NTSB prelim report out

Cats wrote:


From the report:

"The Hawker 800XP was equipped with a TCAS warning system."

================================================== =======

I had not seen that yet, thanks.

The tools were in the box and were not used. Bad all around. Thank God
no one died.

Terry wrote:
Cats wrote:


From the report:

"The Hawker 800XP was equipped with a TCAS warning system."

================================================== =======

I had not seen that yet, thanks.

The tools were in the box and were not used. Bad all around. Thank God
no one died.

I expect the TCAS in the Hawker was turned on & operational - but of
course you need both halves of the equation for it to work.

This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
who should know the rules (or at least be able to read). 14 CFR Part
91.215 is very clear that if you are a pure glider above 10K you do not
need to have a transponder installed. It is also about as clear as any
FAR can be that if you have one, it must be on.

The intrepretation that "If I am not required to have one, then I can
act as if I don't even if I do" just isn't how the rule reads.

wrote:
I believe the glider pilot was from Japan. May be time for a hasty
retreat back to the homeland.

Do I detect some subtle or not so subtle prejudice here ?

Cheers anyway, Charles V.

Quebec Tango wrote:
This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
who should know the rules (or at least be able to read).

Fact is, the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes that
report you are reading. Even when the NTSB elects not to perform the
accident investigation (in numerous instances) the FAA inspector
conducting the investigation is doing so *on behalf of* the NTSB. The
FAA may elect to perform a seperate (from the NTSB) enforcement
investigation.

If you can read, read these FAA Orders 8300.10, 8400.10 and 8020.11.

If you can find a copy of the Order 2150.3a, read it. It's all about
enforcement. Google it.

You should read all of those documents, but especially the sections
regarding accident and enforcement investigations.

Jim

Quebec Tango wrote:
This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
who should know the rules (or at least be able to read). 14 CFR Part
91.215 is very clear that if you are a pure glider above 10K you do not
need to have a transponder installed. It is also about as clear as any
FAR can be that if you have one, it must be on.

The intrepretation that "If I am not required to have one, then I can
act as if I don't even if I do" just isn't how the rule reads.

Incidentally, if he post his flight to OLC it will be accepted
according to the OLC-SSA rules ;-)

Jim,

I'm not sure whether you are chiding my for my hoof in mouth disease
(FAA vs NTSB) or calling me to task for my arrogant tone (both are
appropriate). The documents you reference are large and to a large
extent not concerned with accident investigation. So I will humbly ask
you to state your point(s) explicity.

wrote:
Quebec Tango wrote:
This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
who should know the rules (or at least be able to read).

Fact is, the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes that
report you are reading. Even when the NTSB elects not to perform the
accident investigation (in numerous instances) the FAA inspector
conducting the investigation is doing so *on behalf of* the NTSB. The
FAA may elect to perform a seperate (from the NTSB) enforcement
investigation.

If you can read, read these FAA Orders 8300.10, 8400.10 and 8020.11.

If you can find a copy of the Order 2150.3a, read it. It's all about
enforcement. Google it.

You should read all of those documents, but especially the sections
regarding accident and enforcement investigations.

Jim

Quebec Tango wrote:
This is a very interesting statement to see from an FAA investigator
who should know the rules (or at least be able to read). 14 CFR Part
91.215 is very clear that if you are a pure glider above 10K you do not
need to have a transponder installed. It is also about as clear as any
FAR can be that if you have one, it must be on.

The intrepretation that "If I am not required to have one, then I can
act as if I don't even if I do" just isn't how the rule reads.

No, but the rules do require that the transponder must have been tested
every 24 months, and cannot be operated unless it has. So if it is
installed but not tested then it must be off.

Now, if you did not know the current status of the test, you would be
in a tough spot. I would suggest that from a regulatory standpoint the
most prudent thing to do would be to leave it off, but from a safety
standpoint, it would probably be better if it was on. A good lawyer
could probably argue either position.

Quebec Tango wrote:
Jim,

So I will humbly ask
you to state your point(s) explicity.


QT,

My point is: the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes
that report you are reading. Not the FAA investigator. The two
organizations are not the same and they are not always there for the
same reason.

The NTSB made that very interesting statement not the FAA. The NTSB
does not investigate for enforcement of rules (OK, except maybe for the
NTSB 800 series rules, maybe not).

The FAA investigates accidents to promote safety and also for
enforcement and compliance (2150.3a) and if there is an enforcement
against anyone in the accident, you will not be able to read it until
1) it is final and completely adjudicated and 2) you FOIA it and the
report is released to you.

So, my explicit point is that no one outside the FAA can know what the
FAA investigator knows about this specific accident unless he or she
tells them. Anyone can read an NTSB report that finds *cause* of the
accident, but very few will know what the enforcement investigation, if
any, will say.

The orders are indeed large, so as you can see it is important the FAA
investigator to be able to read in the course of his or her duties. The
8020.11 is all about accident investigation. The 8300.10 is also large;
chapters 210, 211, 212 and 213 are the chapters describing the FAA
procedures and policies on accident, incident and enforcement
investigations.

I hope this helps.

Jim

Jim,

Would you agree or disagree that it is unusual for a preliminary
accident report to contain such a direct statement about the
interpretation of the FARs (or anything else)? This seems to me to be
pretty far out of the mainstream of the SOP for investigations.

The statement seems uninformed at best, and tempts me question the
overall qualithy of this investigation process.

wrote:
Quebec Tango wrote:
Jim,

So I will humbly ask
you to state your point(s) explicity.


QT,

My point is: the NTSB does the accident investigation; and writes
that report you are reading. Not the FAA investigator. The two
organizations are not the same and they are not always there for the
same reason.

The NTSB made that very interesting statement not the FAA. The NTSB
does not investigate for enforcement of rules (OK, except maybe for the
NTSB 800 series rules, maybe not).

The FAA investigates accidents to promote safety and also for
enforcement and compliance (2150.3a) and if there is an enforcement
against anyone in the accident, you will not be able to read it until
1) it is final and completely adjudicated and 2) you FOIA it and the
report is released to you.

So, my explicit point is that no one outside the FAA can know what the
FAA investigator knows about this specific accident unless he or she
tells them. Anyone can read an NTSB report that finds *cause* of the
accident, but very few will know what the enforcement investigation, if
any, will say.

The orders are indeed large, so as you can see it is important the FAA
investigator to be able to read in the course of his or her duties. The
8020.11 is all about accident investigation. The 8300.10 is also large;
chapters 210, 211, 212 and 213 are the chapters describing the FAA
procedures and policies on accident, incident and enforcement
investigations.

I hope this helps.

Jim