From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Boeing-Buzzing  Electric Jet Jockeys
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 21:45:17 GMT

Jim Burns <jeblpa@en.com> wrote:

>2 F-16s made passes at a Boeing jetliner off the NJ coast>  According to
>reports, the jetliner had receive permission to fly through a USN
>training area.  Two AFNG F-16s were also operating in the area.  The
>F-16s made several passes at the liner which forced the Boeing to take
>evasive action.  Passengers and cabin crew were thrown to the floor. 
>
>	What's with these F-16 jockeys?  Was this a ground control SNAFU or are
>we putting jerks in the cockpit these days?

I can't certify what we are putting in cockpits these days, but it is
continually amazing that there are so many more horse's asses than
horses on usenet.

The airliner was unidentified during tranit of the training area. The
F-16s were directed to "take a look." The approaching aircraft
triggered the airlines collision warning system indicating to the
airline pilot something else at his altitude. 

Without direction, and apparently without looking out the front
window, the airline pilot left his assigned altitude with an aggessive
descent followed by an aggressive pull-up. Result was lots of
pandemonium in the cabin and some press coverage.

The question that comes to mind here, is who's the jerk?



 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Near crash w/727 and F-16s
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:39:10 GMT

National Aero Safety <nataero@wwisp.com> wrote:

>Jeff Crowell wrote:
>> 
>> : pfitzuscg@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> : >The TCAS resolution advisaries should require a control response of at
>> : >most +/- .35G which makes it hard to understand why anyone on board the
>> : >727 was injured.
>> 
>> Dean wrote:
>> : It seems that the 727 "knee-jerked" way too much for safety of flight.
>> : According to yesterday's Associated Press report, the plane lost 9,000 ft
>> : during the manuever! That is excessive and very unsafe. 

>> But as far as the overreaction of the comercial pilots, read panic
>> city.  I mean, here's the driver, sittin' there with his hand on the
>> stew's knee, when suddenly the audible warning goes off and he lunges for
>> the yoke... it'd be REAL interesting to hear the voise recorder from that
>> one!  (tho the recycle time is such that it was toast before touchdown,
>> IIRC).

>Mr. Crowell,
>
>I must assume that you are seeking a reaction to your absurd remarks! 
>Therefore:  You obviously are unaware that there are established
>procedures to follow regarding a TCAS warning.  The idea is to take
>evasive measures NOW!  That's exactly what the NationAir Crew Did! 
>Anything else would be folly!

The responsibility to maintain safe separation always remains with the
crew. TCAS is a nice bit of technology, but it is not a substitute for
positive aircraft control. Some aspects of that are: if transiting an
active MOA, even above PCA, an aircraft must maintain VMC. That means
look out the window. 

It doesn't matter whether it is TCAS or RHAW, to respond to an
electronic beep with a multi-thousand foot altitude excursion is
incompetent. The first obligation is to maintain aircraft control, not
to take "evasive measures NOW!" With only a beep and neither a radar
vector, a visual sighting or a threat direction from an air traffic
control entity which way do you move the airplane while insuring you
aren't going to make the situation worse?

>Your remarks about, "the driver sittin there with his hand on the stew's
>knee", are not only Asinine and Sexist, they are incorrect!  The term
>"Stewardess" from which the abreviation "Stew" came, was rightfully
>changed to Flight Attendant years ago!  All Airlines have strict rules
>about crew fraternization these days.

You must not be in the business. Biff and Buffy may now be referred to
as FA's in official correspondence as well as in flight
communications, but if you don't think there is fraternization, I'd
like to send you to an Army training unit.


 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Near crash w/727 and F-16s
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:10:35 GMT

Michael Knight <mknight@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Under FAR 91.133, a pilot may enter and fly over or through a prohibited
>or restricted area provided he has the permission of the controlling
>agency.

Better check that reference again. Prohibited areas are exactly that.
Flight is prohibited. The most common example of a P- space is over
the White House. Prohibited airspace is pretty rare.

Restricted airspace is more common and you are correct that transit is
at the discretion of the controlling agency. 

>The B727 did not need to contact anyone to enter the MOA, although I
>believe it was reported that the navy gave the go-ahead.  In addition, the
>B727 should have been (and almost certainly was) under IFR, meaning
>another controller should have been overseeing the flight on radar.  

MOAs are neither prohibited or restricted, but purely advisory in
nature. Below APC (Area Positive Control) MOAs may be transited by VFR
aircraft without approval of a controlling agency. Aircraft on IFR
flight plans, however, will not be cleared through a MOA except in VMC
when the MOA is active. 

Keep in mind that operating under Instrument Flight Rules does not, in
and of itself, insure separation from other aircraft when operating in
VMC (Visual Meterological Conditions.) You still have to look out the
window.

>It certainly seems that the controller would have alerted the pilots that
>there were high-performance aircraft in the area.  In addition, the pilots
>most likely should have contacted the controlling agency, and *they*
>should have alerted the pilots that there might be other a/c nearby.

Latest newspaper report on the east coast incident stated the Vipers
were within 300 feet vertically and FOUR POINT THREE MILES laterally.
The Clovis incident was reported at 500 feet vertical and five miles
laterally.


 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)