Ops topics

Flying Safety, May, 2003

Editor's Note: The following accounts are from actual mishaps. They have been screened to prevent the release of privileged information.

See & Avoid! Well aviators, it has not been a good year in the skies for near misses, and we have had too many actual hits. Here are a few examples where they were lucky and missed, but the potential for a collision is always there. Keep your eyes open and sharp, and listen to air traffic control (ATC), TCAS and each other to ensure you See arid Avoid.

Whoa Horse!

A C-17 crew was descending into home base and was cleared from FL270 to FL130. Unfortunately, as they passed through FL214 their clearance was amended to FL210. Now just think about this, a C17 in a 3500-foot per minute descent at 330 KIAS, do you think the crew was able to stop at FL210? In this case they didn't, but they did stop the descent at FL200. As they leveled off at FL200 the crew immediately heard ATC issuing traffic calls to a civilian aircraft. As they looked outside to clear

Flying The Crowded Skies!

At an Air Force base here in the states the pattern got quite full, and we had a close call between two C-130s and three A-10s coming in to land. Here is how it went.

* The first C-130 was the first aircraft established on final at 2000 feet MSL.

* The flight of three A-10s arrived at initial close enough behind the first C-130 that they overshot initial to the south of the track, to avoid flying directly above the C-130. The A-10s then requested a 360-degree turn for spacing, but the tower disapproved the request due to the second C-130 entering initial behind them. The A-10s corrected back to initial maintaining 2500 feet MSL until within 6 DME in accordance with local procedures. The A-10s then started descending to 2000 feet MSL.

* The second C-130 was coming in from the north at 2000 feet MSL and was cleared by approach to their aircraft they saw the civilian aircraft making evasive maneuvers. Luckily, the aircraft passed about one-hall mile behind the C-17. Both aircraft were talking to the same controller, but on different frequencies.

ATC is investigating this report citing possible controller errors and equipment deficiencies. Never forget who has the ultimate responsibility for accepting or declining clearances, especially clearances you are unable to comply with. Communicate, and see and avoid.

follow the C-l30 traffic in front of him. The aircrew reported they had the C-130 and the A-10s in sight. He then asked if he was number two to land behind the C-130. The tower replied that he was number two to land, and the A-10s were in front of the first C-130 for the overhead. Tower then instructed the second C-130 to switch to the tower frequency.

* At this point the second C-130 had entered the initial from the north at 2000 feet MSL, and the A-10s were correcting back to the initial from the south while descending to 2000 feet MSL. Is this, like, totally wrong?

* The second C-130 detected the impending conflict and descended to 1500 feet MSL to ensure vertical separation from the A-10s.

* The A-10s, unable to see the second C-130, continued with their overhead approach while the second C-130 maneuvered for spacing and continued on initial behind the A-10s.

* While still on an IFR clearance and cleared for a visual overhead, the second C-130 came within 500 feet vertical separation and one-half mile of the A-10 flight's third aircraft, who was operating on a VFR clearance with the tower.

This situation highlights a former CY01 AMC Special Interest Item of Visual Avoidance and Radio, "As stated in FAR 91.113, 'regardless of whether an operation is conducted under IFR or VFR, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft'." It continues, "...ATC has no responsibility to provide separation vectors between non-participating and JFR traffic, unless requested. Finally, if you believe that the conflicting traffic is unaware of your position, try calling the pilot of the aircraft itself (on Unicom or other frequency, if necessary) to advise of your intentions. Any evasive action taken must be reported to ATC." Now, what does all this mean?

* They did the right thing by filing the HATR to report this incident.

* Despite the fact that ATC provided minimum spacing between aircraft IAW AFMAN 11-217, Vol 1, the aircrew of the second C-130 was responsible for maintaining separation.

* Don't forget that AFMAN 11-217, Vol 1, sect 14.3.1.4. states, "When visually following a preceding aircraft, acceptance of the visual approach clearance constitutes acceptance of pilot responsibility for maintaining a safe approach interval." In addition, sect 14.3.2 states, "Be aware that radar service is automatically terminated (without advising the pilot) when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory frequency." Plus, a "Note" states, "An aircraft conducting an overhead maneuver is VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the initial point."

* As was their responsibility, the second C-130 did the right thing and avoided the A-10s. But should they have been in the position to have to take evasive maneuvers in the first place?