Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: HPriller on July 07, 2015, 08:51:38 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/south-carolina-aircraft-incident/index.html
My guess is this is probably some fresh faced national guard n00b who thought "Hey, buzzing this Cessna should be hilarious".
The only way I could think of the Cessna being at fault was if he was in airspace he shouldn't have been in (i.e. close to the Viper's base during his takeoff or landing pattern). However the crash site was ~75 miles from the base so that's ruled out. Anyone else care to hazard a guess.
How did the F-16 NOT see the Cessna either visually or on radar, it pretty much had to come from right in front of him seeing how the F-16 is stalling out at the top speed of the cessna
-
I suspect no 'noob' -bisim was involved. Two aircraft in potentially uncontrolled airspace with a similar civilian and military flight plan, one traveling 110 kts and the other 300 kts, rolled the dice, hit the lotto...converged.
-
Aircraft on a collision course are extremely hard to see, as they make essentially no movement against the background. This is especially true if the aircraft is small (e.g. a Cessna) or painted with a low-visibility paint scheme (e.g. F-16). If there are houses, etc., on the ground it is even harder, as there is more visual clutter for the pilots to sort through while searching. If neither knew the other was there (i.e. ATC callout) then the possibility of never seeing the other aircraft are pretty high. I've flown within two miles of aircraft in built up areas and even with ATC callout and TCAS giving a good idea where to look, you can't always find the other aircraft.
As to the radar, doppler radars are able to pick out targets by filtering out the ground return - slow moving aircraft, particularly ones moving perpendicular (or close to perpendicular) to the radar may not be picked up due to the return falling within the ground clutter.
Mike
-
Aircraft on a collision course are extremely hard to see, as they make essentially no movement against the background. This is especially true if the aircraft is small (e.g. a Cessna) or painted with a low-visibility paint scheme (e.g. F-16). If there are houses, etc., on the ground it is even harder, as there is more visual clutter for the pilots to sort through while searching. If neither knew the other was there (i.e. ATC callout) then the possibility of never seeing the other aircraft are pretty high. I've flown within two miles of aircraft in built up areas and even with ATC callout and TCAS giving a good idea where to look, you can't always find the other aircraft.
As to the radar, doppler radars are able to pick out targets by filtering out the ground return - slow moving aircraft, particularly ones moving perpendicular (or close to perpendicular) to the radar may not be picked up due to the return falling within the ground clutter.
I absolutely agree about how difficult it is to spot enemy planes. About two years ago, thinking about this, I asked an F16 pilot (he was giving a talk about interceptions in TFRs) what would happen if, for example, a harmless oldman in his Saratoga was flying low in an IR route (two of those are over our place in Maine) and he was doing a low-level mission in that route. Would there be time for him to see me, much less avoid me, given the relative speeds of the planes and the low altitudes? He thought it was a funny question, and told me that there would be at least a minute or more when I was on his radar and that he probably would be targeting me for practice.
With that as my only informed-opinion-background, I did wonder what happened with the poor 150 today.
What a way to go, though.
- oldman
-
My guess is this is probably some fresh faced national guard n00b who thought "Hey, buzzing this Cessna should be hilarious".
This is an ignorant thing to say. Maybe you didn't mean it out of malice but it shows a profound lack of knowledge of both military and general aviation.
I've been flying for about 27 years now. In that time I've had about 5 "near midairs", a few while flying cessnas and a few flying military aircraft. "See and avoid" is the responsibility for everyone involved, however its ironic that as others have already said, the hardest aircraft to see is the one you're about to collide with. This is because there is no apparent motion, or "line of sight", to catch your attention. An aircraft on a collision course initially looks like a motionless dot. It slowly grows bigger and if you're not staring at it, the time from when it becomes more than just a dot to when it is obviously another aircraft may be mere seconds and you'll miss it. Visual scanning techniques to combat this problem can be taught but they take practice and discipline to master and use effectively. And even then, sometimes the most intense visual scan isn't enough. Sometimes the other aircraft is masked by environmental conditions like sun angle or haze, sometimes a canopy frame or wing is hiding the other plane.
Stating that a midair must obviously be the fault of a careless military pilot is really pretty ignorant and insulting. An awful lot of people would take grave offense, but I'm going to assume that you just don't know any better.
My first near-midair came when I was a 35 hour student pilot, just buzzing around southern California in a Cessna 150 building hours and experience. I went nose to nose with an old A-7 corsair who had his landing gear down and was flying in uncontrolled airspace much lower than I ever expected a military jet to be. In hindsight, I think he was probably getting vectors to a long instrument final to NAS Miramar since I was probably 15-20nm east of Miramar and within a few miles of the extended runway centerline. He must have been at absolute minimum vectoring altitude due to the mountains we were flying over, and he must have been getting very extended vectors for him to be so far out with his gear already down. I was slightly lower than him, so he probably never saw me through the somewhat restricted low-fwd view of most naval fighters due to radomes and thick canopy frames. For my part, I was sightseeing and saw him just in time to think WTF as he flew by within about 100 ft, nose to nose, slightly higher and off my left wing. Fault? Nobody except maybe an overworked radar approach controller who vectored this guy into a student training corridor at a fairly typical Cessna sightseeing altitude. I was squawking VFR but "not participating" so legally the controller may not have been required to provide separation, but that navy pilot was for damn sure relying on the approach controller to keep him separated from other traffic since he was likely heads-down flying on instruments. Thing is, even on an IFR clearance and shooting an instrument approach, if you're in VFR/VMC conditions then all pilots are still required to maintain a visual lookout.
So as for fault... I suppose that'll come out in an investigation. But if they were in VMC conditions and one or both was not participating in an IFR controlled environment, then its really both their responsibility. If they were in a published low-level route, then the unlucky civilian pilot either didn't plan his route very well or he tried his luck flying through a military training area one too many times. I always thought GA pilots who flew through high volume MOAs were idiots, same goes for GA pilots who like to hang out in published military training low level routes. It may not be illegal, but they're taking their lives into their own hands when they do so and placing blame on the other guy doesn't make them any less dead.
That was always one of my biggest challenges as a UPT instructor... Keeping high enough SA so I could both monitor what my student was doing and still keep up my visual lookout. I can't count the number of times I had to take the controls to abort some training or aerobatic maneuver because a GA aircraft wandered through our training area. They have every right to be there, but they're taking a bigger gamble than most realize when they ignore widely published warnings about high volume military student training. We had a midair near Sheppard several years ago between a T-37 and a cropduster, up at around 7000'. The cropduster was transiting through a high volume transit route between Sheppard and our auxiliary field in Frederick OK without a radio or transponder. The instructor pilot was probably busy instructing his student, and they collided. Military guys survived due to ejection seats and parachutes, cropduster pilot died. Both were "legally" in the right, both had the responsibility to see and avoid. The military guys were in the middle of a known high-volume student corridor, the cropduster was right there too with no radio contact and no transponder. Who has the greater responsibility for what happened, the guys predictably doing what they were supposed to do, or the guy in an unexpected place taking no precautions against what ultimately happened? It doesn't matter, the cropduster pilot died doing something perfectly legal and it could reasonably be summed up as a failure to see and avoid in VFR flight without placing blame either way.
-
That reporter annoyed me. What an opinionated biatch. Kinda like the OP. "Breakdown of the air safety system" my butt... It's called uncontrolled airspace for a reason.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/south-carolina-aircraft-incident/index.html
My guess is this is probably some fresh faced national guard n00b who thought "Hey, buzzing this Cessna should be hilarious".
. . .
Might be the F16 was on a low level flight course. One of those runs over my house. I have seen the color of a pilots helmet when the make a hard banking turn over the house.
-
The F-16 should be able to pick up the transponder of the cessna i guess.
Flew home our plane last year while the AF did some low level flying in uncontrolled airspace and even if i didnt had any flight plan I got a transponder code by the tower and were told to contact Sweden control when i left controlled airspace (not adviced, ordered). The civilian and military ATC are also connected so they can pass on information to eatch other.
-
... I always thought GA pilots who flew through high volume MOAs were idiots, same goes for GA pilots who like to hang out in published military training low level routes. It may not be illegal, but they're taking their lives into their own hands when they do so and placing blame on the other guy doesn't make them any less dead.
I agree with you about the crazy risks they are taking but the legality if it surprises me.
This past 4th we were at a family house on Lake Wateree SC. We are about 50 miles NW of Shaw AFB. (The F-16 collision was about 100 miles SE of Shaw AFB).
In the morning of either on the day before or the day after the 4tt, two F-16s came in from the south at perhaps 200 feet off the lake. They could move. Pilots seem to like Lake Wateree, it is about 20 miles long and not very populated. Not usual to see F-16s there, (The Shaw AFB Recreation area is a mile or two south of us and sometimes you get the feeling that pilots are buzzing the recreation area for the amusement of their buddies. It is just a guess and I am not begrudging them. Sounds fun.)
About 10 minutes after the F-16s came in from the south, a biplane came in from the north around 100 – 200 feet off the lake. It went down the far side of the lake (the lake is on average about 2 miles wide), turned around went north on our side of the lake.
About 15 (maybe 20) minutes after that the F-16s came back, going a little faster (I had an obstructed view on their return so I’m not sure about their alt.)
I do not understand why jets and biplanes are allowed in the same air space. It just makes no sense to me. Call it “uncontrolled airspace” or whatever you want, it is just plain stupid to have these planes in the same space.
What are the rules in Europe?
(I guess I have the same question about Canada)
-
All I'm saying is this pretty much has to come down to human error. In my biased and ignorant estimation, given the circumstances, it's most likely that the F-16 pilot (or his controllers) fouled up. I see this as akin to a Ferrari running down pedestrian.
-
The blame still does not automatically default to the Ferrari.
-
Its legal for civil aircraft to transit VFR through an active Military Operating Area (MOA), and as they are not participating in radar services there may be no traffic callout from radar controllers to either aircraft for deconfliction. In practice, at least at UPT bases, the radar controllers keep a fairly close eye on the MOAs and transit corridors and do their best to provide callouts even though technically neither aircraft is legally bound to comply with ATC instructions if they're VFR. At Sheppard for example, it is wing policy for wing aircraft to comply with ATC "advisory" directions even if the military aircraft is operating VFR.
It is also legal for civil aircraft to fly in published low level routes, even high speed "IR" routes where an aircraft can enter and exit from an IFR flight plan. A competent and aware GA pilot ought to know when he's flying in those routes so he can keep an eye out for military aircraft who, in those routes, are typically flying between 500' and 1500' AGL and up to around 540 kts. Military aircraft use every means available to deconflict from civilian aircraft but at those speeds its challenging.
As for the F-16 being able to see IFF transponders, when I was last in the fighter world the F-16 radar was not capable of IFF interrogation. Maybe that's changed, dunno. USAF T-6 aircraft have a sort of poor-man's TCAS that displays approximate bearing and range to any transponder signals it receives, but it isn't terribly accurate and it won't see an aircraft with a weak, inoperable, or switched off transponder. I think T-38s might have been retro-fitted with a similar system with the latest avionics upgrades but I don't know for sure. I'm also not sure about the T-1 but I don't think they do low-level training anymore...?
-
As i said: Her in Sweden the Gripens can see the transponder so as long as u have it on it should be no problem. In the case i wrote about in my last post me and the Fighters were on crossing paths and then the ATC said "there are low level fighters in the area, contact Sweden control when leaving controlled airspace. Normally i dont have to contact anyone but in this case they that they wanted to have control on our pos and why.
During bigger excersices like ACE 15 they shut down the entire air space.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/south-carolina-aircraft-incident/index.html
My guess is this is probably some fresh faced national guard n00b who thought "Hey, buzzing this Cessna should be hilarious".
The only way I could think of the Cessna being at fault was if he was in airspace he shouldn't have been in (i.e. close to the Viper's base during his takeoff or landing pattern). However the crash site was ~75 miles from the base so that's ruled out. Anyone else care to hazard a guess.
How did the F-16 NOT see the Cessna either visually or on radar, it pretty much had to come from right in front of him seeing how the F-16 is stalling out at the top speed of the cessna
:airplane: A couple of notes after viewing some comments!
#1 When an aircraft is at your own altitude, it will be on the horizon and very difficult to see!
#2 I doubt is the 150 had a transponder, but that is not unheard of!
#3 There are known and published "kerosene" routes, which the military uses to train in. It is not un common at all to see everything in the military flying these routes at speeds approaching the speed of sound, for training purposes.
I suspect that the F-16 was approaching from the rear or from the front, that would be the two hardest outlines to see from another a/c.
-
More tragedy for the family.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/08/cessna-f16-victims/29861975/
-
I'm going to wait for the investigation to be completed to see what transpired. The rest of you folks can continue to make decisions and assess blame based on the "reports" of some guy paid to spew words who might be able to recognize a plane 1 out of 3 times. :rolleyes:
-
based on the "reports" of some guy paid to spew words who might be able to recognize a plane 1 out of 3 times. :rolleyes:
Yea, I think your still giving him way to much credit...
-
More tragedy for the family.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/08/cessna-f16-victims/29861975/
oh jeez those poor people. My heart goes out to them
-
All I'm saying is this pretty much has to come down to human error. In my biased and ignorant estimation, given the circumstances, it's most likely that the F-16 pilot (or his controllers) fouled up. I see this as akin to a Ferrari running down pedestrian.
Perhaps if you had some real world experience, the associated appreciation for the relative closure rates, and the visibility limitations (without a big red icon) spotting opposing traffic with ground background, and perhaps some typical haze in that part of the country, you'd have a different and less judgmental opinion.
-
I'm going to wait for the investigation to be completed to see what transpired. The rest of you folks can continue to make decisions and assess blame based on the "reports" of some guy paid to spew words who might be able to recognize a plane 1 out of 3 times. :rolleyes:
Agreed,pretty sure the F16 driver would have done anything to avoid having to use the booster seat!
:salute
-
Spot on, Morf! :aok
-
You really do have to be a real world pilot to understand how difficult to see and avoid at times. Even when you're under radar control and the controller gives you a heads up on conflicting aircraft. Quite often you never see them. I've been in a formation flight where I've lost sight of the other aircraft and never managed to see it again.
Add in hazy conditions, blind spots, poor radar coverage at low level and high closing speeds and it's surprising it doesn't happen more often. In Scotland once, we were in a C182 when we were warned of two A10s at 12 o'clock but clear and below us. Three of us onboard and none of us saw them.
As a skydive pilot flying in uncontrolled airspace, seeing and avoiding other aircraft is vital but several times I've been taken by surprise when someone comes out of nowhere, including military.
So I'm not inclined to rush to judgement on another pilot unless the report points the finger at his carelessness.
Wait for the report.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/south-carolina-aircraft-incident/index.html
My guess is this is probably some fresh faced national guard n00b who thought "Hey, buzzing this Cessna should be hilarious".
The only way I could think of the Cessna being at fault was if he was in airspace he shouldn't have been in (i.e. close to the Viper's base during his takeoff or landing pattern). However the crash site was ~75 miles from the base so that's ruled out. Anyone else care to hazard a guess.
How did the F-16 NOT see the Cessna either visually or on radar, it pretty much had to come from right in front of him seeing how the F-16 is stalling out at the top speed of the cessna
The pilot was Major Aaron Johnson, a pilot with the 20th Operations Group, he defiantly wasn't a 'noob' pilot. I was with my family on vacation and we saw him doing touch and go's from Myrtle Beach Airport and he was showing off to. Was fun to watch him buzz the beach, I hate this happened.
-
You really do have to be a real world pilot to understand how difficult to see and avoid at times.
Heh. Try making that argument in one of the limited-icons discussions.
- oldman (Hey, I can count the windows on a 767 10 miles away!)
-
In-cockpit distractions could have be occurring in both aircraft. Stranger things have happened. An F-86 collided with a tanker over the Atlantic in the 50s. The pilot was intercepting the tanker using his radar. He became so focused on his radar that he flew right into the tail of the tanker, destroying his aircraft and forcing him to eject. Never took his eyes off his radar. Watched the interview with him.
-
I'm gonna jump in with Eagl and say the OP is being pretty ignorant.
We've got TCAS on the T-6B, and even with a TCAS hit, and a controller heads up, I'd say at least 25% of the time I can never even find the traffic visually, I just have to trust the two outside sources to steer clear. Also, immediately blaming the F-16 is pretty ridiculous as we don't know where the Cessna was. Just the other day we had a local Cessna hanging out over our return point by NASWF. He was JUST outside controlled airspace, no transponder (ATC didn't get him) and circling over the spot where a T-6B passes by at 240kts at least every 3 minutes...
-
I've had a few close passes near Sheppard AFB with cessnas skirting the 5mn ring around the base. They'll fly right at 5nm at 1000-1500' AGL to ensure they're a conflict with both T-38 and T-6 VFR traffic entering the pattern at a rate of 1 every 3 minutes (on average), as well as being a conflict with inbound instrument approaches. T-38s fly instrument approaches a lot faster than civilian aircraft including airliners, so there is a tendency for civilians to be surprised at how fast T-38s show up at the FAF and start descending.
At least most of the local cropdusters and powerline/pipeline inspection aircraft know what we do, and stay well out of our way. Those guys do have to operate within the 5nm ring routinely, but they're below 500' the whole time so we'll get a callout from the tower or RSU controller and just keep an eye out for them in case they have to deviate from their normal route or altitude for some reason. Its the new guy or someone unfamiliar with the local traffic who causes the most conflicts.
-
I'm gonna jump in with Eagl and say the OP is being pretty ignorant.
We've got TCAS on the T-6B, and even with a TCAS hit, and a controller heads up, I'd say at least 25% of the time I can never even find the traffic visually, I just have to trust the two outside sources to steer clear. Also, immediately blaming the F-16 is pretty ridiculous as we don't know where the Cessna was. Just the other day we had a local Cessna hanging out over our return point by NASWF. He was JUST outside controlled airspace, no transponder (ATC didn't get him) and circling over the spot where a T-6B passes by at 240kts at least every 3 minutes...
I grew up ~15miles from NASWF.. Was T-6 Texans then though I believe? 8)
-
I grew up ~15miles from NASWF.. Was T-6 Texans then though I believe? 8)
The OLD Texans! They seem to REALLY like recycling that name and number lol.
-
Up date and preliminary report from NTSB. http://news.yahoo.com/why-f-16-hit-cessna-more-upbeat-updates-065400382.html
ATC tried to get the 16 to avoid the Cessna.
-
...and the Cessana wasn't talking to controllers.
-
No because it was in uncontrolled airspace and did not have any obligation to do so.
-
No because it was in uncontrolled airspace and did not have any obligation to do so.
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
No because it was in uncontrolled airspace and did not have any obligation to do so.
"HAVE" to do, and "SHOULD" do are two very different things. In aviation in particular, it would behoove you to go above and beyond.
-
No because it was in uncontrolled airspace and did not have any obligation to do so.
Pilots who do only what they're obligated to do often die young, and many times they take others with them when they die from something completely avoidable if they had simply gone beyond what they were obligated to do.
-
But in this case it wasnt the Cessna that screwed up. It followed all the rules it had to follow. The F-16 pilot on the other hand were warned about the traffic and adviced to take action to avoid it and still failed to follow the ATC commands. How hard can it be to do a turn that ATC tells u to do?
In uncontrolled airspace u dont even need to have a radio or transponder when flying VFR. the cessna had a transponder and the ATC could see him. Why blame the cessna pilot for not do more than he had to when the F-16 pilot failed to do what he was told to do by ATC?
Even if it is desirable to have radio contact with all traffic in uncontrolled airspace its not anything u can count on since its not mandatory, The F-16 pilot were vectored by ATC and alerted about the traffic. He is the one to blame if he failed to follow ATC commands.
-
But in this case it wasnt the Cessna that screwed up. It followed all the rules it had to follow.
He's dead so clearly he didn't do enough. Why is that so freaking hard to understand, that the minimum required rules compliance is not enough if you want to live very long in the aviation world? I'd be dead 10 times over if I only ever did what the minimum rules required, and I've saved at least 5 aircraft by going beyond the minimum requirements.
I repeat - he's dead, so he clearly didn't do enough. Legal doesn't mean safe, compliance doesn't mean a mistake or error or natural occurrence won't sneak up on you and kill the unwary or lazy pilot.
That viper driver could have been squawking 1200 (or 4000) and legally not talking to anyone either, and they'd still have collided, both complying with their minimum obligation under the rules. Just because something is legal or rules-compliant doesn't mean it is effective or safe.
That's why the FAA has the "see and avoid" rules in place, because when it comes down to it you can easily die or collide with an object, another plane, the ground, etc, with 100% compliance, meeting every obligation except the obligation to preserve your life and the lives of those in your aircraft. The PIC is responsible for safe execution of the flight, and that goes well beyond simple rules compliance.
The cropduster who flew VFR without a transponder through Sheppard AFB's high training volume transit corridor was compliant. He's dead. The T-37 that he collided with was also 100% compliant. The ATC controllers who were providing VFR advisory services to the T-37 were fully compliant. Compliance with the bare minimum requirements and obligations left 2 pilots descending in their parachutes and a cropduster pilot who didn't value his life enough to have a working transponder or 2-way radio comm with Sheppard controllers probably died screaming since he augered in from about 7,000 ft.
I could give a poop about minimum compliance... Lots of dead people out there who were fully rules-compliant and thought that was enough. Idiots. Not my fault they didn't value their lives enough to truly comply with the one rule that actually mattered, the one about the PIC being the sole person responsible for the safe execution of the flight from takeoff to landing.
-
And by the way, an ATC traffic callout is not directive in nature. If all the F-16 pilot got was traffic advisories, he's not "obligated" to do anything but say "roger" on the radio. You have NO IDEA what he was doing with that information. Did he miss seeing the traffic because he was heads down fiddling with the radar trying to find it on the scope? Did he not see the traffic on radar because he was eyes out looking for the traffic? What other things were competing for his attention at that time? Was he on an assigned altitude or just motoring around VFR? Was he going above and beyond by even talking to ATC in the first place?
We don't know. We also don't know if the Cessna pilot bothered to find out if he was in a high volume military training corridor, or operating in a high traffic volume corridor, or if he even tried to deconflict his flight path and altitude from known traffic.
-
Or u can say that because the F-16 pilot failed to follow the instructions from ATC he killed two people that did nothing wrong.
But If it is a lot of military traffic in the area flying IFR, why isnt it controlled air space? It is unwise to assume that people will do more than they have to just because u want to fly fighters trough uncontrolled air space. That is how u create a situation where bad things can happen.
Imo the situation could have been avoided by:
1: If possible, make sure that GA traffic are aware of the fighter activity and strongly advice them to keep contact w aerial control.
2: If there still are traffic in the area, make sure that the fighters have a routine for it and can respond to ATC advices in a better way then in this case.
If a GA pilot following all the rules can be killed by a F-16 flying IFR in uncontrolled air space then u have a flaw in the system. In uncontrolled airspace ATC and the fighter pilot can only assume that GA pilots will follow the rules, nothing more, and must have routines to handle situation like this. They knew the cessna were there so ATC and the fighter pilot must be able to handle the situation. It is not an unnormal or unexpected situation in uncontrolled airspace.
-
Zimmie it sounds like you've never flown GA aircraft in the US. This situation could have happened just as easily between 2 civilian aircraft.
I have noticed a trend in my years as a USAF safety officer, that Europeans in general tend to place blame on military pilots, either out of spite, a lack of consideration for the pilots, or from ignorance. I've also noticed that Europeans tend to want to place blame even in truly random accidents where there is no real fault. In France for example, a pilot involved in a mishap can expect to be immediately thrown in jail since he's assumed to be at fault and guilty of manslaughter before there has even been any sort of investigation.
I'm glad I don't have to operate in those conditions.
-
No because it was in uncontrolled airspace and did not have any obligation to do so.
You are correct, but had he simply made contact with the controllers (a free service over here, maybe not in your environment), he and his passenger might very well be alive today.
-
You are correct, but had he simply made contact with the controllers (a free service over here, maybe not in your environment), he and his passenger might very well be alive today.
It would be desirable if he had but it might not have changed anything either. Point is that it is known that GA traffic can fly in uncontrolled air space without radio or transponder so ATC and fighter pilots must be prepared for it and have a plan to handle it if they are flying in the area.
But if this is a busy area with both fighters and GA traffic it should not be uncontrolled airspace.
-
You're using that "should" word again.
-
Yan u are not? "The cessna Should have contacted ATC"...
If a F-16 and a cessna can collide even if they all follow the rules and depsite ATC having radar contact with them both then u have a flaw in the system. It is a foreseeable and avoidable accident. U are making it very easy for u by blaming the cessna pilot.
-
The whole point about uncontrolled airspace is that it's... well, uncontrolled. There is no "system" there. It's like a road with no traffic lights where you have to use your own eyeballs to look for other cars. Or in this case a pedestrian is perhaps a more appropriate analogy.
Oh, and "Yan" is not a word I know the meaning of.
-
Technically, this wasn't "uncontrolled" airspace, otherwise the controller wouldn't have been vectoring the F-16. It was most likely (not having the exact location or charts handy) Class E airspace, which is controlled, but for which VFR traffic is allowed to operate without contacting controllers ("nonparticipating" I believe is the term used). Traffic separation service is provided between participating aircraft, and between participating and nonparticipating aircraft as allowed by controller workload. Pilots are required in all cases to gain visual contact with all traffic and maintain separation unless in IMC (i.e. in clouds with no visibility). For an aircraft talking to the radar controller, you get assistance by getting traffic called out (if ATC sees it) and even vectors as the controller is able to provide them, but the responsibility is ultimately the pilot's. If the aircraft is not talking to the controller, you get no help and the responsibility still rests, ultimately, with the pilot.
So in this case, both aircraft operated under the rules except for one (critical) part. Both pilots failed to see the other traffic and to avoid it. The F-16 pilot was apparently unable to leverage the traffic callout into visual contact, while the Cessna pilot did not avail himself of that option, and also failed to see and avoid the impending collision.
Mike
-
Thank you for clearing that up.
-
There seems to be some frivolous use of the word "blame" vs. the word "responsibility".
Both pilots had the responsibility to safely conduct their flight, including a basic see and avoid obligation.
While the investigation isn't over and findings released, it doesn't seem like either pilot willfully or otherwise violated any rules. That pretty much eliminates word games over "blame". HOWEVER, it is likely that both pilots failed to see and avoid other traffic, which was BOTH of their obligation.
That tells me that there is a shared "responsibility" for the mishap. And guess what - the dead guy might not be dead if he had taken his obligation more seriously and gone beyond the minimum required by the rules. As a fast mover driver with extensive safety and mishap training myself, I can say that sometimes even in spite of the best traffic callouts, you just don't see the other aircraft.
So, we have 2 pilots. One is dead and, if given a second chance, might take the trouble to contact ATC for flight following. The other is alive and he probably deeply wishes he was "better" and could have gotten the SA on the Cessna in time to avoid the collision. Blame? Hah. Both pilots probably could have been "better", especially in accomplishing tasks upon which their lives depend. There's your responsibility and obligation, fully shared by both pilots. Blame? I wouldn't dare assign blame in this case especially since I haven't seen either the factual information or an investigation report. But from an outside perspective from someone who has been there and seen nearly identical mishaps take place, on the face of it there appears to be a failure in a shared responsibility among all involved.
Armchair lawyers and people who don't know jack about real aviation can point their ignorant fingers and try to assign blame, and you can bet your butt that there are lawyers right now trying to come up with the right words to convince an uneducated court jury and audience that there is in fact "blame" to assign to a single party in the mishap.
Regarding the US method of conducting separate safety and accident investigations for military aviation mishaps... Those lawyers are the reason why safety investigation results aren't given to lawyers, because they twist things so badly askew that no pilot with any sense at all would ever cooperate with a safety investigator if they knew the lawyers would get a chance to mis-represent their testimony in court. In Europe, the pilot is assumed guilty and the lawyers just need to find any trivial mistake or act, even as dumb as skipping a healthy breakfast before flight, to pin the entire liability for the mishap on the pilot. I'm glad I don't fly in Europe because that liability-focused investigative process is a bigger threat to me than anything else I've faced in 25 years of military flying. The Iraqis might have loved to shoot me down when I was flying over their country, but they weren't trying to ruin my family too.
-
So, we have 2 pilots. One is dead and, if given a second chance, might take the trouble to contact ATC for flight following. The other is alive and he probably deeply wishes he was "better" and could have gotten the SA on the Cessna in time to avoid the collision.
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
-
Is there a graphic showing the flight paths of the 2 a/c?
-
It would be desirable if he had but it might not have changed anything either. Point is that it is known that GA traffic can fly in uncontrolled air space without radio or transponder so ATC and fighter pilots must be prepared for it and have a plan to handle it if they are flying in the area.
But if this is a busy area with both fighters and GA traffic it should not be uncontrolled airspace.
There can be consequences for "non-participation", and the Cessna pilot and his passenger are a demonstration of them. Radio contact with a radar controller can, in some cases be made on the ground. This "participation" is, in essence, free life insurance. There are ALWAYS numerous threats to safely anytime a pilot takes to the air. It is foolish not take advantage of every available resource.
-
I have never heard of a pilot being charged for an accident in Sweden. And as far as i know its a part of Europe. Havent heard of any case were insurance companies take legal action against a pilot either. So no - its not the norm to hang the pilot.
In this particular case the problem is that a F-16 is too fast, its not realistic to rely on the pilots to spot each other and then evade, they dont have enough time. The cessna on a climbout also have a very limited maneuver capability and a very obstructed view, nose and wings will cover a lot. My question is why the F-16 could not pick up the cessna´s transponder?
-
Let go of trying to blame the F-16 pilot, his equipment, speed, etc and trying to analyze something you have no background or experience in. This was a tragic ACCIDENT. The Cessna pilot was most likely familiar with the airspace and type of aircraft typically encountered in it. Now, why he chose not to "participate" with the ATC controllers, no one will ever know. But, that choice most likely got him and his passenger killed when it could have very easily gone the other way.
Any competent, responsible pilot will acknowledge that the highest level of safety is obtained by taking advantage of all available resources, internal and external.
-
Let go of trying to blame the F-16 pilot, his equipment, speed, etc and trying to analyze something you have no background or experience in. This was a tragic ACCIDENT. The Cessna pilot was most likely familiar with the airspace and type of aircraft typically encountered in it. Now, why he chose not to "participate" with the ATC controllers, no one will ever know. But, that choice most likely got him and his passenger killed when it could have very easily gone the other way.
Any competent, responsible pilot will acknowledge that the highest level of safety is obtained by taking advantage of all available resources, internal and external.
But as said, 3 min after take off, thats very little time to leave the local frequency, call ATC and activate flight following. And btw it doesnt matter, the cessna pilot would still have very limited capabilities to spot and evade the F-16. U cannot trust the pilots eyes in this case, its works when both are flying at 90mph but not if the speed is 250+ knots.
-
I have never heard of a pilot being charged for an accident in Sweden. And as far as i know its a part of Europe. Havent heard of any case were insurance companies take legal action against a pilot either. So no - its not the norm to hang the pilot.
In this particular case the problem is that a F-16 is too fast, its not realistic to rely on the pilots to spot each other and then evade, they dont have enough time. The cessna on a climbout also have a very limited maneuver capability and a very obstructed view, nose and wings will cover a lot. My question is why the F-16 could not pick up the cessna´s transponder?
Zimme, what is your PERSONAL experience in aviation? Where do you bring your knowledge from? I ask, because you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the process and the risks...
I fly an aircraft that has TCAS (Picking up those transponders). With how densely we pack aircraft in, I get at least 3-4 TCAS hits per flight. That's 3-4 times I get "TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC" coming through the headphones, I see a little diamond on a screen, with a two digit number. That's what you get from that transponder. A diamond and a two digit number giving a rough relative altitude. How fast, in a REAL sky, without icons, do you think you can convert that to an actual visual fix? With the delay in pinging, displaying, and the human analyzing that transponder info, you're often just a little LATE using TCAS. Of my 3-4 hits per flight, there is ALWAYS at least ONE contact that I never see. Now, because we're on course rules, we're both talking to ATC, and there are well-defined routes we take, we're still safely separated, but that's still a TCAS hit I cannot convert to a visual.
-
I own a cessna 150 and i have met fighters in uncontrolled airspace, were not able to spot anyone of them... (they however did see me cause their IFF/radar picks up the transponder, and ATC made sure that they had radio contact with all involved aircrafts..)
-
Let go of blaming the 150 for the collision. You can ask for flight following, doesn't mean you'll get it. How many radios did the 150 have? I don't know how busy the little non tower airport the cessna took off from is but flight following isn't going to help you in the pattern but ctaf might, so when people say 'non participation' I think they are talking out their poo shooter. The collision happened 3 minutes after take off. Its possible for everybody to do their jobs as well as they can and still have an accident. The only thing I could see making a difference would be if the controller had told the f-16 to turn as opposed to waiting to see if the f-16 saw the Cessna. I am hazy on what the rules are for seperating this kind of traffic when it is vfr and the approachs are practice and no instrument flight plan is filed, maybe someone could clarify that, I am thinking it is technically the pilots responsibility to see and avoid in this case, which I have always thought is a little unrealistic. If you were going to change anything maybe the guy who can see everything, (the controller,) should just pretend that it is always imc.
So if everybody gets ADSB we'll all be safe from collision, right?
-
Isn't there a speed limit of 250knts for aircraft under 10,000 feet?
-
should be, im not sure if military aircraft has to follow that rule.
-
Isn't there a speed limit of 250knts for aircraft under 10,000 feet?
There is, in general. Military aircraft fly speeds as specified in the flight manual. Some are greater than 250 kts.
-
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.
-
Isn't there a speed limit of 250knts for aircraft under 10,000 feet?
Most fighter types and the T-38 are waived up to 300 or higher, if I recall correctly.
-
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.
I'm still wondering why folks in this thread think the Cessna pilot could have arranged flight following - as well as received a traffic warning - in the three minutes he had to live after his plane parted company with the runway. It takes that long just to announce your departure direction on CTAF, then to contact ATC, make the request, put in the squawk code, ident, and wait for the controller to announce radar contact. By that time he was dead.
There's no question that this was an accident without a lot of blame to fling around. That's the scary part. But when ATC tells me to turn, I turn right away, and after this I'm going to make certain that I continue that practice.
- oldman
-
I'm still wondering why folks in this thread think the Cessna pilot could have arranged flight following - as well as received a traffic warning - in the three minutes he had to live after his plane parted company with the runway. It takes that long just to announce your departure direction on CTAF, then to contact ATC, make the request, put in the squawk code, ident, and wait for the controller to announce radar contact. By that time he was dead.
There's no question that this was an accident without a lot of blame to fling around. That's the scary part. But when ATC tells me to turn, I turn right away, and after this I'm going to make certain that I continue that practice.
- oldman
3 min after take off it should be expected that the cessna was still on the frequency of the departing airport. It takes atleast 5 min to climb out from an airport, only after that u go over to aerial control and activate Flight following.
To me it looks like it was a chain of events (like most of the time) that lead to the accident, the F-16 pilot is only the last link in that chain. He could have act different when warned about the Cessna yes but he was prob not the one that made the desicion to fly so close to the airport. A F-16 on an IFR approach should not be vectored so close to another airport at that altitude.
-
Here is some information from F-16.net
Well the speed limit below 10,000' in the US is 250 knots (288mph) and the crash occurred at around 1,500'. The Cessna pilot wasn't communicating with ATC nor was he required too. He was squawking 1200 so his transponder was showing up on radar and this is perfectly legit, though I myself prefer to request Flight Following more often than not so that ATC is actively looking out for traffic and vectoring me if need be but at the very least telling me where to look to see it. It's especially useful down here where I fly from Daytona Beach because of the sheer number of general aviation aircraft around, a large portion of them student pilots in training. That being said the ATC did give the F-16 pilot information on the Cessna and asked him to do a 180 if he didn't 'see' the traffic, which the fighter driver did but not as quick as some naysayers would like. He was on a heading of 260 for the airport and had turned more southerly towards a heading of 215 by the time of the accident. Perhaps if the 16 pilot was told to climb instead of U-turn it would have been a better call, but who knows.
Anyhow to me it was nobody's fault but an unfortunate scenario. The Cessna pilot was under 'see and avoid' VFR conditions but you'd be surprised what you can't see sometimes, and the F-16 pilot was on an IFR flight plan under positive ATC control and when he couldn't spot the civilian aircraft he did initiate a turn around as instructed but still the planes collided.
-
From reading the prelim report I'm wondering if the viper pilot had initiated the turn when directed and the Cessna unfortunately turned at the same time. The controller didn't catch it right away because of the time it takes for his radar to update. If put in the same position from now on I'm going up(or down). Most of what I fly has the latest TCAS with RA advisories and I was amazed at the number of aircraft around that I wasn't aware of while flying non TCAS equipped aircraft.
-
Does the F-16 pilot get to paint a Cessna kill flag on his next Viper? (too soon?)
-just askin :)
(yea I am prolly goin to hell for that one)
-GE