Scared of mid-airs

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Ok, I won't. But then your statement that every military flight is on a
flight plan is disengenuous.

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute.

That's the part that counts. Never mind the flight plan stuff, that's a
red herring.

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail.

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

More to the point, what would the outcome (consequences to the pilot)
have been had the pilot of the fighter been, say, a civilian on his way
to an airshow? Yes, I'm asking you to speculate, but it doesn't seem to
be a very difficult speculation.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:41:29 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
wrote in :

Jeff Crowell wrote:
Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.

Larry Dighera wrote:

[...]

I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
collision.

That conclusion is debatable. If we're discussing time to deconflict,
we'd need to know at what point the Ninja flight achieved 450 knots.

For starters, if the accident investigation report does not
specifically say that the 450 knot speed phases of the
flight were not a proximate cause of the mishap, we can
be sure it was not.


So, you never question the conclusions reached in AIB reports? How
about NTSB reports?

I have not seen any claim other than yours that
Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
your argument in the best possible light.

Perhaps. At any rate, I commend you for taking the time to analyze
all the data available. That has to be an enlightening experience.

Excuse me? Care to say what you mean here?

I mean, from your detailed remarks, it is apparent that you have
applied more than a cursory perusal to the data contained in the AIB
report and the Usenet articles I have written on this subject, and in
so doing, you surely learned a lot about the facts concerning this
MAC. I seriously doubt many other Usenet readers have invested that
degree of effort.


And I'm reassured that by the limited discrepancies you have provided,
the vast majority of what I have said is correct.

That would be just one more example of you making a
conclusion that is not supported by facts. I have been
attempting to limit our discussion to a limited set of data
so that it is easier to keep up.


Keep up?

Feel free to expand your critique. You've got nearly six years of my
comments on this MAC to research.


Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
course has meaning in terms of how much time was
available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
blatant lie.

That conclusion is dependent on malice of intent, which I feel is
unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts. We just choose to
interpret the facts differently.

"Malice of intent"?

For my comment to be considered a "blatant lie" implies that it was a
deliberate attempt to mislead; I had no such intent.


You are convinced, in the face of data to the contrary
(and with no data in support), that the mishap pilot got
up with the specific intention of killing a civil air pilot
that day.

Sir, that is your inference. You will not find, that any of my
comments support that ridiculous conclusion of yours. That statement
causes me to suspect your intentions. Until you are able to present a
quotation of my words that supports your allegation, I will refrain
from further comment on it.

Here's a question (or two) for you:

Why did the USAF wait eight days (per the AIB report) before
administering a medical examination to Parker? Would such a late
medical exam limped the ability to ascertain if he were under the
influence of judgment impairing substances at the time of the MAC?

You cast away entire chunks of data from the mishap
investigation report just because they do not fit with
your preconceived notion.


Which "entire chunks" would those be?

Perhaps you'll be good enough to answer this question:

Can you could explain how Parker could have been unaware of a
chunk of terminal airspace 60 miles in diameter and 10,000' feet
high on a clear day? He surely must have been able to see the
large international airport beneath him. Every pilot knows there
is controlled terminal airspace around such airports.
Additionally, Parker was attempting to contact ATC to obtain a
clearance to enter the Class B airspace immediately before he
chose to descend without the required ATC clearance. Given those
facts, how could Parker possibly have been unaware of what he was
doing?

Lacking an answer to that question, in light of the circumstances,
logic and reason demand, that I conclude, that Parker _deliberately_
chose to violate regulations prohibiting his 450 knot descent into
congested terminal airspace without the required ATC clearance.


And, one last question:

Do you believe that a verbal or written reprimand is a just
sentence for killing the Cessna Pilot?

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:20:25 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Ok, I won't. But then your statement that every military flight is on a
flight plan is disengenuous.

The question was regarding FLIGHT PLANS. I answered, based on my
experience in the military as a pilot. I stated that ALL military
flights are on a FLIGHT PLAN. I confirmed that there are both VFR and
IFR FLIGHT PLANS. I stated that in the USAF, the governing regulations
specify that flights will be on an IFR FLIGHT PLAN "to the maximum
extent practicable." I further indicated, in direct response to
queries, that with very few exceptions all USAF military flights are
on IFR FLIGHT PLANS.

Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
disingenuous?

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute.

That's the part that counts. Never mind the flight plan stuff, that's a
red herring.

The questions involved confusion regarding how military flights manage
to do all of their VFR maneuvering if they are on IFR FLIGHT PLANS. I
described the procedure.

If you are unfamiliar with terminology, that isn't my problem.
Providing specific answers to specific questions, even when they are
asked by those without clue, isn't introducing red herrings.

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail.

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will
always have a presiding officer (usually O-6) and always from another
organization than the unit which had the accident. There will also be
a trained Flying Safety Officer (graduate of flight safety school
which used to be at Univ. of Southern Calif.--dunno if it's still
there.) There will be a flight surgeon--to provide medical expertise.
And there will be a "pilot officer" member of the board--a pilot
qualified in the aircraft, but not a member of the unit. And, there
will be a maintenance officer qualified in the aircraft type. There
may be additional members based on expertise required to make
determinations.

The principle reason for the accident board is to determine cause and
therefore to prevent future occurences of mishaps from the same cause.
The interest is safety. Findings usually involve a primary cause and
one or more secondary or contributing causes.

Should there be evidence of pilot error or malfeasance, there will be
an additional board convened to deal with those specific issues. This
is called a corollary board. The corollary board can and does assess
damages.

Depending upon board findings, there may be an Article 34
hearing--similar to an arraignment in civil court which could lead to
a court-martial. There could also be a recommendation for a
FEB--Flight Evaluation Board, which would make a determination
regarding continuation of involved crew-members on flight status.

More to the point, what would the outcome (consequences to the pilot)
have been had the pilot of the fighter been, say, a civilian on his way
to an airshow? Yes, I'm asking you to speculate, but it doesn't seem to
be a very difficult speculation.

Jose

You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
take place in civil court.

Now, I can only sit back and wonder what of the above will be
considered disingenuous or red herring.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

("Ed Rasimus" wrote)
Let's establish some things with Newp. Where is "here" and who is "we"?
Where did the F-16s come from? Does he work at an ATC facility? At a
military or joint-use airport?


ATC ...out west.

Google/Groups/RAP/Newps/First thread.../Second thread.../etc


Montblack

Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
disingenuous?

I obviously was asking the question in the context of information
available to ATC, which could be passed on to an itinerant GA pilot.
You knew that what was important was a CLEARANCE (which I failed to ask
directly about, but merely implied, in my question). Instead of saying
that such flights have sections that are NOT UNDER ATC CONTROL (while
still on a flight plan), you stated that all flights ARE ON A FLIGHT
PLAN (even though they may not be under ATC control).

Further, you kept focusing on the idea that a FLIGHT PLAN (even after
you knew it was irrelevant) is just an "intention to fly", thus
underlying its irrelevance.

The reply is disingenuous in the same sense as the joke whose punchline
is "you are in an airplane".

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will...

In other words, no, the investigation was not conducted by a
disinterested third party. (and for somebody who, in this thread,
prides himself on answering =just= the question asked, you did not do so
here; the answer was either "yes" or "no".

You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Either of the above.

Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
take place in civil court.

I suspect there would be another proceeding, akin to the Article 34
hearing. That one would be conducted by the FAA (or under its
auspicies), and would determine what penalties would be applied to the
pilot found at fault. If the fighter pilot were found at fault, in the
case under discussion as I understand it, I expect that the FAA would
suspend and probably revoke his certificate.

I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.

I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.

Do you disagree?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:12:04 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
disingenuous?

I obviously was asking the question in the context of information
available to ATC, which could be passed on to an itinerant GA pilot.
You knew that what was important was a CLEARANCE (which I failed to ask
directly about, but merely implied, in my question). Instead of saying
that such flights have sections that are NOT UNDER ATC CONTROL (while
still on a flight plan), you stated that all flights ARE ON A FLIGHT
PLAN (even though they may not be under ATC control).

If you do not know or understand the language and terminology well
enough to ask a meaningful question, you will continually get answers
which you may deem ingenuous, but it is the fault of the query not the
reply.

There is no obligation for ATC to pass information on to "an itinerant
GA pilot". None at all.

If the GA pilot is IFR, he gets a route and altitude assignment and is
expected to follow it. He MIGHT get traffic advisories if ATC work
load permits. No guarantee.

If a military pilot is on an enroute delay during his ALWAYS IFR
Flight Plan, he would be operating in a MOA, a restricted area, a
warning area, on a low-level training route, or in a VFR traffic
pattern. The "itinerant GA pilot" if he is on an IFR flight plan will
be routed around those airspaces (except for the VFR traffic
pattern--in which case he will be sequenced.)

Further, you kept focusing on the idea that a FLIGHT PLAN (even after
you knew it was irrelevant) is just an "intention to fly", thus
underlying its irrelevance.

It was a true statement and an attempt to educate you so that you
could at some point ask the question you really wanted to ask.

The reply is disingenuous in the same sense as the joke whose punchline
is "you are in an airplane".

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will...

In other words, no, the investigation was not conducted by a
disinterested third party. (and for somebody who, in this thread,
prides himself on answering =just= the question asked, you did not do so
here; the answer was either "yes" or "no".

This is a not a court of law, so the answers to complex questions can
be given in detail in an attempt to inform.

If you understand the objective of the accident board, the composition
of the board made up of outside-the-unit individuals, and the
follow-on alternatives based on the findings of the board, and still
insist that the board is somehow not a "disinterested third party"
there is little help for you.

You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Either of the above.

Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
take place in civil court.

I suspect there would be another proceeding, akin to the Article 34
hearing.

The equivalent to an Art. 34 is a grand jury investigation or an
indictment by federal prosecutor.

That one would be conducted by the FAA (or under its
auspicies),

No, the FAA is a regulatory agency. They exercise only adminstrative
authority. They are not a court of law nor a prosecuting agency.

and would determine what penalties would be applied to the
pilot found at fault. If the fighter pilot were found at fault, in the
case under discussion as I understand it, I expect that the FAA would
suspend and probably revoke his certificate.

Suspension of license is an administrative proceeding.

Now, pay attention here because this will again confuse you. A
military pilot does not have an FAA issued pilot certificate.

Most do, but that is because they choose to obtain one under the
provisions of "Military competence". You simply pass a written exam on
FARs and get a commercial license for SMEL with instrument rating. You
can get a type rating for any heavy with a similar civilian aircraft
by simply presenting your military flight record of successful
completion of a military check flight.

But, the military pilot does not possess nor exercise an FAA
certificate.

(I've got a commercial SMEL/Inst. with Convair 240/340/440 type
rating--a relic of the very short period when I flew the T-29 during a
Hq staff tour.)

I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.

Why? The FAA wouldn't bring that proceeding. The accident board from
the NTSB wouldn't. And, you seem to be demanding a "guilty until
proven innocent" verdict.

Your prejudice and unwillingness to consider an alternative to your
interpretation of events is blatant.

I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.

Do you disagree?

If you've followed through all of these posts and still ask that
question, my saying "YES, I disagree" today will probably also escape
your comprehension.

How someone who has demonstrated so little understanding of so many
relevant issues in this or any other accident could hold such a strong
opinion on culpability truly is amazing.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:59:50 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote:

("Ed Rasimus" wrote)
Let's establish some things with Newp. Where is "here" and who is "we"?
Where did the F-16s come from? Does he work at an ATC facility? At a
military or joint-use airport?


ATC ...out west.

Google/Groups/RAP/Newps/First thread.../Second thread.../etc


Montblack

So, are Newp and Montblack the same person? Can Newp really work in an
ATC facility and not know how those Vipers got to a VFR traffic
pattern somewhere?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

("Ed Rasimus" wrote)
[snip]
So, are Newp and Montblack the same person?


Hmm? At an FAA average of 170 lbs each ...that would explain, much.


Montblack :-)(-:

There is no obligation for ATC to pass information on to "an itinerant
GA pilot".

.... but there is also no =ability= to do so either. Were the military
pilot on an appropriate CLEARANCE, that ability would exist. We'd be
further along towards safer shared use.

If a military pilot is on an enroute delay during his ALWAYS IFR
Flight Plan, he would be operating in a MOA, a restricted area, a
warning area, on a low-level training route, or in a VFR traffic
pattern.

There you go again with the flight plan nonsense. This military pilot
(unless he's in a bona fide restricted area) would be operating in
JOINT-USE airspace.

It was a true statement and an attempt to educate you so that you
could at some point ask the question you really wanted to ask.

You are beginning to resemble another poster here.

If you understand the objective of the accident board, the composition
of the board made up of outside-the-unit individuals, and the
follow-on alternatives based on the findings of the board, and still
insist that the board is somehow not a "disinterested third party"
there is little help for you.

It is a military board judging a military pilot who killed a civilian
pilot. This is not a disinterested board.

Suspension of license is an administrative proceeding.

This doesn't matter much to the pilot whose license is suspended or revoked.

Now, pay attention here because this will again confuse you. A
military pilot does not have an FAA issued pilot certificate.

I know. I knew. It doesn't matter.

I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.

Why? The FAA wouldn't bring that proceeding.

It doesn't matter whether the FAA brings that proceeding or not. It
will be brought. Need I educate you about lawyers?

Now, is the military pilot immune from civil prosecution?
Would a civilian pilot who did the same thing be immune?

I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.

Do you disagree?


If you've followed through all of these posts and still ask that
question, my saying "YES, I disagree" today will probably also escape
your comprehension.

So, you think that if a civilian pilot had done the same thing that
military pilot did, it would not be surprising for him to get away with
a reprimand from the FAA and no liability for the death of the Cessna pilot?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ed Rasimus wrote:



So, are Newp and Montblack the same person?

Yep, both from the Twin Cities. One smart enough to leave.


Can Newp really work in an
ATC facility and not know how those Vipers got to a VFR traffic
pattern somewhere?

They got to the VFR traffic pattern after calling me up about 30 miles
out and requesting touch and go's. They were VFR at the time. They do
a few touch and go's and then depart VFR. About 10 miles out I
terminate them and they go on their merry way. This is SOP.