Airspeed of military planes

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:08:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
regulations!

The F-16 involved in the Florida MAC became uncontrollable; its
military pilot safely ejected and walked away.


Those are the only two incidents?


Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
be able to provide.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.


Well, then you're not in a position to declare, "So far, it's been 50/50."

"M. Tettnanger" wrote in message
m...
"Jim Baker" wrote...
get down to about 20K lbs of fuel for a no flap landing which gave an
approach/landing speed of 184 KIAS for a 210K lb. airplane.

If I'm figuring this right, that's 225 mph groundspeed at the
elevation of Ellsworth AFB. Holy smoke!

Mark

I once saw a B-52D land at Ellsworth AFB in zero feet. The nine crewmembers
survived, the aircraft didn't. Their problem was lack of airspeed.

Tex

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:03:55 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.


Well, then you're not in a position to declare, "So far, it's been 50/50."


Okay. Given the reasoning you espouse above, you are in no better
position to state, "It's usually catastrophic for the "space-ships" as
well." unless you have knowledge of additional military v civil MACs.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
be able to provide.

From the UK:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...age/dft_avsafe
ty_502737.hcsp
(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C15155637 )

Paul

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:55:59 -0000, "Paul Sengupta"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
be able to provide.

From the UK:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...age/dft_avsafe
ty_502737.hcsp
(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C15155637 )

Paul


Many thanks for the information.

Here's an excerpt for other readers who don't want to wade through the
excellent and complete report:

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

Thecollision occurred at a height of 655 feet agl, 300 metres from the
westernedge of the village of Matttersey, Nottinghamshire. The Tornado
was flying atan IAS of 434 kt on a heading of 045ûM. Eyewitnesses
describe the Cessna in astabilised turn to the left with about 30û
AOB. Its speed is unknown, but wasprobably close to the cruise speed
of 90 kt since this was the pilots normalmethod of operation. In the
final few seconds of flight the pilot would nothave been able to see
the Tornado which would have been obscured by thestructure of the
Cessna. Eyewitnesses report the Tornado going straight throughthe
Cessna with the initial impact just behind the right wing root of
theCessna. Neither aircraft made any alteration to its flight path in
the finalfew seconds and there was no perceived change in the engine
noise from eitheraircraft.

TheCessna pilot and his passenger received fatal injuries in the
collision. Theaircraft wreckage fell into open ground below the point
of collision. Bothmilitary pilots received fatal injuries in the
collision. The impact alsoinitiated the ejection sequence of the front
seat by mechanically removing themain gun sear. The student pilot was
ejected from the aircraft and his bodycame to rest in a field 300
metres beyond the point of collision. Theinstructor of the Tornado
remained in the aircraft, which then commenced ashallow descent and
flew into the ground 3 km north-east from the point of thecollision.
The Tornado disintegrated on impact.

....

1.16 Tests and research

1.16.1 Detection and recognition

Statisticsshow that the majority of mid-air collisions occur in good
weather and goodvisibility. The problems of the visual detection of
another aircraft, and therecognition that it is on a collision course
have long been acknowledged andmuch research has been carried out into
ways of avoiding such accidents. TheAAIB Aircraft Accident Report
(AAR) 2/94 recommended that the Ministry ofDefence (MOD) should
commission an operational analysis of Fast Jet (FJ) lowflying training
in the UK to determine whether the use of see and avoid asthe primary
means of collision avoidance is satisfactory from the point of viewof
flight safety. The MOD accepted this recommendation and commissioned
theDefence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) to conduct the
analysis and toevaluate various measures that might further enhance
flight safety. Theexecutive summary of the study is at Appendix C. The
study concluded that theprinciple of see and avoid in the open Flight
Information Region (FIR) below2,000 feet is generally more than 99%
effective in resolving conflictions. Atcurrent flying rates (military
and civil) this implies an expected collisionrate of 0.118 per 10,000
flying hours for military fast jet aircraft and of0.005 per 10,000
flying hours (by military fast jets) for fast jet/generalaviation
aircraft. This predicts a random collision between a military fast
jetand a general aviation aircraft about once every 6 years.

1.16.1.1 Conspicuity

Thestudy considered the effectiveness of three measures currently
available whichmight enhance conspicuity: high intensity strobe lights
(HISLs), forward facinglights and the use of gloss black paint
schemes. The use of HISLs, rated at2,000 candela, on military aircraft
was calculated to produce a reduction inthe expected collision rate
from 2.202 to 1.870 per annum. HISLs are now fittedto all military low
flying aircraft. Adding HISLs to all non-sports civilaircraft is
estimated to reduce the expected rate of collision rate by afurther
0.445 per annum. There is no current requirement for light
civilaircraft to be fitted with HISLs. The use of high powered forward
facing lightswas evaluated by the RAF and, whilst effective, has been
found to be viableonly on the Hawk aircraft. All RAF training aircraft
are now painted black, butfast jet aircraft retain their camouflage
paint scheme. Using these conspicuitymeasures reduces the calculated
collision rate by about 49%.

1.16.1.2 CollisionWarning System

Thestudy also considered the effect of fitting a Collision Warning
System (CWS) tofast jets other than the Hawk and the Tucano. It
assumed that all lightaircraft were fitted with an operating radar
transponder (SSR). The studyconcluded that a CWS would reduce the
collision rate by about 66%. The RAFcompleted a technology
demonstration programme in 1997, which concluded that atransponder
based system would be technically feasible for fast jet aircraft.The
MOD has since decided to procure a CWS for the Tornado GR4 fleet
(anupdated variant of the Tornado GR1). The implementation and
introduction intoservice will be dependent upon the selected technical
solution but the currentplanned in service date is 2004. The RAF also
had a requirement for an airborneinstrumented debrief system and the
selected system already incorporated abasic CWS capability. This
equipment is expected to be in service in 2002.Unfortunately, this
system, once introduced into service, will only detectother similarly
equipped aircraft. Therefore, if the Tornado involved in thisaccident
had been carrying such equipment it would not have detected theCessna,
even if, as a pre-requisite, the Cessnas transponder had been
selectedto ON.

TheCivil Aviation Authority (CAA) have also been pursuing the
development of alightweight, battery powered transponder that could be
carried in lightaircraft, gliders or microlights. A feasibility study
has been completed withencouraging conclusions, but component
production difficulties for use in aproduction unit have resulted in
further delays to the programme.

1.16.1.3 Strobedetection equipment

TheCAA have conducted an extensive study, including field trials, on
thedevelopment of a strobe detector. This utilises modern optical
components todetect the strobe lights fitted to all military and many
civil aircraft. Anoperational evaluation was carried out and confirmed
the technical viabilityand operational effectiveness of the system.
The prototype system was evaluatedby the RAF with encouraging results.
However, it has not yet been possible tomanufacture commercially
viable products.

1.16.2 Probability of detection

Astudy to estimate the detectability of each aircraft from the point
of view ofthe other was commissioned from the Centre for Human
Sciences at Farnborough.This study is presented at Appendix D. The
conclusions of this study are thatthe nature of the Cessna aircrafts
final manoeuvre presented those on boardwith only a limited
opportunity for detecting the Tornado, and it is likelythat their
attention was confined to ground references during this
criticalperiod. The instructor pilot, in the rear seat of the Tornado
aircraft, had anobstructed view in the forward sector and had no
opportunity to detect theconfliction. Only the student pilot, in the
front seat of the Tornado, had anyopportunity to detect the
confliction. In principle, in the prevailingconditions, a diligent
visual scan would have had a moderate probability ofrevealing the
Cessna in time to allow avoiding action to be taken. Thisprinciple was
undermined by the student pilots attention to a routine
checkprocedure. Whilst conducting this routine check it is difficult
to believe thathe was able to give more than scant attention to visual
look out. His lack ofexperience in the use of the HUD probably
contributed to his inability todetect the other aircraft. It is also
possible that the effects of clutter inthe HUD reduced the probability
of detection at a critical moment.

1.16.3 Radar coverage

Analysisof the recordings of local military and civil radars failed to
show traces ofthe tracks of either aircraft. It is considered that
this was because bothaircraft were below the base of primary radar
cover and neither aircraftappeared to be using its secondary radar
transponder. This device produces anenhanced radar return together
with a data tag that can identify a specificaircraft and its altitude.
The IFF equipment in the Tornado was identified asbeing unserviceable
immediately after take off. The secondary radar transponderin the
Cessna was found to be selected to the 'OFF' position.

....

1.17.4 Mid-air collision statistics

Since1990 there have been three mid-air collisions between low flying
military fastjets and civil aircraft within the UK FIR, including this
accident. They a

29August 1991

RAFJaguar TA2 / Cessna 152

Carno,Wales

AAIBReport 2/92

23June 1993

RAFTornado GR1 / Bell 206B helicopter

Kendal,Cumbria

AAIBReport 2/94

21January 1999

RAFTornado GR1 / Cessna 152

Everton,Nottinghamshire

Thesubject of this report.

Thesehave resulted in a total of eight fatalities. No people on the
ground have beeninjured.

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

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:01:00 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:08:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
k.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
regulations!

The F-16 involved in the Florida MAC became uncontrollable; its
military pilot safely ejected and walked away.

Those are the only two incidents?

Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
be able to provide.

The worst military vs civil midair in the US was probably the
one between a Navy F-4 and a Hughes Airwest DC-9 near Duarte, CA
on 6 June 1971. Both aircraft were destroyed, with 49 fatalities
aboard the DC-9. One of the F-4 crewmembers survived.

According to the NTSB accident database there have been more.
Their online database is searchable back to 1962. I didn't
feel like searching for every type of military aircraft I could
think of, but since 1962 there have been the following midair
collisions between civil aircraft and military F-4s, F-14s, and
F-16s in the United States:

06 Jun 1971
The above midair between a Navy F-4 and a DC-9.

16 May 1975:
A USAF RF-4C collided with a Schweitzer 2-32 near Colorado Springs,
CO. Both aircraft landed safely (this is probably the first incident
you refer to above.)

09 Jan 1983
An ANG F-4C collided with a Beech Baron in the Atlantic
Coastal ADIZ about 30 miles from Cherry Point, NC. All
7 aboard the Baron were lost at sea, and the F-4 landed
safely. The F-4 was attempting to intercept and identify
the Baron, which was flying direct from Nassau in the Bahamas
to Norfolk, VA even though the pilot had filed a flight plan
from Nassau to clear customs in Fort Pierce, FL and then on
to Norfolk.

20 Jun 1985
An ANG RF-4C collided with a Beech 18 at Birmingham, AL after the
tower controller cleared the Beech 18 onto the runway,
then forgot about it and cleared the F-4 to land.

28 Jun 1990
A Navy F-14 took evasive action to avoid a Bellanca Viking near
Ojai, CA. The Viking suffered structural damage to the rear
wing spar when it flew into wake turbulence from the F-14 (OK,
not quite a collision, but close.)

16 Nov 2000
A USAF F-16 collided with a Cessna 172 near Bradenton, FL
(this is the second accident you refer to above.)

Not exactly military-civilian, but kind of close: there was a midair
between a Grumman F6F Hellcat and a Cessna 182 near Parker, AZ on
11 Jan 2003.

Outside the United States, there have been at least two other
midairs between military aircraft and airliners:

06 Jun 1971
A Japanese Air Self-Defense Force F-86 collided with an
All Nippon Airways Boeing 727 over northern Honshu. There
were 162 fatalities aboard the 727. The F-86 pilot survived.

22 Dec 1992
A Libyan Arab Airlines Boeing 727 collided with a Libyan
Air Force MiG-23 near Tripoli. 157 fatalities aboard the 727,
no information seems to be available about the fate of the
MiG-23's pilot.


ljd

Interesting fact: A DC10-30, no slats, no flaps, eats up more runway
than a Bone in the same configuration. Our Flight Manual stated it
could not be stopped on any commercial runway in the USA. Even more
interesting is that an F104A could be stopped in 3000 feet (using the
chute) if there was no crosswind (the ailerons were weak at 135 KIAS).
Walt BJ

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Okay. Given the reasoning you espouse above, you are in no better
position to state, "It's usually catastrophic for the "space-ships" as
well." unless you have knowledge of additional military v civil MACs.


Well, I admit I don't have any hard numbers on them, but I recall reading
about a number of these incidents that happened over the last fifty years or
so and in most of them the military aircraft was lost as well.

"Leadfoot" wrote in
news:6QTQb.55888$Xq2.3761@fed1read07:

[snip]

They operated out of Vandenberg AFB for initial aircrew training in
1969. Quite possible they landed at LAX for training.

My bad, it was actually 1970, November to be more specific.
I'm trying to figure where we went in '68 though.
Obviously not as exciting as Disnayland....

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source