The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Exactly. Flying out here in the West it's not uncommon to transit
several MOAs in the course of a long XC. I just contact Center on the
local frequency and get advisories. They will steer you away from any
military activity if the MOA is hot.


Only if you're IFR.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Center radar probably can't "see" to as low an altitude as the
military radar covering MOAs.


I think you'll find more center radar than military radar covering MOAs.



And then, there is the issue of whether
the military aircraft operating in the MOA are receiving traffic
advisories from Center or not.


Probably not, but it's generally available to civil aircraft.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

It didn't occur in a MOA, didn't involve supersonic operations, and,
the incident is not relevant to the discussion of the proposed changes
to airspace in New Mexico were my points.


Correct on all points.



You are correct, the midair did not take place on an LLN route. Feel
better now?


Not particularly, as I was already feeling pretty good.



You're entering this a bit late. Your additional phrase regarding
operational necessity has been discussed in some detail here.


Just wanted to make sure you understood the requirements.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:43:01 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

How does expansion of a MOA for operations above 10,000 feet in New
Mexico relate to a mid-air collision in Florida on a low-level
training route?


The Florida midair did not occur on a low-level training route.

He didn't say it did. It occurred in Class C airspace en route to a
MTR.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

He didn't say it did.


No, he did not say the Florida midair occurred on a low-level training
route. He implied that it did when he asked, "How does expansion of a MOA
for operations above 10,000 feet in New Mexico relate to a mid-air collision
in Florida on a low-level training route?"

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:58:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

When a pilot deliberately descends into congested terminal airspace
with the required ATC clearance, it's not an accident; it's reckless
endangerment of all the aircraft operating legally within the terminal
airspace. If you disagree, please explain how Parker could have
_accidentally_ descended into the Class B and C airspace, perform a G
Check, and search for the MTR?


I don't recall anything in the report that indicated the descent into Class
B or Class C airspace was deliberate.

That is correct. The UAAF Accident Investigation Bboard's (AIB)
report found, that Parker's descent into terminal airspace was a
result of his loss of situational awareness, and (erroneously) implied
that it was the result of an INS error that mysteriously originated at
the time Parker chose to descend into Class B airspace without benefit
of the required ATC clearance.

As I recall there was a significant navigational error.

That is correct also. The AIB report found:

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 [or ~1 NM SSE of Class B 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.

About the specifics of the INS error, the AIB report found:

Ninja 1’s INS was steering him 9-11 NM south of the actual turn
point so Manatee Dam [the MTR entry point] was, in reality,
several miles to his left.

Now, given the flight was on a southerly heading, and the INS error
erroneously caused Ninja 1 (Parker) to believe his position was 9-11
NM south of his true position, Please explain how that error caused
Parker to believe the MTR entry point was located to the side of his
position? He was southbound, and the error erroneously showed his
position 9-11 NM south of his true position, not to the side. That AIB
report conclusion doesn't make any sense.

But it gets worse. The AIB report also mentions Parkers true position
at the time he began his descent into Class B airspace to have been:

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 entered the Sarasota Class C airspace 9 NM northeast of
Sarasota
..

Now, given the flight was on a southerly heading, and the INS error
erroneously caused Ninja 1 (Parker) to believe his position was 9-11
NM south of his true position, it would have caused him to believe he
was north of the northern boundary of Class C airspace. If that is
true, please explain how the INS error could have excused his decision
to descend into Class B airspace.

The NTSB report (MIA01FA028A) found:

They [Ninja flight] continued to descend through 5,000 feet about
6 miles north of the entry point to VR-1098.

[...]

About 1547, the F-16 flight was heading south and descending
through 4,300 feet on a converging course with N73829. Radar data
indicated that the flight had overshot its intended entry point to
VR-1098 and was several miles southwest of the MTR. The flight had
also inadvertently [sic] passed through Tampa class B airspace
without the required ATC clearance and was about to enter the
Sarasota class C airspace without establishing communications with
ATC, which is required by Federal regulations.

[...]

The second jet collided with the civilian airplane and initially
continued southbound, according to witness statements.

Given Ninja flight's southerly course and the AIB report's conclusion,
that the INS error caused Parker to erroneously believe his position
was 9-11 NM south of his true positron, while still descending through
an altitude of 5,000', Parker would have thought his position to be
well past the MTR entry point. But Parker made another error.

The AIB report states:

... about the time Ninja flight was descending through 4,000 ft
MSL and entering the Class C airspace. Ninja 1 ... 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

However, regardless of that, while the INS error could have
contributed to Parker's loss of SA, it in no way accounts for his
decision to descend into Class B airspace without required ATC
clearance.

There is this additional AIB report information, that may shed some
light on the possible cause of Parker's numerous errors:

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 [8 days subsequent to the
day the mishap occurred].

...

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

Had fluid samples been analyzed immediately following the mishap,
instead of 8 days later, it might not raise such a red flag.

I would very much appreciate your analysis of these apparent facts and
your replies to the two questions I posed above. Perhaps you can
provide a reasonable explanation, that exonerates Parker's decision to
descend when into Class B airspace. I cannot.