Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-77-010
Details
Synopsis: ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1976, A CESSNA 414 AND A UNITED STATES AIR FORCE F-4E PHANTOM II FIGHTER COLLIDED IN MIDAIR NEAR BRIGHTON, FLORIDA. THE F-4E, ONE OF A FORMATION FLIGHT OF THREE FIGHTERS FROM HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE (AFB), FLORIDA, WAS ON A COMPOSITE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) FLIGHT PLAN TO THE AVON PARK RESTRICTED AREA AND RETURN TO HOMESTEAD AFB. THE CESSNA 414, N8PR, WAS OPERATING UNDER VFR AND THE PILOT HAD NOT FILED A FLIGHT PLAN.
Recommendation: ASSURE UHF GUARD-TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING CAPABILITY AT ALL CONTROL POSITIONS WHERE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ROUTINELY TO MILITARY TACTICAL FLIGHTS.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: Brighton, FL, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: MIA76AM108
Accident Reports: Ruel Insurance Corporation Cessna 414, N8PR and USAF F4E, 67-0255
Report #: AAR-77-05
Accident Date: 9/13/1976
Issue Date: 1/27/1977
Date Closed: 4/24/1987
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 4/24/1987
Response: We are pleased to note that the faa has completed its program to ensure ultra high frequency (uhf) guard-transmitting capability at all control positions which routinely handle military tactical flights with the exception of battle mountain, nevada, and cedar city, utah, where this capability is in the process of being installed. This recommendation is now classified as closed--acceptable action.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 2/17/1987
Response: "THE FAA HAS COMPLETED ITS PROGRAM TO ENSURE INSTALLATION OF ULTRA HIGH FREQUENCY (UHF) GUARD-TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING CAPABILITIES AT CONTROL POSITIONS WHICH ROUTINELY HANDLES MILITARY TACTICAL FLIGHTS. THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL UHF TRANSCEIVER EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN INSTALLED AT ALL CONTROL POSITIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO SITES IN THE NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION. THESE TWO SITES ARE BATTLE MOUNTAIN, NEVADA, AND CEDAR CITY, UTAH. BOTH OF THESE SITES WERE INCLUDED IN THE 1983 BUDGET AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING INSTALLED."

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 11/17/1986
Response: WE HAVE REQUESTED EACH REGION, THAT DOES NOT HAVE UHF GUARD TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING CAPABILITIES AT ALL CONTROL POSITIONS WHERE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ROUTINELY TO MILITARY TACTICAL FLIGHTS, TO COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND TO ADVISE US AS TO THE EXPECTED IMPLE MENTATION DATE. WHILE ALL FACILITIES THAT ROUTINELY CONTROL MILITARY TACTICAL FLIGHTS DO HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE ON UHF GUARD FREQUENCY, 243.0 MHZ, THE INSTALLA TION OF ADDITIONAL TRANSCEIVER EQUIPMENT AT ALL CONTROL POSITIONS, AS RECOMMENDED, HAS NOT BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED IN TOTAL DUE TO OTHER OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES AND/OR BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS. AS OF JULY 1, THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION IS AS FOLLOWS: THE NEW ENGLAND, EASTERN, SOUTHERN, WESTERN, AND PACIFIC REGIONS ARE FULLY IMPLEMENTED. THE NORTHWEST REGION IS EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT THROUGH LOCAL, FY-79, PROJECT FUNDS. THE ALASKAN REGION EXPECTS TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED BY JULY 1, 1980. THE CENTRAL REGION'S FY-81 BUDGET SUBMISSION INCLUDES FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION REQUESTED ADDITIONAL REMOTE CONTROL AIR TO GROUND (RCAG) CHANNELS IN THE FY-81 F & E BUDGET. THE SOUTHWEST REGION EXPECTS TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED BY MARCH 1982. THE GREAT LAKES REGIONS' FY-82 F & E BUDGET SUBMISSION INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 11/17/1986
Response: The faa's response of july 26, 1979, indicated that this recommendation had been fulfilled in five of the faa;s regions and that plans were underway to provide uhf guard-transceiver capability at all control positions in the remaining regions. In our followup letter of august 27, 1979, we expressed our appreciation for the partial implementa- tion of this recommendation and classified it in an open-- acceptable action status. We have not received a further response from the faa and would appreciate receiving information about your current efforts to implement the recommendation. Pending your response, recommendation a-77-10 remains classified in an open--acceptable action status.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/23/1984
Response:

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 7/26/1979
Response: FAA LTR: WE HAVE REQUESTED EACH REGION, THAT DOES NOT HAVE UHG GUARD-TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING CAPABILITIES AT ALL CONTROL POSITIONS WHERE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ROUTINELY TO MILITARY TACTICAL FLIGHTS, TO COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND TO ADVISE US AS TO THE EXPECTED IMPLEMENTATION DATE. WHILE ALL FACILITIES THAT ROUTINELY CONTROL MILITARY TACTICAL FLIGHTS DO HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE ON UHF GUARD FREQUENCY, 243.0 MHZ, THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL TRANSCEIVER EQUIP MENT AT ALL CONTROL POSITIONS, AS RECOMMENDED, HAS NOT BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED IN TOTAL DUE TO OTHER OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES AND/OR BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 12/16/1977
Response: FAA LETTER: FAA REGIONS ARE USING THE FOLLOWING METHODS TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) CHANGE CRYSTALS ON TSU TRANSCEIVERS TO 243.0 MHZ, (2) RETERMINATE SOME SHARE GUARD OUTLETS SO THAT ARTCC'S CAN SHARE 243.0 WITH EITHER FSS OR TOWERS, (3) RECONFIGURE SOME BUEC TRANSCEIVERS TO CYCLE TO 243.0, (4) INSTALL FIXED TUNE/SINGLE CHANNEL TRANSCEIVERS ON 243.0 AT SELECTED LONG RANGE RADAR SITES AND/OR REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS AIR/GROUND FACILITIES. ALL REGIONAL PLANS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR. 7/26/79 - FAA LTR: WE HAVE

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 4/26/1977
Response: FAA LTR: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT US THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF UHF GUARD SITES CAN CREATE A PROBLEM THAT DEROGATES OUR CAPABILITY TO COMMUNICATE ON 243.0 MHZ. THE PROBLEM OCCURS WHEN TWO OR MORE SITES CANNOT HEAR EACH OTHER TRANSMITTING DUE TO TERRAIN, SHIELDING, ETC. SINCE THEY CANNOT RECEIVE EACH OTHER, THEY COULD ATTEMPT TO RESPOND TO AIRCRAFT TRANSMISSIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY, CREATING INTERFERENCE OR GARBLING WHICH EFFECTIVELY BLOCKS ALL TRANSMISSIONS. THIS CONDITION COULD COMPLETELY NEGATE OUR CAPABILITY TO RESPOND TO THE AIRCRAFT IN DISTRESS.