Narrative:

Upon reaching a brief fuel state, fgt X was vectored by airborne warning and control system which was acting as command and control (spc west) to mlt V to refuel. The top of the tanker altitude block was FL220. WX was brief as tops at 14000'. Actual WX on the tanker track was solid IFR from below 14000' to FL240. Visibility was approximately 3/4 mi. Briefed altitude to proceed to the tanker was FL190 yet I was assigned FL210, which was the briefed exit altitude. After tanking complete flying on the left wing of mlt V I picked up some light icing and my airspeed indicator went to 0 KTS. Fgt X attempted to raise spc west for a vector and hard/assigned altitude for tanker breakaway. Airborne warning and control system was overloaded trying to vector at least 3 sections of fighters to the tanker in IFR conditions at various assigned altitudes, along with solving problems with the orange force tanker. After listening to a section of fgt's trying to get to the tanker with no visual contact, and then watching them go under slightly behind us, picking up some icing I felt the situation was marginal at best. At least 4 attempts were made to communication with airborne warning and control system (spc west) with no luck. 15 mins had past flying wing on mlt V. Finally we received a vector from the airborne warning and control system, when asked for an altitude no answer at which time we called that we were climbing to VFR conditions at FL290 we were told to descend immediately which we did. During the debrief it was found that there were 7 violations of airspace and both latitude and vertical, by different aircraft. I feel that with that many violations it says something about the situation that existed. My decision was based solely on safety of flight conditions. WX certainly was the major element. Fgt operations manual states maintain 85% RPM or higher in icing conditions which I doubt we were doing. Also on page V1-18-1 fgt tops states extended operations in icing conditions should be considered an emergency situation. Command and control was overloaded and was unable to keep aircraft under positive control the tanker track was not moved to VFR conditions. At no time did I attempt to mask or hide my actions. I was squawking 6121 at all times and gave a complete debrief upon landing at tinker AFB. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the military exercise in this incident involved a very large number of aircraft. The principle problem was the tanker aircraft (2 of them) being in IMC. At least 8 aircraft climbed out of the refueling block to VMC. Reporter stated that his climb to FL290 caused ZME some concern because he came within 8 mi of an air carrier. No loss of sep occurred. No FAA charges have been made to individual pilots that committed the altitude deviations in this incident. This has been classified as a military exercise deviation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FGT PLT FOUND HIMSELF IN IMC WHILE REFUELING, WITH NUMEROUS ACFT IN CLOSE PROX AND ELECTED TO CLIMB OUT OF THE ADVERSE SITUATION TO VMC.

Narrative: UPON REACHING A BRIEF FUEL STATE, FGT X WAS VECTORED BY AIRBORNE WARNING AND CTL SYS WHICH WAS ACTING AS COMMAND AND CONTROL (SPC W) TO MLT V TO REFUEL. THE TOP OF THE TANKER ALT BLOCK WAS FL220. WX WAS BRIEF AS TOPS AT 14000'. ACTUAL WX ON THE TANKER TRACK WAS SOLID IFR FROM BELOW 14000' TO FL240. VIS WAS APPROX 3/4 MI. BRIEFED ALT TO PROCEED TO THE TANKER WAS FL190 YET I WAS ASSIGNED FL210, WHICH WAS THE BRIEFED EXIT ALT. AFTER TANKING COMPLETE FLYING ON THE LEFT WING OF MLT V I PICKED UP SOME LIGHT ICING AND MY AIRSPD INDICATOR WENT TO 0 KTS. FGT X ATTEMPTED TO RAISE SPC W FOR A VECTOR AND HARD/ASSIGNED ALT FOR TANKER BREAKAWAY. AIRBORNE WARNING AND CTL SYS WAS OVERLOADED TRYING TO VECTOR AT LEAST 3 SECTIONS OF FIGHTERS TO THE TANKER IN IFR CONDITIONS AT VARIOUS ASSIGNED ALTS, ALONG WITH SOLVING PROBS WITH THE ORANGE FORCE TANKER. AFTER LISTENING TO A SECTION OF FGT'S TRYING TO GET TO THE TANKER WITH NO VISUAL CONTACT, AND THEN WATCHING THEM GO UNDER SLIGHTLY BEHIND US, PICKING UP SOME ICING I FELT THE SITUATION WAS MARGINAL AT BEST. AT LEAST 4 ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO COM WITH AIRBORNE WARNING AND CTL SYS (SPC W) WITH NO LUCK. 15 MINS HAD PAST FLYING WING ON MLT V. FINALLY WE RECEIVED A VECTOR FROM THE AIRBORNE WARNING AND CTL SYS, WHEN ASKED FOR AN ALT NO ANSWER AT WHICH TIME WE CALLED THAT WE WERE CLBING TO VFR CONDITIONS AT FL290 WE WERE TOLD TO DSND IMMEDIATELY WHICH WE DID. DURING THE DEBRIEF IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE 7 VIOLATIONS OF AIRSPACE AND BOTH LAT AND VERT, BY DIFFERENT ACFT. I FEEL THAT WITH THAT MANY VIOLATIONS IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT EXISTED. MY DECISION WAS BASED SOLELY ON SAFETY OF FLT CONDITIONS. WX CERTAINLY WAS THE MAJOR ELEMENT. FGT OPS MANUAL STATES MAINTAIN 85% RPM OR HIGHER IN ICING CONDITIONS WHICH I DOUBT WE WERE DOING. ALSO ON PAGE V1-18-1 FGT TOPS STATES EXTENDED OPS IN ICING CONDITIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN EMER SITUATION. COMMAND AND CONTROL WAS OVERLOADED AND WAS UNABLE TO KEEP ACFT UNDER POSITIVE CONTROL THE TANKER TRACK WAS NOT MOVED TO VFR CONDITIONS. AT NO TIME DID I ATTEMPT TO MASK OR HIDE MY ACTIONS. I WAS SQUAWKING 6121 AT ALL TIMES AND GAVE A COMPLETE DEBRIEF UPON LNDG AT TINKER AFB. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE MIL EXERCISE IN THIS INCIDENT INVOLVED A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF ACFT. THE PRINCIPLE PROB WAS THE TANKER ACFT (2 OF THEM) BEING IN IMC. AT LEAST 8 ACFT CLBED OUT OF THE REFUELING BLOCK TO VMC. RPTR STATED THAT HIS CLB TO FL290 CAUSED ZME SOME CONCERN BECAUSE HE CAME WITHIN 8 MI OF AN ACR. NO LOSS OF SEP OCCURRED. NO FAA CHARGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO INDIVIDUAL PLTS THAT COMMITTED THE ALT DEVIATIONS IN THIS INCIDENT. THIS HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MIL EXERCISE DEVIATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.