Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-93-131
Details
Synopsis: ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1992, ABOUT 1457 CENTRAL DAYLIGHT TIME, A MITSUBISHI MU-2B-60 (MU-2), N74FB, AND A PIPER PA-32-301 SARATOGA (PA-32), N82419, COLLIDED AT 2,100 FEET MEAN SEA LEVEL, APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE GREENWOOD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, GREENWOOD, INDIANA. THE PA-32 WAS DESCENDING FROM 2,500 FEET EN ROUTE TO GREENWOOD AIRPORT IN ACCORANCE WITH VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR). THE MU-2, ALSO OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLIGHT RULES, WAS CLIMBING OUT OF THE GREENWOOD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT EN ROUTE TO COLUMBUS, OHIO. THE PILOTS OF BOTH AIRPLANES AND THE FOUR PASSENGERS ABOARD THE MU-2 WERE FATALLY INJURED. THE TWO OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE PA-32 WERE SERIOUSLY INJURED. BOTH AIRPLANES WERE DESTROYED. THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN DAYLIGHT VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS.
Recommendation: THE NTSB RECOMMENDS THAT THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: FOR THE BENEFIT OF PILOT AWARENESS, REVISE LANGUAGE IN THE AIRMAN'S INFORMATION MANUAL TO CLEARLY REFLECT PILOT RESPONSIBILITY IN VIEW OF THE LIMITS OF CONTROLLER RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATING IFR FROM VFR AIRCRAFT.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: GREENWOOD, IN, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA92MA049AB
Accident Reports: Midair Collision Mitsubishi MU-2B-60, N74FB, and Piper PA-32-301, N82419
Report #: AAR-93-05
Accident Date: 9/11/1992
Issue Date: 11/10/1993
Date Closed: 4/29/1996
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 4/29/1996
Response: A-93-131 ASKED THE FAA TO REVISE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF PILOT AWARENESS, LANGUAGE IN THE AIM TO CLEARLY REFLECT PILOT RESPONSIBILITY IN VIEW OF THE LIMITS OF CONTROLLER RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATING AIRCRAFT OPERATING UNDER INSTRUMENT & VISUAL FLIGHT RULES. THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CHANGE 1 TO THE AIM ALSO ADDRESSES THIS RECOMMENDATION. PAGE 5-5-5, PARAGRAPHS 5-5-12(5)(1) & (B)(2), CLARIFIES PILOT RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS CONTROLLER RESPONSIBILITY WHEN VISUAL SEPARATION IS APPLIED. BASED ON THIS INFO, THE BOARD CLASSIFIES A-93-131 "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 1/25/1996
Response: CHANGE 1 TO THE AIM ALSO CLARIFIES PILOT RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS CONTROLLER RESPONSIBILITY WHEN VISUAL SEPARATION IS APPLIED.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 4/1/1994
Response: THE BOARD NOTES THAT THE FAA IS REVIEWING THE AIM TO DETERMINE IF A REVISION WOULD MORE CLEARLY REFLECT PILOT RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS CONTROLLER RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATING IFR FROM VFR AIRCRAFT. PENDING FURTHER INFO, THE BOARD CLASSIFIES A-93-131 "OPEN--ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE."

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 1/24/1994
Response: THE FAA IS REVIEWING THE AIM TO DETERMINE IF A REVISION WILL MORE CLEARLY REFLECT PILOT RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS CONTROLLER RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATING IFR FROM VFR AIRCRAFT. I WILL APPRISE THE BOARD OF THE FAA'S COURSE OF ACTION TO ADDRESS THIS RECOMMENDATION AS SOON AS THE REVIEW IS COMPLETED.