NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Cirrus

Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

boondr said:
A co-worker of mine mentioned the Sen. Heinz crash in regards to unfamiliar aircraft in formation flights, that is an interesting read.
Click to expand...

Not just unfamiliar, but very dissimilar, as well as no formation training.

This below is what Im referring to here and why Im not so quick to have the SWA crew shot at sundown here:

If there is a need for aircraft that are not designated as search and rescue aircraft to get closer to one another than radar separation standards allow, the maneuver shall be accomplished, visually, by the aircraft involved.
Click to expand...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

MikeD said:
Not just unfamiliar, but very dissimilar, as well as no formation training.

This below is what Im referring to here and why Im not so quick to have the SWA crew shot at sundown here:
Click to expand...

People can pass judgement all they want on the SWA crew but depending on the wording the supervisor used to solicit them it may have been a rock and a hard place decision for them.

I don't question the supervisors desire to get someone to help I do question the using of a B737 to do it, although if you want an airliner to say yes to an unusual request the nearest SWA flight is the first place you look.


I am going to wait for the whole story and listen to the audio before doing any formal judging though. For all we know the SWA got below the Cirrus 1000ft, accepted visual sep., and went into a parallel flight 1/2 mile to the side and level while the FO used binos to look at the Cirrus cockpit. We just don't know and I don't care what the rules are I don't think a situation such as I hypothesized would be all that unsafe and in a situation with an incapacitated pilot with a clueless kid next to him it may have provided valuable info.

We'll see.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

MikeD said:
This below is what Im referring to here and why Im not so quick to have the SWA crew shot at sundown here:
Click to expand...

+1, that's exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post, but without the CFR firepower.
 
Bottom line: do you really think a major airline pilot with umpteen thousand hours under his belt would endanger himself and all his passengers? I'm sure it was done in a safe manner and not for any extended period of time.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Follow up question for Queeno, TripSix and Boondr (or anyone else who knows) re: visual separation in the terminal/radar environment. If you're working an IFR aircraft in VMC that gets on a convergent course with a VFR aircraft not talking to you (eg. in Class E airspace below FL180), so the VFR aircraft is just squawking 1200 and returning an unverified mode C altitude on radar, would you issue a traffic advisory? If the IFR aircraft had the traffic in sight would you be able to use "maintain visual separation?"

The reason I ask is I always thought this was a possibility (especially with all the primary targets with no transponder, aircraft with malfunctioning or erroneously reporting mode C, etc), but you are clearly only in radio contact with one of the two aircraft in this case. On the last page, you mentioned 7110.65 stating you (or you and another sector) must be in contact with both aircraft to be able to issue visual separation. Is this true or did I misinterpret you? If so, would the above example not be possible due to that reg?

Thanks for humoring me. :)
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

inigo88 said:
Follow up question for Queeno, TripSix and Boondr re: visual separation in the terminal/radar environment. If you're working an IFR aircraft in VMC that gets on a convergent course with a VFR aircraft not talking to you (eg. in Class E airspace below FL180), so the VFR aircraft is just squawking 1200 and returning an unverified mode C altitude on radar, would you issue a traffic advisory? If the IFR aircraft had the traffic in sight would you be able to use "maintain visual separation?"

The reason I ask is I always thought this was a possibility (especially with all the primary targets with no transponder, aircraft with malfunctioning or erroneously reporting mode C, etc), but you are clearly only in radio contact with one of the two aircraft in this case. On the last page, you mentioned 7110.65 stating you (or you and another sector) must be in contact with both aircraft to be able to issue visual separation. Is this true or did I misinterpret you? If so, would the above example not be possible due to that reg?

Thanks. :)
Click to expand...
Regarding traffic advisories, of course a traffic call would be in order if in my judgement the info I had placed the aircraft in unsafe proximity or they may get there. Honestly personally I probably call too much traffic, but I don't care I like for pilots to keep their heads on a swivel, if I got nothing better to do, I call traffic. In a terminal environment you only need to communicate with one aircraft for visual separation. The use of "maintain visual separation" in such a case would largely be me (if I was the controller) saying to the tapes(in layman's terms "talking to the tapes" =C.Y.A.) "Hey do what you need to do, but do not to hit that aircraft" even though as the PIC you are already authorized to do that whether I give you permission or not. In your scenario there is no separation standard between VFR and IFR in Class E airspace so "Visual separation" is an unnecessary step. However to me if I conclude the situation warrants it (you can usually tell which pilots you should talk to the tapes for within one or two transmissions) because I am not completely sure that the pilot knows that I am not separating him from that other guy, I'll tell them to maintain visual sep.


Visual Separation
b. A pilot sees the other aircraft involved and upon instructions from the controller provides his/her own separation by maneuvering his/her aircraft as necessary to avoid it. This may involve following another aircraft or keeping it in sight until it is no longer a factor.
Click to expand...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Thanks a lot for the reply. In other cases, you see at airports like SFO with simultaneous visual approaches to parallel runways (closer than 2500 ft I think is the rule?) where it seems like visual separation is basically being used as a work around to waive the regular 3 mile/1000 ft radar separation minima to operate that airport to capacity (one only needs to look at a.net photos of 747s accidentally passing CRJs on short final at SFO to see what I'm talking about). As a result when wx drops arrival capacity is cut in half since they can only use one ILS approach (with the exception of ILS PRM).

I guess I'm just surprised that they can get away with that and the FAA calls it business as usual, but allowing a 737 to pass near a Cirrus (assuming visual separation was issued) is an unforgivable abomination. Not that I would ever defend a SUP of course. ;)
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

boondr said:
...if you want an airliner to say yes to an unusual request the nearest SWA flight is the first place you look.
Click to expand...

I second that. Same thing with Piedmont (the one that was based in Winston-Salem, and which no longer exists).
 
jtrain609 said:
Exactly. Unannounced formation flying with a 737 full of people and a Cirrus that might be being piloted by a complete idiot sounds like this to me:
Click to expand...

Looks like the FAA thinks the pilots of the SWA were the complete idiots.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

commenters who really should not be allowed to reproduce said:
My understanding is that all SW pilots are CAPTAINS. That they are the most seasoned pilots in the industry - so I wouldn't be harping too much on the pilots for doing what they're asked to do. Of all pilots out there, I'm certain that SW Pilots were a good choice to do the task, behind that of a military pilot.
-------------------
Ever been flying and you want to know your pilots background? You can tell by the landing. USAF pilots land harder to reduce speed quickly as they would do on an aircraft carrier, and the other branches give you that nice smooth landing that takes a little longer.
Click to expand...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

I wonder how many carrier landings MikeD made in the USAF?
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

That is ALMOST more forgivable than the first one....how could every SWA pilot be a captain? It just defies any reasonable logic whatsoever.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

BeRich said:
That is ALMOST more forgivable than the first one....how could every SWA pilot be a captain? It just defies any reasonable logic whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well, not to be nit-picky, but Southwest does have you get your 73 type before you're in class...so technically all the pilots could act in the capacity as a Captain. Right?
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

SurferLucas said:
Well, not to be nit-picky, but Southwest does have you get your 73 type before you're in class...so technically all the pilots could act in the capacity as a Captain. Right?
Click to expand...

Ah, this is true. Still a dumb comment, but yeah you're right.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

inigo88 said:
I wonder how many carrier landings MikeD made in the USAF?
Click to expand...

:D None here...

But, we do have occasional exchange guys who go fly F/A-18s for the USN/USMC, and used to have pilots go fly EA-6Bs. Although they stopped carrier qualing the Prowler guys, then ended up not taking USAF pilots into the 4 expeditionary squadrons, just Navigator/EWOs.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

inigo88 said:
Very nice! :D
Click to expand...

Not to get too far off topic, but just to mention that there are numerous opportunities for both interservice as well as international flying exchange opportunities in the AF active duty. They were very difficult to get and were great opportunities, but they also took you out of "the field" of USAF stuff for a few years and hence could be career detrimental in certain ways. They were "exchange" because the other service would send someone to the AF one-for-one. The EA-6B Prowler gig wasn't considered an exchange, because the USN didn't send a Prowler pilot to fly something on the AF side; it was merely an assignment and there also wasn't any joint credit with it. On the fighter side for tactical stuff, and Hacker can back up me on this, as I remember it we had:

F-15C/F-15E/F-16 guys (all): F/A-18s to Lemoore (USN), F/A-18s to Miramar/Beaufort (USMC); F-5E/F aggressor to Yuma, EA-6B Prowler (not anymore). As well as a number of foreign exchange flying opportunities such as F/A-18 to Australia. I believe Tornado to Italy or Germany too. I know Im forgetting some here. But its pointy-nose stuff, so I didnt pay much attention...:D

F-15E specific: IP/IWSO exchanges to Saudi Arabia, Korea (IIRC). I believe WSOs also had an F-111 exchange opportuinity to the Australian AF until their retirement just recently, as well as all WSOs who are EWO rated can go to the EA-6B as an ECMO.

F-16 specific: Korea AF exchange; there was a Venezuelan AF exchange, but no more; Denmark AF, Netherlands AF, Norwegian AF and a number of others that fly F-16s. British AV-8 Harrier exchange (don't know if still).

F-15C specific: Don't remember if they had ones where only a C-model guy could go. Saudi Arabia possibly. Possibly RAF Tornado F3.

A-10: RAF Jaguar (since gone), Colombia A-37 (since gone), EA-6B Prowler (since gone), and I don't remember any other tactical postings. There were training postings. Surprisingly, there was never any USMC AV-8B Harrier exchange, as our missions are nearly identical.

F-111 guys: Italian, RAF, and German Tornado IDS, RAF Jaguar.

All of the above were eligible for the F-117A. Everyone had to come to the F-117 from somewhere with a minimum 4FL and 1000 in primary airframe. You pick up a duty AFSC, but your primary AFSC remains from wherever you came from. Example, I was issued a DAFSC of 11F3M for F-117 pilot, but my PAFSC was 11F3B/N for A/OA-10 pilot.

Oh well, back on topic..........
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

I'm still not coming up with a really good reason to use an airliner with passengers on board to check on a single engine NORDO.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

MikeD said:
Not to get too far off topic, but just to mention that there are numerous opportunities for both interservice as well as international flying exchange opportunities in the AF active duty. They were very difficult to get and were great opportunities, but they also took you out of "the field" of USAF stuff for a few years and hence could be career detrimental in certain ways. They were "exchange" because the other service would send someone to the AF one-for-one. The EA-6B Prowler gig wasn't considered an exchange, because the USN didn't send a Prowler pilot to fly something on the AF side; it was merely an assignment and there also wasn't any joint credit with it. On the fighter side for tactical stuff, and Hacker can back up me on this, as I remember it we had:

Oh well, back on topic..........
Click to expand...

The Tornado is an airplane that looks like it would be a great time to fly around in. Know anyone that got a chance to fly it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top