Hank Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 My blood is boiling. I am outraged. . . . I am special . . . You are acting ridiculous and immature. (See, I'm being polite, describing your behavior and not you.) Please come back when you can maintain at least the level of conversation of a self-absorbed texting teenager. Now back to our regularly scheduled program. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkhirsch Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Hank, according to the times provided there were approximately 5 minutes between when he was 34nm out and the collision. If he was flying approximately the speed limit 250kts then 200kts it would have taken him approximately 10 minutes to cover the distance direct to CHS. Upon further examination of the chart, it would appear that the fighter pilot was somewhat near the KIMMY intersection and may have even been following the Victor Route from MYR to CHS. I've attached a map courtesy of skyvector that would indicate the previous statement along with a direct clearance to IBANE. The bug comes in where a heading of 260 from KIMMY would not be direct to IBANE if he was on or very near the Victor Route, which is demonstrated by the little jig in the pink line. However a heading of 260 from KIMMY would lead very near the proposed collision site. Please understand that I am not pointing any fingers, I'm just speculating on this missing pieces of information right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Like Nobody, my emotions about this event are all over the place. My blood is boiling. I am outraged. Someone needs to hang for this. I too have no other human willing to listen to me and find that this is the only place that I can make people pay attention to me. Just last week at my paper-pushing job I squeezed the stapler and nothing happened. In less than 8 seconds I was able to realize that the problem was. How someone else can take 18 seconds to get their mission-critical work done is beyond me. I too expect others to me able to work day in day out performing constantly to a level of perfection that I am incapable of and I expect them to do this without even the suggestion of error. It matters not that Nobody and me are insecure, what matters is that people are forced to listen to what we have to say so that we can distract ourselves from our insecurity. Because I am special, I demand and expect to receive a full disclosure of everyone who comments here on their connection to this event. I feel so emotional now and I want everyone to know it. I like your hat... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabanaboy Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 NTSB PRELIMINARY REPORT: Accident occurred Tuesday, July 07, 2015 in Moncks Corner, SC Aircraft: CESSNA 150M, registration: N3601V Injuries: 2 Fatal, 1 Uninjured. http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 A question on this... if the Major was on a Practice IFR Approach, then he's still technically VFR and can deviate at will, right? I'm thinking when ATC announced the traffic, why wouldn't he immediately arrest his descent and even climb to give more separation. He has to know he can out climb any aircraft in the sky. After reading the prelim report, it sure seems to me that fault lies with the Major, but ATC could have possibly done more to keep the two aircraft further apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 I'll say it again- Impact roughly 35 secs after initial call. Was 35 seconds adequate time to avoid this collision? During this time, the controller called the traffic and gave the pilot a heading on 2 occasions; neither was correctly acknowledged nor followed. What else was the controller supposed to do? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 In a modern world... One would expect detailed charts of time, position and altitude to describe what actually physically happened. Over a six minute period of time there are two pieces of data for the VFR Cessna. It is hard to separate traffic when there is no way to tell where it is at all times. Big sky theory has its limitations.. WAAS and ADSB are coming. Would that have helped? Best Regards and RIP fellow aviators, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Big sky theory has its limitations.. Big sky theory is irrelevant near airports. Near airports all the airplanes in the big sky funnel down into the same point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browncbr1 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Just today, I departed my home base and a few miles out ATC told me of traffic 12o'clock alt unknown 2 miles tracking 190... I was on a 350 heading... So I immediately turned right to 030. I didn't wait for ATC to advise any maneuvers. It was a small Cessna about 1000 below off to the left of me as I passed still climbing. If I hadn't turned, it may have been a near miss, as I can't see very well over the cowl when in a climb. All that said, I know circumstances were different and all for the F16. But, if I can decide at a moment what to do to avoid a collision with less than a year's flying experience, I don't know how the major will not be found at fault. It's a shame when people die from seemingly poor decision making ability. I'm sure the major feels terrible, but it doesn't bring back the father and son. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradp Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Last week did a trip and over the Shenandoah Valley VFR FF PCT called two targets simultaneously. Couldn't see them but I told PCT that I was happy to take a vector if it looked like they would be a factor. I was hoping to let the controller know that he won't be bothering me as a VFR target with an instruction. I'd rather take a 2 min detour than worry about not seeing something I should see in VMC. That's just me though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 I was flying near Clarksburg, WV, on flight following. Call it NE bound at 5500, ten minutes from descent for Morgantown. Approach called traffic, 10:00, SE bound, 5 nm, same altitude, then called me as traffic for him. We were at the top of the haze layer, and couldn't see anything. When they repeated the call as 2nm I pushed everything forward and climbed to 7500, making the call as I pulled the yoke back. There just ain't no reason to take the chance. Also thought it was pretty cool when Charleston Aaproach (CRW, the OTHER Charleston) had a jet on initial climb level off as I was passing overhead at 7500. He leveled off, rocketed under me and was cleared to resume the climb. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Final Report https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=1 I have nothing against military pilots, indeed I admire them. However, I find this report tough to read. Nearly 40 seconds elapsed from the first of 3 calls to the fighter pilot until the F16 impacted the C150... The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The approach controller's failure to provide an appropriate resolution to the conflict between the F-16 and the Cessna. Contributing to the accident were the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, resulting in both pilots' inability to take evasive action in time to avert the collision. Do you think that if the fast mover had been a Glasair III instead of an F16 the investigator would have left that pilot's actions completely out of the determination. I feel really bad for that controller. Apparently had she had simply said "expedite turn" instead of first calling traffic, then issuing a heading instruction if no contact, and then issuing an immediate turn, this would not have happened. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here...and that lesson is that if you get broadsided at low level by a fast moving military aircraft traveling in excess of 250kts at 1600msl outside of an MOA the fault lies with everyone else but the guy traveling in excess of 250kts at 1600msl outside of an MOA. What I find troubling is that I saw no mention of the 200kt speed limit below 2500AGL within 4 miles of an airport. This controller's actions certainly contributed to the incident. Though I disagree with the investigator on the manner of that contribution. The Falcon was informed early enough and often enough. If he had complied instead of delaying and questioning, this would not have happened. In terms of ATC, I can find no wisdom in vectoring a 250kt fast mover almost directly toward an uncontrolled airport at an altitude just 500ft above TPA. The collision appears to have occurred less than 400ft above TPA (for piston aircraft) and less than 4NM from the airport thought no final altitude data is given for the F16 . I think this is likely the most important factor in the incident; the NTSB however, is more focused on the meanings of the words "immediately" and "expedite"... 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Gibb Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 The NTSB is obviously bending over backward to try and exonerate the military pilot by throwing the controller under the bus. Interesting that the NTSB in their report quote the AIM on what an "immediate" instruction means, and then ignore what they just said and then invent a new term retroactively (expedite). The NTSB has dropped a few rungs in credibilty in my eyes. Also, they find fault with the guy that got t-boned by saying he should have been able see and avoid a collision with an F16 approaching at high speed from the 9 o'clock position coming out of the sun. Bizarre. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browncbr1 Posted February 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 40 seconds is an eternity.. "In my opinion" there is clearly some level of corruption in this finding. Yet another reason why I am nervous to do anything in the aviation industry. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Plus the fact that one was a highly trained professional and the other a regular guy just up flying with his dad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmyfm20s Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Living close to Mexico growing up we used to laugh at the check stops with armed soldiers and the corrupt government. Unfortunately now that I've grown ups now see we are no different here at least in California. It's an unfortunate down hill slide I hope can be reversed some day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 58 minutes ago, Andy95W said: Plus the fact that one was a highly trained professional and the other a regular guy just up flying with his dad. nearly 70% of his flying time was in drones or a simulator. Perhaps that previous experience colored his sense of urgency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccdeuce Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 This is a sad situation for sure and I wish it had a different outcome. But I disagree with a lot of the comments pointing towards corruption or preferential treatement from the NTSB. The F16 was on an IFR flight plan. Yes they were in VMC and ultimately see and avoid matters. But the controller should not have given a conditional turn request. Furthermore expecting a high performance turn while on an IFR flight plan is not fair. Especially on an approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 The NTSB has done this before, like blaming the pilot in AA587 for the stabilizer falling off the Airbus 300. I used to respect them as one of our finest agencies, not any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Gibb Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 3 hours ago, mccdeuce said: This is a sad situation for sure and I wish it had a different outcome. But I disagree with a lot of the comments pointing towards corruption or preferential treatement from the NTSB. The F16 was on an IFR flight plan. Yes they were in VMC and ultimately see and avoid matters. But the controller should not have given a conditional turn request. Furthermore expecting a high performance turn while on an IFR flight plan is not fair. Especially on an approach. The controller gave a conditional turn request initially and then subsequently gave an "immediate" turn instruction. The pilot used the heading bug to initiate a standard rate turn. Paragraph 2-1-5, "Expeditious Compliance," states, in part, that controllers should "use the word 'immediately' only when expeditious compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation." If I'm in IMC, VMC, on an approach or in cruise, if a controller gave me a conditional turn for conflicting traffic followed shortly by an "immediate" turn, I'd be in that turn so damn fast that even 201er would be impressed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 3 hours ago, mccdeuce said: This is a sad situation for sure and I wish it had a different outcome. But I disagree with a lot of the comments pointing towards corruption or preferential treatement from the NTSB. The F16 was on an IFR flight plan. Yes they were in VMC and ultimately see and avoid matters. But the controller should not have given a conditional turn request. Furthermore expecting a high performance turn while on an IFR flight plan is not fair. Especially on an approach. "On an approach"? The approaches into Charleston don't start clear over at Sumter! Yes, he was IFR, the controller tried telling him to turn, the fighter pilot chose not to. Weather was VMC, so separation is up to the pilot. He didn't do a good job at that, either. But he did talk back to the controller very well; after all, he was a highly paid professional pilot flying a bad ass jet fighter, the skies belong to him. And they did, right up until he merged his piece of sky with that little Cessna that had just taken off and had not had a chance to call Approach yet. But somehow, the fault is on the controller alone . . . and not shared with the man with the stick in his hand and his eyes supposed to be out the window looking for traffic. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 3 hours ago, mccdeuce said: This is a sad situation for sure and I wish it had a different outcome. But I disagree with a lot of the comments pointing towards corruption or preferential treatement from the NTSB. The F16 was on an IFR flight plan. Yes they were in VMC and ultimately see and avoid matters. But the controller should not have given a conditional turn request. Furthermore expecting a high performance turn while on an IFR flight plan is not fair. Especially on an approach. Just what part of the approach was he on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccdeuce Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 The NTSB report says vectoring for final approach corridor so I'all take that - not sure what he was established on. You are correct it is not entirely the fault of the controller. Just like it is not entirely the fault of the F-16 pilot.... Crashes/incidents are all complex with multiple things happening that lead to it. No we don't have to follow the AIM. We do when we can and it makes sense. But that doesn't mean I don't have my own rules and regulations that I do have to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 4 hours ago, mccdeuce said: The NTSB report says vectoring for final approach corridor so I'all take that - not sure what he was established on. You are correct it is not entirely the fault of the controller. Just like it is not entirely the fault of the F-16 pilot.... Crashes/incidents are all complex with multiple things happening that lead to it. No we don't have to follow the AIM. We do when we can and it makes sense. But that doesn't mean I don't have my own rules and regulations that I do have to follow. I'm certainly not trying to hang this unfortunate chain of events entirely on the Falcon pilot. I don't think anyone here is. Folks may come off a bit more hostile given that no mention, nada, zero, zilch was mentioned about how he contributed to the accident. Indeed he was not on the approach, he was flying the same heading assignment that he had been flying for the last 40NM. There was nearly 40 seconds and two additional calls with instructions between initial traffic call and impact. That seems like an eternity to me. There are many things that ATC could have done better. The folks in the C150 had little to no ability to influence the outcome. There were two crucial components that could have mitigated this incident in the final minute: 1) Knowledge of the possible convergence 2) The ability to alter heading Only the Falcon pilot had both components. You will find no mention of him in the final determination. I don't ever see 253kts across the ground, but I routinely see greater than 200 on Eastbound descents into my airport. If a controller called traffic to me and and upon my reply (I think "looking" is a useless phrase and I don't use it) instructs me to "turn heading 180 if traffic not in sight" then I'd make the f#(^$@g turn, not question their call. That is exactly what happened here and there is zero mention of it as a contributing factor. There are few accidents where I can say with absolute confidence that I would not have made a similar mistake. However, in this case I can say with complete confidence that if I didn't have contact, I would have been turning and then talking, not questioning the call. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccdeuce Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 4 hours ago, Shadrach said: I think "looking" is a useless phrase and I don't use i 100% agree with you here and do not teach it as an acceptable answer. I fly my mil aircraft at 180kts in a dive from 6000ft... I also have 3 other sets of eyes to help with the sea and avoid. I guess I don't see the fact that the falcon was at 253kts to be a factor. I'll reread the report. But not when I have some brown water in my system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.