Navy T39 Down

[///AMG]

I'm quick to rush to their defense as well...

May not even be the same crew, but from what I understand is that the plane in the video lingered over the guy and finally made a close pass at him.

Just a messenger.

Ahh, well in that case I do see why he would press the issue. It very well could have been that they were doing something tactical in nature and didn't even see him, but if they were doing that intentionally, then bad on them.

 

[mooneyguy]

Well your better educated than me on a subject like this. Do you think we will ever know, seeing as how it's a military hush hush kind of thing?

Edit to add: No amount of maint. can make up for a 40+year old aircraft. Such is the reason why PA-44's have a life limited wing spar AD. Just sayin. I'm not trying to Monday morning this, just an observation on the aircrafts age and intended use.

True, yet you would would be surprised what the military does with their planes. They don't just "maintain" them, they practically rebuild them throughout their life.

 

[ian]

Probably nothing......they were flying on a VR route, and he should have known where he was flying. We have lots of close calls with folks who can't seem to avoid VR and IR routes, and although we are getting traffic advisories from ATC, most of the time it is stuff like this where they are either not talking/squawking, or are just too low. I'm sure it will come out as a HAZREP through the appropriate WESS/Navy channels, but don't expect anything to come of it if they were flying where they were cleared to be. Probably scared the crap out of everyone though....hope your friend learned his lesson.

this.

 

[Nihon_Ni]

Probably nothing......they were flying on a VR route, and he should have known where he was flying. We have lots of close calls with folks who can't seem to avoid VR and IR routes, and although we are getting traffic advisories from ATC, most of the time it is stuff like this where they are either not talking/squawking, or are just too low. I'm sure it will come out as a HAZREP through the appropriate WESS/Navy channels, but don't expect anything to come of it if they were flying where they were cleared to be. Probably scared the crap out of everyone though....hope your friend learned his lesson.

Neither airplane in this video was doing anything wrong. There's nothing illegal with flying VFR clear weather. They were probably even in class G airspace. Route centerlines are published on sectional charts, but you can't really expect an ultralight to climb to 1500-3500 to fly over these routes, nor should you expect GA pilots to know the width of the route structures.

I've been on both sides of this situation. I've faced several "bug smashers" while strapped in a jet, and I've seen fast movers while sitting behind my prop. Thinking it's always the other guy who needs to look out is problematic. The only lesson here is see and avoid.

 

[granlistillo]

I don't know, they're well maintained.

You have to consider the nature of ops too, depending on the phase of flight. Low-level, high-speed navigation......ops of that nature. Zig when you should of zagged, and it won't end up good. Not saying there's any cause right now, but just that there are a whole slew of possibilities, above and beyond an airframe problem IMHO.

:yeahthat:

 

[///AMG]

Neither airplane in this video was doing anything wrong. There's nothing illegal with flying VFR clear weather. They were probably even in class G airspace. Route centerlines are published on sectional charts, but you can't really expect an ultralight to climb to 1500-3500 to fly over these routes, nor should you expect GA pilots to know the width of the route structures.

I've been on both sides of this situation. I've faced several "bug smashers" while strapped in a jet, and I've seen fast movers while sitting behind my prop. Thinking it's always the other guy who needs to look out is problematic. The only lesson here is see and avoid.

I don't disagree, but from the jet's perspective it is very hard to see and avoid really small stuff like this when you are doing all the other tactical stuff required for the mission. While it may be legal, it may also not be smart to be that guy trolling around the confines of a low level route. Kind of like a bicyclist riding through heavy traffic on a busy thoroughfare......legal but maybe not a great idea to do just because you can. Not really trying to dog on the hang-glider dude, but if it were me, I'd try and be a little more careful........20k #'s of jet trainer coming at you at 360 GS is going to hurt you a lot more than it is them.

 

[Nihon_Ni]

I don't disagree, but from the jet's perspective ...

When you say you don't disagree but, it means you do disagree.

As in, "I'd eat, but I'm full" or "I'd date her but she's ugly".

My only point is that see and avoid is a two way street, but your post seemed to portray the fault solely on the other guy:

Probably nothing......they were flying on a VR route, and he should have known where he was flying. We have lots of close calls with folks who can't seem to avoid VR and IR routes, and although we are getting traffic advisories from ATC, most of the time it is stuff like this where they are either not talking/squawking, or are just too low. I'm sure it will come out as a HAZREP through the appropriate WESS/Navy channels, but don't expect anything to come of it if they were flying where they were cleared to be. Probably scared the crap out of everyone though....hope your friend learned his lesson.

I've flown hundreds of low levels at 420 kts, all in airplanes without an A/A radar, and it's been some of the most enjoyable/fulfilling/terrifying/exciting/exacting flying I've ever done. I've flown routes that were as much as 30 miles wide, hundreds of miles long, and as high as 3500+ AGL. And, by the way, only the route centerline is on VFR sectionals; the width and height of each route changes from point to point and requires more digging to determine. The average Joe isn't going to take the time to find out how tall and wide they are -- and frankly, we shouldn't expect him to. We also can't expect the GA population to completely avoid these routes so that we can come though unimpeded. Several local routes around my base in NC flew directly over county airports -- how could GA pilots possibly avoid the route? I agree it's a risk for them to fly through them, just as it's a risk for us to fly on them. (We can't seem to avoid VRs either, and I won't even open the can on the tactical value of low level training in today's threat environment.)

We are the ones exercising a special privilege. WE need to be the ones who "learn our lesson" and be extra vigilant to see and avoid instead of hoping the other guy does it for us.

/rant

 

[///AMG]

When you say you don't disagree but, it means you do disagree.

As in, "I'd eat, but I'm full" or "I'd date her but she's ugly".

Touche

My only point is that see and avoid is a two way street, but your post seemed to portray the fault solely on the other guy

I guess my point was that I agree with what you are saying, but in practice, it can be very difficult as the guy on the route to see and avoid, especially with low level haze and poor sun angles (when skeds throws you that 1700 go on a westbound route for example). Very good point about the sectionals, and prior to having done this in the military, I wouldn't have thought to check route width either (IIRC they always just told us they were a couple miles either side when I was studying for my PPL back in the day)

 

[Nihon_Ni]

Once you're out of flight school you'll have a little more luxury as to which routes you fly when you get a low level T&R code assigned, so that helps avoid VRs into the sun.

I didn't do much GA flying until I finished my first squadron tour. That's when I realized how much I really didn't know about VFR flying, even though I felt comfortable canceling instruments, diving down to jump on a VR, then zooming up at the end to pick up IFR clearance home. I was the definition of fat, dumb and happy. Even now, I still fly with guys who don't have a clue what it's like in the GA world. Your experience with both will be invaluable.

 

[mwflyer]

I found out that a friend of mine's father was the pilot on board this aircraft.

 

[granlistillo]

I found out that a friend of mine's father was the pilot on board this aircraft.

sorry to hear it. If it is VT-86 I am guessing he was the contractor. Good folks. Always hate to hear it.

 

[Nihon_Ni]

I saw their names in the paper today. RIP, my fellow Saberhawks.

 

[trafficinsight]

Well your better educated than me on a subject like this. Do you think we will ever know, seeing as how it's a military hush hush kind of thing?

Edit to add: No amount of maint. can make up for a 40+year old aircraft. Such is the reason why PA-44's have a life limited wing spar AD. Just sayin. I'm not trying to Monday morning this, just an observation on the aircrafts age and intended use.

There's no AD on the PA-44 wing spars, the time limit of 14,663 hours (odd number, right?) is per the type certificate. Every airplane certified under part 23 has a life limitation. Then you have the choice of replacing the wing spars or scrapping the airplane... I don't think anyone would subject themselves to replacing wing spars

 

[granlistillo]

I saw their names in the paper today. RIP, my fellow Saberhawks.

Very sad. Tough business the low levels... I did VT-10 then off to NATU, only 2 out of our class. Not too sure what the program is like now.

 

[mshunter]

There's no AD on the PA-44 wing spars, the time limit of 14,663 hours (odd number, right?) is per the type certificate. Every airplane certified under part 23 has a life limitation. Then you have the choice of replacing the wing spars or scrapping the airplane... I don't think anyone would subject themselves to replacing wing spars

You're right. All that information get's cluttered in my little brain sometimes. I was think I was thinking of a SB that was either looking for cracks or checking bolts I think in/on the spar. I can't remember anymore.