

The NTSB did investiage this particular accident; the synopsis of the
accident report can be found at:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010208X00421&key=1

Eric Chevalier

--
Eric Chevalier
www.tulsagrammer.com

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:31:05 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

snip

>I even managed to put a couple of United pilots into F-18s, looking at
>unusual attitude recovery. No contract, no agreement, no nothing. A
>duck counter would have been (forgive me, I can't resist) duck soup.

Crap ma'am, sign me up!

>
>Did I ever tell you guys about bug collecting with the Jetstar? Or
>how we simulated dead bug bodies when getting the real thing didn't
>work? Nothing to do with ducks or contractors or pax operations,
>although I have a story about pax-like operations in turbulence with
>the Jetstar.

Sounds like a good story to me. Am within driving distance of a NASA
research facility, but it's near the north (instead of a ways from the
left) coast.

Looked into using one of our singles for duck-counting, but the
paperwork for low-altitude twin stuff was bad enuff. But man,
compared to the F-18 deal...

And I do really need to know how to make "simulated dead bug bodies".

TC

[Cub Driver]

>Wonder how long
>it would take George Dubya to deliver the mail to the entire country
>with just him and Cheney doing the job?

It's an entertaining thought, but the lads could hardly do a worse job
that the incumbent (i.e. the USPS)!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the
> civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the
> military services mandates is purely at their own discretion.
>

I don't know where you got that idea but it is simply not correct. We don't
have civil aviation regulations in the US, we have Federal Aviation
Regulations, and they apply to all; military, civilian, and civilian
government.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and
maintaining a common civil-military system of air navigation and air traffic
control. The
Act contained an exception for military emergencies and procedures for use
in the event
of war, but outside of those situations, the military and the civilian
government complies with applicable FARs because they are required to do so.



FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958

TITLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

DECLARATION OF POLICY: THE ADMINISTRATOR

Sec. 103 [49 U.S. Code 1303]. In the exercise and performance of his
powers and duties under this Act the Administrator shall consider the
following, among other things, as being in the public interest:

(a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best promote its
development and safety and fulfill the requirements of national defense;

(b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics;

(c) The control of the use of the navigable airspace of the United
States and the regulation of both civil and military operations in such
airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both;

(d) The consolidation of research and development with respect to air
navigation facilities, as well as the installation and operation thereof;

(e) The development and operation of a common system of air traffic
control and navigation for both military and civil aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Which is exactly what I said. The FAR's do not by themselves apply
> to the military, the military mandates their own compliance with them.
>

You make it sound like they have an option. The military is required to
follow applicable FARs by higher civilian authority.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Come on folks, wake up... Despite lip service and soothing sounds offered
> by their spokesman, the military arm of the federal government
demonstrates
> daily that it is not bound by civilian rules, including the FAA rules...
I
> will ask one rhetorical question for those who are not too brain dead to
> think for themselves...
> Where in 14 CFR, Part 91, et. al., does it authorize you to attach a fully
> automatic machine gun on the aircraft, or a nuclear weapon, or napalm,
> etc.,?
> Obviously it doesn't yet they do - Res Ipsa Loquitor / QED ...
>

So anything that's not authorized is prohibited?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I once did a story about the Missing Man Formation, and had a
> wonderful exchange of emails with a navy pilot who'd recently flown
> one at Arlington Natl Cemetery.
>
> Probably the thing that amazed me most about the whole thing was that
> he was under the control of ATC for the overflight.
>

Why did that amaze you?


>
> He did get a "discrete", however--a radio frequency all to his own.
>

Probably UHF and he just happened to be the only aircraft on it at the time.


>
> And he did bust the speed limit for low altitude work.
>

Do you mean he operated in excess of 250 kias, or in excess of the minimum
safe airspeed for his particular operation?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities
are
> >in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
> >Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
> >disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
> >Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
> >through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that
Federal
> >power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal
with;
> >under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that
Federal
> >power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses.
I
> >don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
> >without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.
> >
> >Please educate us, educated one.
>
> In discerning "what entities are in the Constitution" you will find
> upon searching for the Cabinet--and all of the agencies included--that
> not a single one of them is mentioned.

I think you are on to something, Ed.

Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it is
always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
how things really work. All that America's children are taught in primary
school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving some
insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how well
the students can parrot the professor.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jake McGuire" > wrote in message
om...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
> > We are indeed "an experiment in Democracy", but if you examine the
> > Constitution (which you so freely refer to) you'll see that the
> > Founding Fathers weren't all that confident in the ability of the
> > "great unwashed" to govern themselves. Until the 17th Amendment,
> > ratified in 1913, the Senate was "appointed" by the various state
> > legislatures--not popularly elected. For the first 126 years of the
> > Republic, only the House was popularly elected. The Senate, the Prez,
> > the Judiciary, all were selected by a process that was isolated from
> > "we the people"--insuring the control of the elites, the Founders
> > themselves.
>
> While deferring to your expertise in this matter, isn't the opposite
> spin of "The founders thought that it was wise to add some inertia
> between the sometimes erratic and fickle vote of the populace and the
> actual mechanism of power, while still leaving the people in ultimate
> control" just as valid?

No, the Founders were far from being of one mind. The Federalists
(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic, with those of
democratic persuasion placing the 3/5 law into the Constitution (democracy
ultimately leads to the opression of the minority) and those of the
republicn (anti-federalists) way of thinking wanting the Bill of Rights.
Later, Jefferson created the Democratic Republican Party and defeated the
Federalists to this day.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Newps]

> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>The civil aviation regulations do not apply to the military (nor the
>>civilian government itself). Any compliance with the FAR's the
>>military services mandates is purely at their own discretion.

That's correct. Government agencies do not have to abide by the FAR's.
However a lot of them have written into their regs that they have to
follow certain regs, because it is easier than coming up with their own.
A friend of mine flies for the USDA ADC(Animal Damage Control). He
hunts coyotes from the goverments Piper Cubs. Their regs say they must
follow for hire regs with respect to 100 hour inspections and annuals.
They do not worry about 337's and field approvals for mods to the
aircraft.

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.

So far, so good.

> The Federalists
>(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,

Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
Libertarians are the opposite.

> with those of
>democratic persuasion placing the 3/5 law into the Constitution (democracy
>ultimately leads to the opression of the minority)

The 3/5ths compromise was a black day in America's history, but to
attribute it to a desire to oppress a minority is wrong. It may be
viewed that way in 20th Century, post-civil-rights thinking, but it
was simply a mechanism to deal with the large states/small states
proportional representation question. A "deal with the devil" if you
will, but don't ascribe malicous motives to the action.

> and those of the
>republicn (anti-federalists)

No "republicn" until after Lincoln. You might want to label them
"Whigs".

> way of thinking wanting the Bill of Rights.

The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
the government "can't" do.

>Later, Jefferson created the Democratic Republican Party and defeated the
>Federalists to this day.

Duh? You're saying that there is some sort of hybrid "Democratic
Republican" Party? Jefferson's party has a very clear lineage to the
modern Democratic Party (although poor Tom would be aghast at what it
has become.) And, the certainly haven't defeated the Federalists--au
contraire, they have become what they opposed.

>
>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
>I think you are on to something, Ed.
>
>Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it is
>always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
>how things really work. All that America's children are taught in primary
>school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving some
>insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how well
>the students can parrot the professor.
>

Excuse me, John, but how does dealing with Congressional staff or top
level bureaucrats in DOT give you any view at all about academia?

When was the last time you were in a government/civics/political
science calss in "some universities"? Can you provide some basis for
the statement "such programs are only testimng (sic) to see how well
the students can parrot the professor"?

Let me start by stating the obvious, that the reason the professor is
"the professor" is because he or she knows a bit more than the
students. Certainly a university is a place for develping thinking and
reasoning schools, but first the student must be well grounded in the
basics. Then, if they present a rational and well developed argument,
you can be certain that they are rewarded.

Although, come to think of it, you do present a compelling case that
America's citizens do get a sub-standard education. Many of your
statements support this contention.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.
>
> So far, so good.
>
> > The Federalists
> >(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,
>
> Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
> at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
> government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
> Libertarians are the opposite.

No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The Federalist
papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.

> > with those of
> >democratic persuasion placing the 3/5 law into the Constitution
(democracy
> >ultimately leads to the opression of the minority)
>
> The 3/5ths compromise was a black day in America's history, but to
> attribute it to a desire to oppress a minority is wrong. It may be
> viewed that way in 20th Century, post-civil-rights thinking, but it
> was simply a mechanism to deal with the large states/small states
> proportional representation question. A "deal with the devil" if you
> will, but don't ascribe malicous motives to the action.

I find putting Slavery in the Constitution to be malicious.

> > and those of the
> >republicn (anti-federalists)
>
> No "republicn" until after Lincoln. You might want to label them
> "Whigs".

No, Jefferson often refered to the anti-Federalists as Republicans and they
were part of Jefferson's original Democratic Republican Party.

> > way of thinking wanting the Bill of Rights.
>
> The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
> was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
> document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
> but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
> what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
> the government "can't" do.

No, the ratification of the Constitution was to be by force of arms, once 7
States had ratified. When 6 States had ratified the Contitution, the State
of Connecticut offered, "this Bill of Rights, or War". The Bill of Rights
was added to the Constitution by threat of violence.

> >Later, Jefferson created the Democratic Republican Party and defeated the
> >Federalists to this day.
>
> Duh? You're saying that there is some sort of hybrid "Democratic
> Republican" Party?

No, I am only refering to the Democratic Republican Party by its original
name. Those of democratic thinking and those of republican thinking had to
band together to defeat the Federalists.

> Jefferson's party has a very clear lineage to the
> modern Democratic Party (although poor Tom would be aghast at what it
> has become.)

Sure, the name was shortened, later.

> And, the certainly haven't defeated the Federalists--au
> contraire, they have become what they opposed.

You could use some remedial history courses, Ed.

As with many, Ed confuses anti-Federalists with Federalists.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >
> >I think you are on to something, Ed.
> >
> >Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it
is
> >always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
> >how things really work. All that America's children are taught in
primary
> >school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving
some
> >insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how
well
> >the students can parrot the professor.

> Excuse me, John, but how does dealing with Congressional staff or top
> level bureaucrats in DOT give you any view at all about academia?

We are ll degreed folks and we know how divergent what is taught in school
is from reality.

> When was the last time you were in a government/civics/political
> science calss in "some universities"? Can you provide some basis for
> the statement "such programs are only testimng (sic) to see how well
> the students can parrot the professor"?

I had my political science instruction from a Black radical, but he had
reformed. As with many educated Blacks he was intrigued by my name.

> Let me start by stating the obvious, that the reason the professor is
> "the professor" is because he or she knows a bit more than the
> students. Certainly a university is a place for develping thinking and
> reasoning schools, but first the student must be well grounded in the
> basics. Then, if they present a rational and well developed argument,
> you can be certain that they are rewarded.

Well, actually no. What is taught in school is not the same as reality, but
there is much to be said for the ability to parrot the professor.

> Although, come to think of it, you do present a compelling case that
> America's citizens do get a sub-standard education. Many of your
> statements support this contention.

Ed, how you could be teaching political science without knowing US history
is a mystery to me. There is the possibility that these United States would
just as soon academia be ignorant, as the People might be able to implement
change, were they awaere of reality.

[Tarver Engineering]

<Billy Beck> wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>
>
> >> >No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.
> >>
> >> So far, so good.
> >>
> >> > The Federalists
> >> >(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,
> >>
> >> Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
> >> at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
> >> government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
> >> Libertarians are the opposite.
> >
> >No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
> >anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The
Federalist
> >papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.
>
> <sigh> Ed? Help me out here: where do you think that puts the
> "Brutus" essays published in the New York Journal with the Federalist
> essays? How 'bout Melancton Smith in New York, or Patrick Henry in
> the Virginia Ratifying convention?

In the case of Beck, there is a substancial history in the political
newsgroups that verifies his cluelessness. In fact, Beck is hated by the
left, right and center, for his posted ignorance.

[Billy Beck]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

><Billy Beck> wrote...
>>
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>>
>>
>> >> >No, the Founders were far from being of one mind.
>> >>
>> >> So far, so good.
>> >>
>> >> > The Federalists
>> >> >(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,
>> >>
>> >> Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
>> >> at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
>> >> government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
>> >> Libertarians are the opposite.
>> >
>> >No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
>> >anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The
>> >Federalist papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.
>>
>> <sigh> Ed? Help me out here: where do you think that puts the
>> "Brutus" essays published in the New York Journal with the Federalist
>> essays? How 'bout Melancton Smith in New York, or Patrick Henry in
>> the Virginia Ratifying convention?
>
>In the case of Beck, there is a substancial history in the political
>newsgroups that verifies his cluelessness. In fact, Beck is hated by the
>left, right and center, for his posted ignorance.

None of that has anything to do with the *facts* of the
Anti-Federalists, Tarver, about which I know a lot and you obviously
know nothing at all. Nice slide, lad. Do you tap, as well?


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> > The Federalists
>> >(librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,
>>
>> Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
>> at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
>> government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
>> Libertarians are the opposite.
>
>No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
>anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The Federalist
>papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.
>

With that Orwellian circumlocution I must withdraw from the
discussion. Clearly I've been bested by the Tarver intellect.

Lemme see now, the "librtarians" are like the Federalist in that they
weren't the anti-Federalists who opposed the strong central goverment
but in opposing the strong central government they were akin to the
Federalists, who really wrote the "anti-federalist" papers.....

I've got to get back to school. Things are changing rapidly.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Billy Beck]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>>> > The Federalists (librtarians) had ultimate control in creating the Republic,
>>>
>>> Excuse me, you are linking the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison and Jay
>>> at the core) with the Libertarians who oppose a strong central
>>> government? The Federalists were the ones seeking central focus.
>>> Libertarians are the opposite.
>>
>>No, the Federalists are the same as Libertarians. It is the
>>anti-Federalists that opposed a strong central government. The Federalist
>>papers are mostly an anti-federalist product.

>With that Orwellian circumlocution I must withdraw from the
>discussion. Clearly I've been bested by the Tarver intellect.
>
>Lemme see now, the "librtarians" are like the Federalist in that they
>weren't the anti-Federalists who opposed the strong central goverment
>but in opposing the strong central government they were akin to the
>Federalists, who really wrote the "anti-federalist" papers.....

Sure.

There is no point arguing with that.

All done, then.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

[C.D. Damron]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to
> applicable FARs because they are required to do so.

Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to FAR's.
They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA.

While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no ambiguity.
You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by
government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a
number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can
reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law.

Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of
military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these
cases, the FAA backed down.

[Tarver Engineering]

"C.D. Damron" > wrote in message
news:RqV0b.213070$uu5.38577@sccrnsc04...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to
> > applicable FARs because they are required to do so.
>
> Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to
FAR's.
> They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA.
>
> While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no
ambiguity.

Even the Statute refers only to ATC. Not some "applicable FARs".

> You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by
> government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a
> number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can
> reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law.
>
> Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of
> military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these
> cases, the FAA backed down.

FAA is now prohibited, by adminstrative law, from sanctioning Miilitary
pilots in any way.

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:47:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
>was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
>document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
>but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
>what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
>the government "can't" do.

More than that, agreement on the Constitution was actually predicated
on the promise that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow.

I don't remember why it wasn't included in the main document. It could
have been something as simple as wanting to keep the Constitution
streamlined, or as devious as a worry that all 13 former colonies
might not ratify it with the Bill included. Nor do I remember how the
Bill was ratified. If it went to the states (as they now were), the
second possibility can be ruled out.

To carry on the civics lesson: the Constitution went into effect when
nine states had ratified it; New Hampshire was the 9th state to do so.
Vermont was not one of the 13 colonies, nor one of the 13 states who
are memorialized as the stripes on the American flag. When Vermont
joined the Union, the tradition was already underway that the United
States would expand virtually without limit.

All the press goes to the Declaration of Independence and the war of
revolution that followed it, but the Constitution was the document
that changed the world. Just about every nation, at one time or
another, has declared independence and/or fought a revolution, but
what other created a document for self-government that lasted more
than 200 years?

In my opinion, even the 3/5 provision ought to be there, enshrined
forever, so we'll never forget that the document wasn't perfect to
begin with, but is being perfected over time.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:47:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
> wrote:
>
> >The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
> >was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
> >document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
> >but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
> >what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
> >the government "can't" do.
>
> More than that, agreement on the Constitution was actually predicated
> on the promise that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow.
>
> I don't remember why it wasn't included in the main document.

The Bill of Rights restricts the power of the Central Government and the
Federalists (libertarians) did not want the federal government resticted.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
[snipped]
>
> > The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal
> Aviation
> > Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR.
>
> Not anymore. In consent decree FAA agrees to not use the acronym FAR
> anymore.
>

Somebody better tell the FAA...

Chip, ZTL