Narrative:

At that time there were 3 civilian aircraft in the saranac lake airport air traffic area. One was an instruction flight, one a maintenance related flight, and one a privately owned aircraft being flown locally by the owner (this is a typical mix for our airport at any given time.). A military tanker from pab arrived in the area to do a series of practice apches. These were executed properly and safely and west/O conflict with the civilian air traffic, except for one point: the civilian aircraft were all monitoring and reporting on the designated VHF frequency 123.0 (in accordance with FAA recommended procedures for airports west/O control towers) and several calls were made to the tanker requesting a report of his intentions, but it seemed that the tanker was not on frequency. Later I was able to contact the tanker pilot by phone and learned from him, to my great surprise, that his aircraft in not even equipped with the VHF radios necessary to communicate with civil air traffic! By way of explanation, I should perhaps point out here that while FAA air traffic controllers may have the UHF radio frequencys generally used by the military, civilian aircraft do not. And since there is no ATC facility at the adirondack airport (and many other airports like it) air traffic sep by radio in such cases can only be achieved on VHF frequencys. This is the point of my letter. The tanker pilot remarked that he would very much like to have such equipment on board his aircraft, but that his requests for it have been turned down. I offered to relay my point of view as a civilian flight instrument, to those responsible for that decision, and he said someone would be contacting me about it. Till now I have not heard anything. It would do no good for either the civil aviation or military aviation communities, for us to come home some evening and hear on the news of a collision between a small civil aircraft with flight instrument and student, and a military tanker, with loss of both aircraft and all crew members. The military would look especially bad if investigators discovered that the civil aircraft had been in compliance with FAA recommended radio procedures and the military aircraft had not, because of his lack of basic radio equipment. I am not among those who seed to ban the low-level training flts in the adirondack park. I, and most civilian pilots with me, feel that our military crews deserve the best training they can get, including familiarity with mountainous and remote area operations and instrument apches to civil airports but that could change if we feel that the military is not committed to flight safety while mingling with civil air traffic. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter has received replies from plattsburg flight office and they are planning to put VHF in their tankers as soon as procurement procedures are completed. Reply from congressman said he was passing the information along to air force in dc.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HVT MIL TANKER IN TRAFFIC PATTERN AT UNCONTROLLED ARPT PRACTICING APCHES NORDO.

Narrative: AT THAT TIME THERE WERE 3 CIVILIAN ACFT IN THE SARANAC LAKE ARPT ATA. ONE WAS AN INSTRUCTION FLT, ONE A MAINT RELATED FLT, AND ONE A PRIVATELY OWNED ACFT BEING FLOWN LOCALLY BY THE OWNER (THIS IS A TYPICAL MIX FOR OUR ARPT AT ANY GIVEN TIME.). A MIL TANKER FROM PAB ARRIVED IN THE AREA TO DO A SERIES OF PRACTICE APCHES. THESE WERE EXECUTED PROPERLY AND SAFELY AND W/O CONFLICT WITH THE CIVILIAN AIR TFC, EXCEPT FOR ONE POINT: THE CIVILIAN ACFT WERE ALL MONITORING AND RPTING ON THE DESIGNATED VHF FREQ 123.0 (IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAA RECOMMENDED PROCS FOR ARPTS W/O CTL TWRS) AND SEVERAL CALLS WERE MADE TO THE TANKER REQUESTING A RPT OF HIS INTENTIONS, BUT IT SEEMED THAT THE TANKER WAS NOT ON FREQ. LATER I WAS ABLE TO CONTACT THE TANKER PLT BY PHONE AND LEARNED FROM HIM, TO MY GREAT SURPRISE, THAT HIS ACFT IN NOT EVEN EQUIPPED WITH THE VHF RADIOS NECESSARY TO COMMUNICATE WITH CIVIL AIR TFC! BY WAY OF EXPLANATION, I SHOULD PERHAPS POINT OUT HERE THAT WHILE FAA AIR TFC CTLRS MAY HAVE THE UHF RADIO FREQS GENERALLY USED BY THE MIL, CIVILIAN ACFT DO NOT. AND SINCE THERE IS NO ATC FAC AT THE ADIRONDACK ARPT (AND MANY OTHER ARPTS LIKE IT) AIR TFC SEP BY RADIO IN SUCH CASES CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED ON VHF FREQS. THIS IS THE POINT OF MY LETTER. THE TANKER PLT REMARKED THAT HE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HAVE SUCH EQUIP ON BOARD HIS ACFT, BUT THAT HIS REQUESTS FOR IT HAVE BEEN TURNED DOWN. I OFFERED TO RELAY MY POINT OF VIEW AS A CIVILIAN FLT INSTR, TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DECISION, AND HE SAID SOMEONE WOULD BE CONTACTING ME ABOUT IT. TILL NOW I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING. IT WOULD DO NO GOOD FOR EITHER THE CIVIL AVIATION OR MIL AVIATION COMMUNITIES, FOR US TO COME HOME SOME EVENING AND HEAR ON THE NEWS OF A COLLISION BTWN A SMALL CIVIL ACFT WITH FLT INSTR AND STUDENT, AND A MIL TANKER, WITH LOSS OF BOTH ACFT AND ALL CREW MEMBERS. THE MIL WOULD LOOK ESPECIALLY BAD IF INVESTIGATORS DISCOVERED THAT THE CIVIL ACFT HAD BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH FAA RECOMMENDED RADIO PROCS AND THE MIL ACFT HAD NOT, BECAUSE OF HIS LACK OF BASIC RADIO EQUIP. I AM NOT AMONG THOSE WHO SEED TO BAN THE LOW-LEVEL TRNING FLTS IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK. I, AND MOST CIVILIAN PLTS WITH ME, FEEL THAT OUR MIL CREWS DESERVE THE BEST TRNING THEY CAN GET, INCLUDING FAMILIARITY WITH MOUNTAINOUS AND REMOTE AREA OPS AND INSTRUMENT APCHES TO CIVIL ARPTS BUT THAT COULD CHANGE IF WE FEEL THAT THE MIL IS NOT COMMITTED TO FLT SAFETY WHILE MINGLING WITH CIVIL AIR TFC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR HAS RECEIVED REPLIES FROM PLATTSBURG FLT OFFICE AND THEY ARE PLANNING TO PUT VHF IN THEIR TANKERS AS SOON AS PROCUREMENT PROCS ARE COMPLETED. REPLY FROM CONGRESSMAN SAID HE WAS PASSING THE INFO ALONG TO AIR FORCE IN DC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.