Posts by user "galaxy flyer" [Posts: 70 Total up-votes: 92 Page: 4 of 4]¶

I know RAs are tracked in FOQA and forwarded to ASIAS. What the FAA or MITRE does with the data is unknown. GE Digital, who did our FOQA crunching had lots of data on the mid-air threat at Teterboro, so I assume data for else where is available. We briefed the mid-air threats for several airports, TEB and LA area at monthly safety meetings. Again, TAs were not recorded.

I\x92d add, the FAA and the airlines that operate at KDCA had the data on near-misses, RA\x92s. If the various safety managers pressed crews for reports on TAs, near-misses, ATC failures major or minor; and the FAA brought the stakeholder in a room, the problems would have been identified. Whether action would have been taken OR the risks were deemed acceptable due to no accidents, I cannot say. I suspect inertia would have overcome the group and nothing changed. It\x92s now blindingly obvious the risks that were accepted as either reasonable or just resigned to luck being a strategy.

She was the Pilot Flying, not instruction, evaluation for her skills. There’s a difference, but generally the evaluatee is in command until there is a failed item or a dangerous situation develops and the evaluator has to take over command and controls.

Not arguing, but are those representative stats on incidents and accidents? I\x92ll bet a lot they data is there, in FOQA, safety reporting and ASAP, but who has it?

The supposed reason is to prevent the public or the \x93villains \x93 from tracking the PAT routes and times thus cluing them to perhaps attack the \x93continuation of government\x94 missions in a real emergency. Government paranoia or operations security, take your pick, yes, as we saw on 9/11 the FAA is pretty good at closing the airspace.

During various ME contingencies, I was hailed on Guard by a US Navy warship inquiring on my Mode 4 code. He claimed it was the incorrect code based on his \x93secrets\x94. We verified our paperwork that it was correct for the time and day. Never resolved the discrepancy but I can understand how friendly fire works better.

The DOD has its own investigation process which is detailed and regulated by each service. Any fatal serious injury accident or substantial damage is investigated in a Safety Investigation Board (SIB) usually under a O-6 or O-7 grade officer. Just like an NTSB investigation the Board President can accredit subject matter experts, outside contractors, JAGs to interview, gather data, etc. The SIB runs under a tighter timeline than an NTSB investigation, usually the report is due within 90 days, but obviously that’s subject to the complexity of the mishap. The report is “privileged” releasable only within the service, generally only within the Major Command in the USAF. It is NOT public released. The SIB recommendations do not include disciplinary or administrative actions for DoD members. It cannot be used in the courts. The MAJCOM commander is usually briefed in a meeting without coffee or cookies. It’s a tense briefing.

At some point during the SIB, the command convenes an Accident Investigation Board (AIB), also run by a senior officer. The AIB can use factual data from the SIB, but must conduct its own interviews, on scene investigations, etc, to ensure its independence from the SIB. The AIB report is releasable, may recommend disciplinary or administrative actions, may have recommendations to outside contractors or suppliers. Being public, it can be used in court actions, FEB or courts martial.

The Congressional “privileged” status came out in the 50s when the military accident was astronomical and needed a process to establish what happened and what actions could prevent a repeat mishap. The privilege took away anyone’s Article 31 rights, basically everyone had immunity in the SIB process but not in the AIB process. You get “rights” read to you in a AIB and a Defense Counsel is offered.

I would guess the Army is or will run an AIB as there’s, at least, the possibility of disciplinary actions or specific recommendations for regulatory changes that must come out of a military process, as the NTSB cannot issue recommendations to the military authority. It might just be an echo of the NTSB report.

This mishap maybe the first since the Ron Brown accident in FRY where the NTSB was involved, mostly for political reasons. The AIB ripped a bunch of officers new orifices ending their careers. I believe, at least one flag officer retired as a Major or Lt. Col.

BTW, the military uses “mishap” to indicate the crash was preventable whereas “accident” implies God reached down and just took them out. I always laugh cynically at the news of a car accident where it’s written like it was the driver became a passenger and had no agency. Car went out of control. No, the driver was (fill in the blank) and crashed the car.

I suspect the JAG Manual investigation is similar to what the USAF calls an AIB, as the AIB reports are the result of a JAG process. It has to be JAG in the AF to produce any disciplinary or administrative actions. For example, an AIB can recommend a court martial or a flying evaluation board, which has an equivalent in the USN. I’ve been, in various positions, involved in several FEBs. About the same time interval, too.

Here\x92s the USAF JAG reports website,

https://www.afjag.af.mil/AIB-Reports/

Being months after an event the reports rarely make headlines, so when someone says they never see the reports it\x92s because it isn\x92t news.

Can\x92t say about the Army, but the USAF standard for altimeters is exactly the same as the FAA. Additionally, the USAF is very specific that in civil airspace we will comply with ICAO SARPs, FAA regulations or any bilatera agreements in place.

The minimum RA altitude is 900\x92 AGL, I think based on RADALT. They CRJ was below the RA envelope.