F16 and a C150 mid-air near Charleston...

[wishboneash]

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=2

[Cruiser]

Wow! (shaking head) wow......

[Loogie]

Well, I realize there are a lot of questions about the speeds fighters use below and rules that apply. I flew F-16s for 28 yrs, so let me pass some info that may clear some answers.

USAF fighters are not exempt from FARs whatsoever, there are some different rules though that allow fighters to operate faster than 250, they have to do with training and ability for the a/c to maneuver effectively. When a MOA is actively being used for training, the fighters are probably using tactical air speeds etc. Feel free to fly through a MOA anytime but be aware if it is active you are flying in high threat airspace. If you are IFR they won't push you through an active MOA unless the mil users agree to that. If you are VFR it's see and avoid against tactically painted a/c designed to absorb light and are difficult to see and avoid. When a VR route is active, same applies for VFR traffic, you could see fighter there low level 480kts plus etc. fighters do a good job at detecting traffic and avoiding it most of the time GA doesn't even know they were avoided etc.

Not a perfect world, radars can miss targets so looking out the window is a big deal for fighters and GA. Fighters will not intercept GA on purpose, and many times what feels like a dust off is a result of a short range detect and avoid manuever. Remember these fighters are not out looking to mess with GA, they are there training doing something that has a purpose; like checking out a new wingman, flling a low level square or a myriad of other things that need to be completed etc.

I know this doesn't make anyone feel better that the Cessna got run over, there are a lot of questions, why did the f-16 not detect the threat on his radar etc. Well who knows, where was the pilot looking? his radar may not have been looking in the right place, his el strobe pointing wrong direction etc, we will find out after the investigation. For that matter where were the Cessna pilots looking? Etc Having been around many midairs in my career, let me assure you they all have a a common thread, (clearing your flight path).

As a GA pilot, always be aware of the airspace you are flying through, in many cases in my fighter cockpit we had to stop large axcercises for the little guy chugging at 120kts right through the middle of a 4 v 4 fight in a MOA. Big sky theory works most of the time but we can help ourselves by knowing when we (GA) are operating in a higher threat environment. Driving through MOAs that are active, vfr w no flight following is probably one of the most dangerous things GA pilots do.

Hope this helps some of the questions...

[M20F]

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=2

Unfortunate set of circumstances, thank you for bringing facts to the discussion!

[MyNameIsNobody]

Here are my thoughts on this:

1. I hope that Major flying that F-16 rots in hell for murdering two innocent civillians flying that 150.

2. No excuse. This should NEVER have happened.

3. I hope the family sues for the price of a wasted F-16.

4. This should NEVER have happened.

5. Preliminary released. Controller advised of traffic. Advised of 100 feet vertical separtion...REALLY!?

6. What a bunch of shit. Everyone that flies should be 100% watching how this is handled.

7. That guy should be out of the Air Force and sued for every penny he has got.

8. THIS IS A TRAJEDY and waste of life and taxpayer money that NEVER SHOULD HAVE OCCURED.

9. SHAME on the Pilot.

10. Could of been me...

WHERE IS the Outrage?...

[drapo]

It doesn't do anybody any good to spread accusations towards the F16 pilot, the controller or the Cessna pilot at this point. There is an inquiry going on, and from what I can see, they are trying to show that they are transparent by sharing initial facts and informations on this tragedy.

 

Two people died in this accident, may they rest in peace, but we won't achieve anything by shouting and pointing fingers at this early stage of the investigation.

 

Let's show some respect and let the investigators investigate! 

[MyNameIsNobody]

The preliminary says all I need to know. I stand by my words.

[N201MKTurbo]

I would like to hear the ATC tapes. I would like to know how urgent the controller sounded. Either way the F16 should have begun his deviation turn as soon as it was suggested and done it a little more aggressively. It said that the F16 was doing instrument practice, but it didn't say if he was on a clearance or just getting flight following. If it was VMC it doesn't really matter except the controller may have a bit more culpability.

 

You can say that the F16 pilot should "Burn in Hell", but I bet he already is in his own conscience. If not, then there is a special place for him.

[Piloto]

I think the military controller was at fault in this incident. Even though he warns the F-16 about the Cessna it should had also told the pilot to climb just like an ATC controller would have done. There is 100ft marging of error on altimeters. Greater if the barometric setting is different on both aircraft. A 100ft separation on the radar could very well be 0ft like in this case. At the closing speed and low profile of the C-150 it would had been impossible for the F-16 to see the C-150 on time. The F-16 pilot did what you would have done; look out for traffic and maintain altitude. But if the F-16 was TCAS-II equipped the pilot would had got a "climb" RA  

 

José

[Bob - S50]

Its easy to Monday morning quarterback.  Having just read the preliminary from the link posted above it looks like this accident is just like every other accident.  It is never just one thing that caused the accident, it is a series of events that cause it.  Change any one of those and it would have been avoided.

 

Since the F16 was flying an instrument approach, he would have been no faster than 250k since he was below 10,000'.

 

He was at or very close to his assigned altitude of 1600'.  How many of us are always exactly on altitude all the time?  He was only 100' off.  Since his indicated was roughly double what ours are in our Mooney's, that's like us always being within 50' of our intended altitude while we are heads up looking for traffic.

 

What could have prevented it?

 

Had the controller given instructions earlier...

Had the F16 been 100' high rather than 100' low...

Had the C150 contacted CHS ATC for flight following...

Had the C150 picked a different altitude for cruise...

Had the F16 pilot turned a bit sooner and more aggressively...

Had the C150 flown NE toward its destination instead of SE...

 

Bob

[drapo]

MyNameisNobody,

 

We agree on one thing: This should never have happened. 

 

But as Bob said, read through the initial findings to understand what was going on. This is not a joy ride, it's an IFR approach under ATC supervision. If you extrapolate from the timing of the different phases of the flight, you can deduct a few things. First, here's the plate of the Tacan15 in KCHS.

 

As you can see, this not a straight-in approach but rather an arc approach where you are on a constant turn towards the final approach from a fix located abeam the airport. The fighter pilot was given a 260 hdg to intercept the arc, and as he intercepted, he had to turn right to a 320 hdg(+/-) then back to the left to follow the 10 DME arc. That's about when he was given the traffic information at his 12 o'clock, and 2 miles. The F16 was travelling at 4 miles a minute, the Cessna 1.5 miles a minute, the two paths will cross in under 30 seconds. I don't know the limits of the onboard radar, but given the bank in the turn, I'm pretty sure he couldn't see the Cessna. Did he initiated the evasive action as dictated by ATC or was he just flying the ARC? Was he relying on the mode C read-out to justify spacing? On the ATC side, should he have climbed the F16 without really knowing if the Cessna reported altitude was 1400' or any other altitude, higher or lower? Was trying to separate laterally the two trafics with a vector the way to go? Did the Cessna pilot try an evasive action that put him back in the F16's way?

 

Those are some of the questions the inquiry will investigate and I'm sure they'll have a few more. There is never one single factor in all accidents, the Swiss cheese theory is that when holes in swiss cheese slices align, they create a path for an accident to happen, and this one is not exempt from that theory.

 

As an ATC, this is THE absolute nightmare. Midair happen, and sometimes ATC gets involved. On a bigger scale, Zagreb around 1980 comes to mind and so does the Skyguide (Swiss ATC)  over Germany a few years back, but US history is not exempt of such accidents, as we remember the San Diego collision between an airline and a GA plane in the 80's.

 

Don't point fingers yet, it is way too early in the process. Let's mourn the loss of two person and try and learn from whatever mistakes the inquiry will reveal.

[MyNameIsNobody]

This was like me hitting a ballon when the controller told me the balloon was there and how to evade contact. The speed difference/closure and communication with the controller put the trajedy squarely on the Major's shoulders. This can get spun and made a lot more complicated than it is. The F-16 pilot failed to take evsive action to separate from a slow mover that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I WILL point my finger. I WILL call him out. They are dead he was/is wrong. I hope he thinks of his in-action and what it cost others vs. him every damn day that he breaths air that I fly in and hopefully he doesn't.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Its easy to Monday morning quarterback.  Having just read the preliminary from the link posted above it looks like this accident is just like every other accident.  It is never just one thing that caused the accident, it is a series of events that cause it.  Change any one of those and it would have been avoided.

 

Since the F16 was flying an instrument approach, he would have been no faster than 250k since he was below 10,000'.

 

He was at or very close to his assigned altitude of 1600'.  How many of us are always exactly on altitude all the time?  He was only 100' off.  Since his indicated was roughly double what ours are in our Mooney's, that's like us always being within 50' of our intended altitude while we are heads up looking for traffic.

 

What could have prevented it?

 

Had the controller given instructions earlier...

Had the F16 been 100' high rather than 100' low...

Had the C150 contacted CHS ATC for flight following...

Had the C150 picked a different altitude for cruise...

Had the F16 pilot turned a bit sooner and more aggressively...

Had the C150 flown NE toward its destination instead of SE...

 

Bob

An accident chain requires a "chain of events" to occur....Domino's to line up. This isn't an accident accept that it was unplanned for the two that are dead. The "Major" was given specific instructions that would have broken the chain. His inaction resulted in the deaths of two innocent human beings and the loss of two airframes, one of which I helped purchase. I also paid to train him to follow instructions to prevent events such as these.

This occurred because the F-16 pilot did not turn when instructed. He had the information to break the accident chain and he "decided NOT to do as he was instructed". End of story. End of two lives.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Just finished reading a blog discussing how Oshkosh is going to be ruined: He proceeded to describe in detail goobers not knowing/following directions and poor airmanship.

Here is what stuck in my craw: A Mooney pilot asked to turn south twice after take-off (while waiting to depart on the ground) even though procedure is to fly five miles outside of Class D. He asked again after take-off. Was again told the procedure. He turned South immediately after getting the final "NO" to his request.

Decisions have consequences that can be catastrophic in a plane. Follow instructions, you might just save your or other innocent peoples lives.

Free will and independent thought are awesome and have their place. Not exclusively...

[drapo]

What if? Based on no facts but just to convince you that the investigation has to do it's job. What if the collision occured because the pilot was following ATC instructions as he was turning to the assigned heading?

Remember the last SuperBowl? People are still questioning the call to try a pass so close to the end zone. But in the end, is it Carroll!s fault for a risky call, a Wilson poor execution or a superb defensive play by Buttler? That inquiry is still going on and probably will be for years and years!

[jkhirsch]

I hate chiming in on stuff like this. That being said...

 

The initial report does read like the fighter pilot did not correctly respond to the initial evasive maneuver assigned by ATC.

[Cyril Gibb]

If I were told by a controller that I was on a collision course with an aircraft at an unverified 100 foot vertical separation I'd be outa there pdq. I wouldn't have to be told twice.

[ArtVandelay]

I hate chiming in on stuff like this. That being said...

The initial report does read like the fighter pilot did not correctly respond to the initial evasive maneuver assigned by ATC.

F16 was told to turn immediately at 1100:34

NTSB report states he began a southerly turn over the next 18 seconds...sounds like a standard rate turn, which is SOP in IFR conditions.

I'm thinking ATC,F16 should have aborted the approach, and gotta out there, but who's responsible to make that call?

ATC could ask then to climb,descend?

When I hear the word immediately, I would have abandon the approach and been more aggressive.

The 150 had 2 sets of eyes, why didn't they ever try to see and avoid?

I bet final report spreads the blame among all participants.

[bradp]

Inquiry will only tell. Or maybe not. However, on an IFR plan in VMC as PIC in the most maneuverable airplane in the world... Why oh why start a standard rate turn oh so gently to avoid the traffic you clearly don't have a visual reference to and the controller is imploring to avoid.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MyNameIsNobody]

Horrible call by Pete. Horrible in-decision by F-16 pilot. One was a quarterback running a play as called. One was a pilot NOT executing as called. One resulted in a lost game. Other was....a disaster.

[drapo]

You guys don't know how many times in a day I point VFR squawking trafic to IFR aircrafts on approach, on a converging track, both with and without mode C.

 

My book says to point out trafic and, if pilots requests it, give vectors to clear trafic. You can also suggest a heading or an altitude to the pilot to clear the potential conflict. It sometimes happen that I decide it's too much of a close call and use vectors before it becomes too ugly, as this controller did.

 

The problem with this sad situation is that there was a collision. So here we are trying to put blame on the F16 pilot or the controller while were seated in front of a computer and looking at the minutes and seconds and thinking : 18 seconds for that kind of a turn is a rate one turn and why was he so leisurely turning! Take into account the doubt the pilot has about the distance of the trafic *Confirm 2 miles* and add three seconds for him to react to the second instruction where the controller uses *immediately* and the fact that he starts on a 310 hdg or so and ends up on a 205 hdg within 12 seconds or so, given input and control reaction times, and you end up with way more than a rate one turn.

 

I feel for my controller friend who must be reviewing the whole situation over and over again, questioning his actions and also for the pilot who must also be asking himself what if? Nothing will bring back those two who died in this accident, but we must make sure the inquiry will teach us something.

[jkhirsch]

I don't want to bicker, I didn't look at all the timestamps, but the ntsb initial said that the controller, 'had to repeat himself.'

[Tom]

My initial assessment of this event was wrong, as are the beliefs that with enough laws, rules, and lawsuits that oddball accidents will completely cease to exist.

On further consideration, events like this are exceedingly rare. The jet could have been a Citation and the Cessna could have been a high performance homebuilt that climbed much faster into the path of the jet on approach. This is one of the sh!t happens things.

[bonal]

_{This is tragic to be sure the thing is, the F16 did respond and turned into the traffic.  If he or the controller did nothing its likely they would not have collided at all just as much as if he would have responded sooner or with a more aggressive turn rate no collision. No matter what keep a sharp eye.  One question for our controller friends is if you see a radar contact and its VFR1200 and you know that contact is likely just departing from a known location and its possible they are on a CTAF for that field could you initiate a call on the CTAF to unknown departing aircraft at 1400ft 2 miles whatever direction from airport kxxx and at least try to make them aware of a hazard.  I know time is short but it could make a difference.}

[Shadrach]

MyNameisNobody,

 

We agree on one thing: This should never have happened. 

 

But as Bob said, read through the initial findings to understand what was going on. This is not a joy ride, it's an IFR approach under ATC supervision. If you extrapolate from the timing of the different phases of the flight, you can deduct a few things. First, here's the plate of the Tacan15 in KCHS.

 

As you can see, this not a straight-in approach but rather an arc approach where you are on a constant turn towards the final approach from a fix located abeam the airport. The fighter pilot was given a 260 hdg to intercept the arc, and as he intercepted, he had to turn right to a 320 hdg(+/-) then back to the left to follow the 10 DME arc. That's about when he was given the traffic information at his 12 o'clock, and 2 miles. The F16 was travelling at 4 miles a minute, the Cessna 1.5 miles a minute, the two paths will cross in under 30 seconds. I don't know the limits of the onboard radar, but given the bank in the turn, I'm pretty sure he couldn't see the Cessna. Did he initiated the evasive action as dictated by ATC or was he just flying the ARC? Was he relying on the mode C read-out to justify spacing? On the ATC side, should he have climbed the F16 without really knowing if the Cessna reported altitude was 1400' or any other altitude, higher or lower? Was trying to separate laterally the two trafics with a vector the way to go? Did the Cessna pilot try an evasive action that put him back in the F16's way?

 

 

Are you sure he was flying the ARC? It does not read that way to me.

 

The controller subsequently instructed the F-16 pilot to fly a heading of 260 degrees to intercept the final approach course. At 1055, the controller instructed the F-16 pilot to descend from his present altitude of 6,000 feet to 1,600 feet. About that time, the F-16 was located about 34 nautical miles northeast of CHS.

 

What I've copied and pasted below is the most glaring of the details for me.  ATC tells you to turn immediately after advising you of traffic just 8 seconds earlier and you take 18 Moth#% Fuc!$#&....seconds to start a gradual turn in one most of the most maneuverable aircraft in the sky. 18 seconds is an ETERNITY to change course in an aircraft after being told to do so immediately.  a standard rate turn initiated in a timely manner would have been enough.   This is not Monday morning quarterbacking, this is a glaring Fu#% up...  Sorry - I believe the NTSB will see it this way as well unless the F-16 pilot turns out to be a "fortunate son".  If I ran into someone or something because I basically continued on course for 18 seconds after ATC told me to IMMEDIATELY deviate 35 degrees from my current heading, I'd expect to be faulted.  He could have picked his nose for 5 seconds and then started a standard rate turn and still been on course before the impact.  Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this looks bad for the F-16 Pilot.

 

The F-16 pilot responded and advised the controller that he was "looking" for the traffic. At 1100:26, the controller advised the F-16 pilot, "turn left heading 180 if you don't have that traffic in sight." The pilot responded by asking, "confirm 2 miles?" Eight seconds later, the controller stated, "if you don't have that traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately." Over the next 18 seconds, the track of the F-16 began turning southerly.