Deliverance: *
How does that avoid the question? The fact is a RIS a useful service below SALT. It was a useful reminder that ATC are there to help, but the buck stops with the crew, however unfortunate.
I agree with you.
I have, on many occasions, taken a RIS below safety altitude, but only VMC; I would be foolish to accept such a service IMC. I would never descend IMC with a RIS, and I would never descend below my own safety altitude whilst IMC without first informing the ATC agency of my flight conditions. Then it would be up to me to request a suitable service to permit the sortie to continue, or curtail the mission.
The information passed by the ATC officer is just that!!....INFORMATION. That information could then be used to deconflict with any other traffic in the vicinity, it would not allow me to abstain from my terrain/obstacle clearance responsibility.
Deliverance: *
There are so many what ifs in this case. Were they VMC? Did the controller think they were VMC? They were on a RIS.
As for whether they were VMC, we can conclude one fact with a high degree of confidence......they were VMC at some point before CFIT, as per the eye-witness accounts.
from Johnwil: *
The Tornados were in a two mile trail. All the eye witnesses described the jets as being close together. It is absurd to maintain that the eye witnesses saw Tornados. There are only two credible points of view on this. Either the five witnesses saw low flying F15s or they were collectively lying or deluded.
Deliverance: *
Could they see the ground but not the horizon?
It is quite possible they could see the ground, but not the horizon. We will never know how compelling the visual illusion may have been.
Deliverance: *
I for one think they could not have been intentionally flying at low-level, nobody would fly low-level in close formation. As for eye-witnesses, how many noise complainers get the aircraft type correct?
I am sure that 2-mile trail could never be misinterpreted as close formation.
However, whilst manoeuvring during a low-level entry, the wingman may have been close enough to be observed as "close formation" whilst giving his leader enough room to navigate freely around the weather without fear of hitting his wingman. I am not familiar with USAF formation SOPs, but it this would appear to be a likely explanation.
I am not privy to statistics of complainers' aircraft recognition abilities however, I'm sure these people would be a little miffed to hear their evidence dismissed based on their ability to count. TWO TAILS…ONE plus ONE is TWO. CLOSE FORMATION….NOT 2 miles from each other.
I am sure they have been questioned on what they observed, and they understand the gravity of the situation.
Give these people SOME credibility. Anything less would credit them with a monkey-like level of intelligence.