For all your dislike of the word "blame," you seem to be blaming the Cessna pilot. You might read the NTSB report. The Cessna was climbing out after takeoff. It is unlikely that he would have been able to ask for, and receive, flight following before the collision occurred (three minutes after the Cessna lifted off). The 16 pilot, by contrast, was under ATC control and was given a traffic warning three times.
I'm wondering why ATC brought the F16 down to pattern altitude so far out. Is that your experience?
- oldman
Nowhere am I blaming either pilot. I am saying without a doubt in my mind that both pilots had a shared responsibility to see and avoid other traffic, and both pilots have an individual responsibility to conduct the flight in a safe manner. While I don't know if the F-16 pilot could have done anything different, I do know that the Cessna pilot had multiple things he could have proactively done that would have enhanced his ability to meet his obligation to conduct the flight safely. He could have contacted ATC for flight following. He *might* have been able to adjust his routing to avoid high volume military traffic. Maybe the viper driver could also have done other things as well, I dunno. But it is an inescapable fact that at the time of the collision, one pilot was talking to ATC and attempting to deconflict, and the other pilot wasn't talking to anyone, trusting that dumb luck would get him to his destination alive.
Blame? Nope. But both pilots clearly failed in responsibilities that were both shared, and theirs alone as the pilot in command. Being in compliance with the rules but dead is still dead, and one of the rules is that the PIC is solely responsible for not ending up dead. As a PIC, I don't EVER attempt to transfer that responsibility to anyone else, whether its another pilot just because he has a radar, or a ground agency. If I relied on the wx forecasters to do my job as PIC, I'd have either crashed or had to eject long ago because sometimes WX forecasters are horribly wrong, and I've been given more than one "everything's ok" forecast and then when I checked it myself, found that the forecaster gave me my briefing based on the previous day's weather because he forgot to hit the refresh button on his computer, and if I'd gone with his forecast I'd have arrived with crosswinds more than double the aircraft's allowable limits and all "perfectly legal" alternate airports also had crosswinds badly out of limits. I'd have been legal by going with the wrong forecast, and I probably would have lost the aircraft and maybe died if that was good enough. But I take my responsibilities as PIC very seriously and so I make SURE my flight will be conducted safely by doing everything I reasonably can to make sure I don't pass up opportunities to make it safer. Like double-checking my wx briefing with free online resources. Like contacting ATC when I don't have to. Like not chasing clouds and pushing VFR cloud clearance limits when I'm in the vicinity of IFR traffic that might be busting right through those clouds with no hope of visually deconflicting with me. Like researching my VFR flying routes to see if I'm crossing military low level routes or other high traffic volume areas. When I have a radar that can interrogate and receive IFF codes, I actually use it as part of my crosscheck. Like listening up on the radio for other aircraft getting assigned the same altitude as me (gotta be on freq in the first place!).
Blame? Naw. But one guy is dead in part because while he was legal, he failed at his responsibilities as PIC in part because he failed to use resources available to him that could have prevented the mishap. Same probably goes for the viper driver in terms of maybe using his radar "better" or picking a different route, but at least the viper driver was talking to ATC and making an attempt to deconflict. You can't say that the Cessna pilot even tried.
You simply can't be that cavalier in attitude in the aviation world and expect to not die in some sort of mishap.
