F-16's Come Close To ASA

[alphaone]

Maybe they thought a passenger was trying to light his shoe on fire.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100408/NEWS01/4090355/F-16s+nearly+hit+commuter+plane

National Guard F-16 jets nearly hit Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight over Ohio
By Carrie Whitaker • cwhitaker@enquirer.com • April 8, 2010

Comments (4) Recommend Print this page ShareThis Font size:AA Two F-16 jet fighters got so close to crashing into a 70-seat commuter plane over southern Ohio on Thursday morning that an alarm went off in the cockpit of Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 5202 and the pilots had to maneuver out of the way, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.





Atlantic Southeast Airlines confirmed that there were no injuries aboard the CRJ700 aircraft among the passengers, two pilots and two flight attendants on their way from Cleveland to Atlanta.

The plane landed on time and safely in Georgia, ASA spokeswoman Kate Modolo said.

"The crew had visible sight of (the planes)," Modolo said. "But the pilots were able to keep the plane on its assigned flight path."

Soon after the close call around 10 a.m. Thursday, the airline contacted the FAA, said FAA Great Lakes Region spokesman Tony Molinaro.

The FAA's radar center in Indianapolis showed that the military planes, operated by members of the Ohio National Guard, were flying at 30,000 feet, Molinaro said.

Military aircraft are supposed to fly no higher than 29,000 feet, Molinaro said.

"We'll have to look and see what happened," Molinaro said. "The military will have to do the investigation."

A call to the Ohio National Guard was not returned Thursday night.

The FAA monitors all airspace across the nation except for military airspace with regional radar centers, Molinaro said.

 

[Hacker15e]

Two F-16 jet fighters got so close to crashing into a 70-seat commuter plane over southern Ohio on Thursday morning that an alarm went off in the cockpit of Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 5202 and the pilots had to maneuver out of the way, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Copy, over-reaction to TCAS RA.

Military aircraft are supposed to fly no higher than 29,000 feet, Molinaro said.

Mr Molinaro needs to lose his job with the FAA if that's the conclusion he derives from the fact that many military aircraft are non-RVSM capable.

 

[frog_flyer]

Now would be a great time to post the audio of the guy in a PC12 that FREAKED OUT when he got an RA.

 

[Blackhawk]

Really not enough information in the release to make a decision one way or another on what actually happened. Did the pilots actually get an RA? If so, an RA at 29000' without a visual on other traffic is a big deal as in the case of the PC-12 pilot. Not like he has an ejection seat to use if there is a midair. I've gotten an RA in IMC at 11000', 15000' and 20000'- it does tend to get the blood pressure up quickly. In this case it appears they did have a visual, so probably not a big deal but somebody still probably messed up if it resulted in an RA and receiving an RA requires a report with the FAA (at least at ASA it does). Be it the controller, the F-16 pilots, or perhaps even the ASA pilots. Again, too little information to draw any kind of conclusion.
Also notice that Mr. Molinaro's statement about military aircraft operating above 29000' is not in quotations- so the reporter edited what he said. Without knowing what Mr. Molinaro actually said it's hard to comment on his statement in the newspaper. Maybe he actually stated "These military aircraft should not have been above 29000'." Again, too little information to draw any conclusion or to make a really intelligent opinion on what actually happened.

 

[///AMG]

Agreed. Were the Vipers just transiting somewhere? Was this a hot MOA? Were they RTB from a hot MOA? There have been plenty of times when I have been above FL290 in my non-RVSM jet going cross country, and generally speaking, ATC has not had a problem with it west of the mississippi river (not to mention that there are grey military jets now that are RVSM capable). I'm not sure that I understand where the error was? Hell, I was in a 3-plane formation in admin cruise coming back from the MOA this afternoon and we had a Bonanza come inside a mile of us before any of us got sight or even got an advisory from ATC (we were IFR at the time). We weren't breaking the rules, and I don't think they were either.

 

[Blackhawk]

If there was a hot MOA then the ASA aircraft should not have been there and ATC messed up.

 

[///AMG]

If there was a hot MOA then the ASA aircraft should not have been there and ATC messed up.

Fully agree

 

[Blackhawk]

Fully agree

I guess there is also the slim chance that the military pilots did not activate with ATC, ATC told them to wait while they cleared traffic but they started anyway, or slim chance ASA was off course and ATC did not notice.

 

[Cptnchia]

I got a TA today at FL370. Seems a hawker was climbing to FL360 and heading opposite direction. Sure made me sit up and start looking. Everyone was where they were supposed to be, but the computers still calculated an encounter and did their thing. Had the guy been climbing at a higher rate, we could have gotten an RA. My feeling is this is what happened to ASA.

 

[N519AT]

Apparently they were in a MOA and the ceiling of the MOA extended to FL290.

They were TOL based pilots and aircraft.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7377500

 

[///AMG]

Apparently they were in a MOA and the ceiling of the MOA extended to FL290.

They were TOL based pilots and aircraft.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7377500

Don't worry....it sounds like Tony Molinaro is getting to the bottom of this one :rotfl:

Seriously though, it wouldn't surprise me if they bumped out the top of the area for a moment (long enough to give the RJ a scare). Not that it is the right thing to do, but IF you do, my experience has been that ATC is pretty good at calling you out with the quickness over guard, thus preventing a serious hazard or midair. I know an RJ may not have much trouble stopping it's upward momentum, but in a tactical jet, it is pretty easy to get vertical and overshoot the top of such an area if you get distracted with something for a few seconds.

 

[Blackhawk]

Don't worry....it sounds like Tony Molinaro is getting to the bottom of this one :rotfl:

Seriously though, it wouldn't surprise me if they bumped out the top of the area for a moment (long enough to give the RJ a scare). Not that it is the right thing to do, but IF you do, my experience has been that ATC is pretty good at calling you out with the quickness over guard, thus preventing a serious hazard or midair. I know an RJ may not have much trouble stopping it's upward momentum, but in a tactical jet, it is pretty easy to get vertical and overshoot the top of such an area if you get distracted with something for a few seconds.

If you google his name you'll see he is doing what he is payed to do- public relations. He is suppose to be the one answering the questions for the press so the actual investigators can do their work.
If they bumped out of a MOA then they messed up. The whole idea of the MOA is to seperate them from IFR traffic. In this case once they caused the RJ to get an RA the FAA would be involved as the RJ crew is required to file a report about the RA.

 

[///AMG]

If they bumped out of a MOA then they messed up. The whole idea of the MOA is to seperate them from IFR traffic. In this case once they caused the RJ to get an RA the FAA would be involved as the RJ crew is required to file a report about the RA.

Agree with this as well

 

[bison6]

F.Y.I.
The MOA in this area has a ceiling of FL290 and these F-16s should not have been flying higher than that. The FAA's preliminary radar data shows that the airline was flying level at 30,000 feet.

 

[Vector4Food]

As a sidenote FAA sep minimums with MOAs if I'm not mistaken are 3nm and 1000 feet.

Here in Canada we can use the same refernce American MOAs but with our own (we call them CYDs/Rs) we need 5NM or 2000feet, the idea being to apply non-rvsm separtion with those inside.

 

[SteveC]

Copy, over-reaction to TCAS RA.

From the AIM:

...Pilots should always immediately follow the TCAS Resolution Advisory (RA), whenever it is received. Should a TCAS RA be received before, during, or after an ATC breakout instruction is issued, the pilot should follow the RA, even if it conflicts with the climb/descent portion of the breakout maneuver.

I guess I'll have to disagree with the use of the term "over-reaction".

 

[Inverted]

Now would be a great time to post the audio of the guy in a PC12 that FREAKED OUT when he got an RA.

Post it I haven't heard it haha

 

[Hacker15e]

From the AIM:

I guess I'll have to disagree with the use of the term "over-reaction".

Go ahead and disagree.

I wasn't aware that the AIM was regulatory in nature. I see a lot of "should" in there, and no "shall" or "will" verbiage.

 

[SteveC]

Go ahead and disagree.

I wasn't aware that the AIM was regulatory in nature. I see a lot of "should" in there, and no "shall" or "will" verbiage.

I'm not arguing because I want to disagree with you, but so far I can't see a reason why doing what they "should" do can be considered an "over-reaction" to a Resolution Advisory?

Serious question - do you military guys have something similar to (or same as) our TCAS TAs and RAs (Traffic Advisories and Resolution Advisories)?

 

[SteveC]

All right, been doing some more digging and came up with some more supporting info that might sway your opinion(?):

AFI 11-202v3 has this:

5.29.1. Response to TCAS Alerts.

5.29.1.1. Pilots shall respond to all RAs as directed by the TCAS system, unless doing so would jeopardize the safe operation of the aircraft (e.g., descent into obstacles).
5.29.1.2. Pilots shall not deviate from an assigned ATC clearance based solely on TA information. Attempt to attain visual contact and maintain safe separation
5.29.1.3. In the event of an RA to alter the flight path, the alteration of the flight path will be kept to the minimum extent necessary to comply with the RA.
5.29.1.4. Pilots who deviate from an ATC clearance in response to an RA shall notify ATC of the deviation as soon as practical and promptly return to the current ATC clearance when the traffic conflict is resolved or obtain a new clearance.
5.29.1.5. If a TCAS RA requires maneuvering contrary to ATC instructions, right-of-way rules, cloud clearance requirements, or other VFR/IFR flight rules, pilots are expected to follow the TCAS RA.

So the AIM says "should" while a similar sounding military document says "shall". So far I think I'll stick with my contention that it was reasonable for them to respond to the Resolution Advisory in the manner that they (apparently) did.

I will say that it might well be appropriate to consider it an over-reaction if they were simply responding to a TA as opposed to an RA. In my experience it would be unlikely that a TA would cause a crew with any experience at all to take evasive action. We get TAs a lot. RAs on the other hand, we are trained to follow those instructions and it is a rare occasion indeed to get one.