Mid Air Collision in near Charleston, SC F16 v C150 | Page 2 | FerrariChat

Mid Air Collision in near Charleston, SC F16 v C150

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by Juan-Manuel Fantango, Jul 7, 2015.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. jcurry

    jcurry Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 16, 2012
    21,378
    In the past
    Full Name:
    Jim
    Any expectation that all those 'bug smashers' would use FF is unrealistic. Think of the burden that would place on ATC. One thing I do is typically monitor ATC, and can usually hear them calling me out as traffic to those in the system. I basically get FF without having to talk to ATC. But FF is also predicated on having (and using) a transponder. There are still many areas where a transponder is not required and around here there are numerous Cubs, Champs, and other older aircraft that do not have them. YMMV, etc, etc
     
  2. kylec

    kylec F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 9, 2005
    3,572
    Orlando
    That's basically what my buddy and I do. Avoid flying directly on the magenta line between two airports, fly above 2000' when possible, cross military routes as perpendicular as practical.
     
  3. kverges

    kverges F1 Rookie

    Nov 18, 2003
    3,179
    Dallas
    Full Name:
    Keith Verges
    IMO a bit overly broad. I almost always use FF for any point A-B trip and always cross country, but if I am out doing aerobatic maneuvers or practicing crosswind landings or flightseeing, then I am plain old VFR. That said, I stay out of MOAs unless I call to see if they are hot and have my iPad with ADS-B going for better situational awareness and I can also say the last x-country I flew into the DFW B with FF that ATC was WAY late on traffic that I would have come damn close to had I not been using my iPad TCAS with ForeFlight. I'd already changed altitude and heading and told ATC I needed to do so.
     
  4. Juan-Manuel Fantango

    Juan-Manuel Fantango F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 18, 2004
    12,355
    Full Name:
    Juan
  5. Hannibal308

    Hannibal308 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 3, 2012
    6,270
    Kahuku / Cottonwood / Prescott
    Full Name:
    Will
    This guy should have followed his instinct to not write about this. He hasn't a clue what happened and won't until the NTSB and SIB reports come out. I don't have enough fingers to count the Class A fatality SIBs I've consulted on for the F-16 community as a pilot-physician and I still wouldn't begin to speculate on this.

    If anybody cares, ref my first post on this. We fly approaches looking through the HUD. That doesn't mean we are never cranium down from time to time, but we spend the vast majority of our lives in that cockpit looking at one of two things...the HUD and the left MFD where we manage our radar. We can do HUD-off approaches and landings but they are like emergency procedures and aren't generally done often and when away from the home 'drome.

    This sucks all around. We just need to be patient and see what is presented by the boards.
     
  6. s52

    s52 Karting

    Oct 14, 2014
    168
    East Bay
    Full Name:
    Christian
    I understand some older aircraft are not equipped with transponders but the majority of traffic conflicts I have seen definitely have them as they show up on TCAS just not talking with ATC.

    When I used to fly GA in the very saturated SF Bay Area airspace I would always use FF... Yes it was a pain and many times it could take upwards of 30 minutes in a holding pattern before they were able to fit me into an approach (plane was hangared at Oakland which has nonstop heavy commercial traffic... not to mention the SFO traffic flying overhead as well)

    But theres no way I would dare fly around such congested airspace without 2 way comms... just silly IMHO Just because something is legal doesnt necessarily make it safe or wise to do in the eyes of safety of flight.

    Also the term I used "bug smasher" is not meant to be derogatory in any way... just common use to describe small civilian aircraft in the military pilots world... GA is where I got my start, I got all my FAA ratings (private, instrument, commercial and multi) in 172's, Arrows, and Seminoles before joining the Air Force so no disrespect intended!
     
  7. Bisonte

    Bisonte F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 27, 2007
    7,933
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Greg
    #32 Bisonte, Jul 20, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    From the attached preliminary NTSB report:

    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  8. James_Woods

    James_Woods F1 World Champ

    May 17, 2006
    12,755
    Dallas, Tx.
    Full Name:
    James K. Woods
    Well, that is very illuminating.

    I had wondered what role the ATC played, and that would indicate that they were doing their job - but they did let the altitude and lateral separation get VERY close when some avoidance effort could have been made earlier.
     
  9. Juan-Manuel Fantango

    Juan-Manuel Fantango F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 18, 2004
    12,355
    Full Name:
    Juan
    So if hey requested flight following would they be alive today? Perhaps? More than likely?
     
  10. jcurry

    jcurry Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 16, 2012
    21,378
    In the past
    Full Name:
    Jim
    The F-16 did have 'flight following' and yet there was nearly half a minute from the first ATC turn instruction to impact. If the F-16 pilot had turned followed ATC instructions to immediately turn to 180 would they be alive today? Perhaps? More than likely?
     
  11. Juan-Manuel Fantango

    Juan-Manuel Fantango F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 18, 2004
    12,355
    Full Name:
    Juan
    Right I was just thinking if the 150 had it as well that May have saved them. We try to get FF ASAP but sometimes you have to fly first. Seems that with FF the 150 would have known about the F16. Did all this happen within about three minutes of the 150 take off?

    Any idea how fast the F 16 was flying? I saw an expert on the local news who is a F16 pilot say around 160knots at that stage of flight but I have seen others post that it needs over 200 just to be maneuverable.
     
  12. Bisonte

    Bisonte F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 27, 2007
    7,933
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Greg
    Yes, that's what I was thinking.

    I'd be curious about his speed, too.
     
  13. Hannibal308

    Hannibal308 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 3, 2012
    6,270
    Kahuku / Cottonwood / Prescott
    Full Name:
    Will
    So, first, I'll admit I have not been checking any other sources than this thread, so I am no expert in this case.

    Here's what would be nice to know: where was the Viper in the "practice approach". Also, what approach was he flying. Why? Because if he was practicing instrument approaches, he would be required by regs to be on a IFR clearance and then the controller would have a duty to ensure he remained clear of the VFR traffic, regardless of whether the Viper pilot could visually aquire the 150. I'm just dumbfound how a controller would tell someone about an aircraft they are passing at 100 feet vertical separation without being way more proactive before that point. Still, there's more to be analyzed and I just don't know.

    As to airspeed, the F-16 is (still, and will remain for years to come,) one of the world's ultimate bad-@$$ dog fighting machines...it is maneuverable at speeds well below 160 Knots. That said, radar pattern flown typically at 250, configured final is likely 150-180 depending on gas, stores, etc. potentially over 200 if still trucking heavy ordinance.
     
  14. Hannibal308

    Hannibal308 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 3, 2012
    6,270
    Kahuku / Cottonwood / Prescott
    Full Name:
    Will
    Okay...from NTSB rep...

    F-16 on an IFR clearance, either on final or a dogleg to final for a TACAN approach. This guy was flying an instrument approach and ATC had a duty to ensure he remained clear of other known traffic. This sucks for everyone...I'm guessing now, but this may not play well for ATC.
     
  15. jcurry

    jcurry Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 16, 2012
    21,378
    In the past
    Full Name:
    Jim
    Seems to me that 3 calls for traffic with the final one being
    is fairly proactive. True he didn't keep repeating up to the point of impact, but the first request to turn was seemingly ignored by the F-16. (based on the NTSB account shown above)
     
  16. Bisonte

    Bisonte F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 27, 2007
    7,933
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Greg
    But ATC informed him about the traffic and then twice told him to turn if he didn't have it in sight. I'm thinking this may not go well for him.

    You're definitely right, though. It does suck for everyone
     
  17. Hannibal308

    Hannibal308 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 3, 2012
    6,270
    Kahuku / Cottonwood / Prescott
    Full Name:
    Will
    The words IF and IMMEDIATELY should never have been in the same transmission, and ATC was far from proactive given that as far as ATC was concerned, they had no understanding that the F-16 pilot either did or did not have the conflict in sight, and ultimately (my words and opinion here) they may very well have just watched these two radar targets run right into each other...
     
  18. Bisonte

    Bisonte F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 27, 2007
    7,933
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Greg
    #43 Bisonte, Jul 24, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2015
    I understand what you're saying about the combination of those two terms introducing possible ambiguity, but I would expect a fighter pilot to process an if-then statement without trouble.

    From the initial report (assuming it's correct), and after the first opposing traffic warning:
    I think his answering with a question conveyed to ATC that he didn't have the traffic in sight at that point, so they knew that. But he still could have been much more clear. Honest question: With a potential collision at stake, why wouldn't he just turn left?

    Over the next 18 seconds? Third warning, and he was in an F-16 (closing rapidly, but able to turn quickly, too). Honest question: Why the delay in starting the turn? And no apparent response to ATC?

    (My interpretation): For some reason the F-16 pilot possibly either ignored or failed to comprehend the seriousness of the ATC warnings about and commands to avoid oncoming traffic at a similar altitude. After that point, ATC seemingly thought there was a 100-foot vertical separation between the two (apparently based on the Cessna's reported altitude?), but that wasn't the case. They were wrong.
     
  19. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    #44 Bob Parks, Jul 24, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2015
    I'm not trained or educated in all this stuff now but I recall an incident when I was flying with my friend who was a chief pilot for United. We were flying a C-185 with an IFR clearance from Portland, Ore. to SEA. I had the airplane and thought that I was doing pretty well with my first serious IFR flight. He asked me if we had been given a new clearance that he didn't hear. Of course I answered no and he said , "Well, you're flying between 50 and 100 feet above our assigned altitude and there might be somebody coming the other way who isn't paying attention either." The sharp reprimand was taken along with a deep jab and I will always remember it.
     
  20. Hannibal308

    Hannibal308 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 3, 2012
    6,270
    Kahuku / Cottonwood / Prescott
    Full Name:
    Will
    I think ATC will take a huge hit in this. An IF-THEN instruction falls outside the realm of positive control standards when an aircraft is on an IFR clearance. Furthermore, when that aircraft has been vectored onto a valid approach segment, there should never have been anymore monkeying around with trying to get the F-16 pilot to both fly his approach and find the confict at the same time. You're right about the F-16 driver needing to be able to sort out the conditions of the instruction, but, ultimately what this needed was for the controller to maintain positive control and responsibility for separation with the conflict traffic. A simple "viper xx, climb to 2500 feet immediately, turn left to 180 degrees, traffic light aircraft coaltitude less than one mile, opposite direction..." would have represented positive control and avoided everything. I've gotten those calls a hundred or more times in my 32 years of flying fast jet fighters, and I've never heard about a call like that getting misinterpreted, ignored, or de-emphasized. F-16s are very maneuverable, have great visibility, and are very easy to fly from a mechanistic standpoint. The F-16 is also a very demanding airplane to fly in the radar pattern as it was designed to dog fight and blow things up, not to fly instrument approaches. From a human factors standpoint, there was a lot for the pilot to do in the particular phase of flight when this occurred. The one-armed paper hanger may have just gotten the ladder kicked out from underneath him.

    I have to say, again, all of this represents my opinion only, based on the NTSB snippet and this thread. It in no way represents any other official entity, government or otherwise.
     
  21. Bisonte

    Bisonte F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 27, 2007
    7,933
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Greg
    Got it, and I hear you. Based on the current information, I still think the F-16 pilot had all of the information and guidance he should have needed to avoid the accident. But I can't argue with the fact that a positive command like your example would have cleanly resolved the situation. I guess in the end either the controller or the pilot could have failed to be assertive that day without much consequence, but not both of them.
     
  22. Hannibal308

    Hannibal308 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 3, 2012
    6,270
    Kahuku / Cottonwood / Prescott
    Full Name:
    Will
    You're so right!

    The swiss cheese model of accident causation and prevention. So many things had to line up for this to happen...

    Another point to ponder: If the Viper was in a turn for 18 seconds then hit the conflict cessna, this might seem as though no turn would have been better...

    This whole situation is a bit sickening.

    Respectfully,
     
  23. Bisonte

    Bisonte F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 27, 2007
    7,933
    Northern Virginia
    Full Name:
    Greg
    That's a good point. In hindsight the problem likely would have worked itself out.

    And yes, agreed, it's a big mess.
     
  24. jcurry

    jcurry Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 16, 2012
    21,378
    In the past
    Full Name:
    Jim
    or, if the Viper had turned promptly when requested/told the first time there would have been no conflict. Given that the Viper is one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the entire world, and was operating in VFR conditions, there was no reason why the turn could not be executed quickly especially given the pilot knew he had traffic in the area and did not have eyes on it. The NTSB note did not say how far the turn had been made, only that the Viper was slowly turning.

    Also maybe the controller wanted the Viper to get past the Cessna wherein it would be less likely that any additional corrections would be required.[/QUOTE]
     

Share This Page