Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

 

For ATC to monitor and intervene on every CTAF would be impossible. I work Montréal Terminal, which is not the busiest airspace in Canada, let alone America, but within a 15 miles radius, there are a dozen smaller airport, most with their own frequencies.

 

Up here in Canada, we have an enroute frequency(126.7)that permits VFR/VFR and VFR/IFR communications outside class A,B, C and D airspace. But the best way to diminish the risk of a midair is by segregating airspace. I've worked on two groups that reviewed airspace around Montreal, and our main focus was to make sure to leave enough room for VFR flights while having IFR corridors that were free of VFR transit. That means altitudes and tracks of approaches have to be taken into account. Starting and arc approach 10nm east of the field and get the IFR down to 1600' is placing that flight in the path of many VFR aircraft while a 2500' intercept at 10DME out would be plenty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

If you look at the times and distance and where the collision occurred, there is no way the 260 hdg was to intercept the final approach course, although that's what the preliminary report says. My bet is that the F16 was flying the arc coming in from the East, since the collision occurred North-East of the field.  Additionally, you give a 30 degree heading to intercept a final approach course, so 190hdg from the East or 130hdg from the West would do it. In this case, the final approach course being 157deg, it would be a 100deg turn to intercept and starting from 34 miles out, he would have never been in the area where the midair occurred. 

 

That's why I'm not putting blame on anyone right now, I could be wrong, but this looks like an accumulation of factors causing this regretful accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not looking to place blame and I certainly don't expect ATC to monitor and try to anticipate every VFR but what I'm thinking and I know that in all fields when someone has a high level of experience you can start to put things together that raises your level of concern and in a situation when you see 2 aircraft converging it might be possible to make contact with the unknown traffic. As a VFR only pilot I try to get flight following when ever I leave my very very low traffic area. One of my short routes that I take puts me over 2 class D ports and if I did not get FF I will monitor tower frequency for each area I pass over incase I am that unknown traffic. Anyway if I hear control advising and I know it's me as the unknown I can speak up identify and comply if needed

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No it is not. This was totally preventable with compliance from a highly precise platform that was communicating with ATC. NOT acceptable. If you can't play down low and follow the rules as instructed then stay off the playground.

This is why I would just as soon fly into Oshkosh as put another hole in my head. Human Error because of failure to act. NOT ACCEPTABLE. You have an aircraft that wants to turn and climb and you become "Mr. Inaction" at that time? NOPE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not one to rush to judgment and condemn others. I will wait for the NTSB to figure it out. 

 

One thing I've learned after 6000 hours of Mooney flying is that I'm completely capable of just about every bone head mistake that can be made. I'm not saying that I'm a bad pilot, I think I'm a very good pilot, but if you fly enough some day somewhere something will happen. None of us on here can walk on water, we all make mistakes. Condemning other peoples mistakes does no good. All we can do is look at the facts and strive not to make then ourselves!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the times and distance and where the collision occurred, there is no way the 260 hdg was to intercept the final approach course, although that's what the preliminary report says. My bet is that the F16 was flying the arc coming in from the East, since the collision occurred North-East of the field. Additionally, you give a 30 degree heading to intercept a final approach course, so 190hdg from the East or 130hdg from the West would do it. In this case, the final approach course being 157deg, it would be a 100deg turn to intercept and starting from 34 miles out, he would have never been in the area where the midair occurred.

That's why I'm not putting blame on anyone right now, I could be wrong, but this looks like an accumulation of factors causing this regretful accident.

I did misread an important part of the prelim. It looks like he was asked to turn from what I am assuming is 260 to 180 which is an 80 degree course change. However, he never acknowledged the turn, and the first request was made by ATC 26 seconds before impact.

These are the numbers that bother me:

1100:18 traffic is called and pilot responds he is "looking"

1100:26 "turn left heading 180 if you don't have that traffic in sight."

1100:34 "if you don't have that traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately."

1100:49 At 1100:49, the radar target of the F-16 was located 1/2 nautical mile northeast of the Cessna, at an indicated altitude of 1,500 feet, and was on an approximate track of 215 degrees.

Pilot was warned of traffic.

8 seconds later he was given a heading to maintain separation if he did not have a visual.

8 seconds after the previous deviation he was given an an instruction to turn immediately if he did not have a visual.

15 seconds after request for immediate deviation the F16 has managed to turn 45 degrees to 215 (assuming he was at 260 to start which is a big assumption).

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard for a military aviator is way high. The standard for a fighter pilot...Higher still. They are identified, and I agree, that they are the best of the best.

This performance was not just below the curve it was rock bottom...and innocent people die. I have a SUPER HIGH expectation of military fighter pilots.

I don't care one bit if you think my judgement is harsh. I call a spade a spade.

I fold.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did misread an important part of the prelim. It looks like he was asked to turn from what I am assuming is 260 to 180 which is an 80 degree course change. However, he never acknowledged the turn, and the first request was made by ATC 26 seconds before impact.

These are the numbers that bother me:

1100:18 traffic is called and pilot responds he is "looking"

1100:26 "turn left heading 180 if you don't have that traffic in sight."

1100:34 "if you don't have that traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately."

1100:49 At 1100:49, the radar target of the F-16 was located 1/2 nautical mile northeast of the Cessna, at an indicated altitude of 1,500 feet, and was on an approximate track of 215 degrees.

Pilot was warned of traffic.

8 seconds later he was given a heading to maintain separation if he did not have a visual.

8 seconds after the previous deviation he was given an an instruction to turn immediately if he did not have a visual.

15 seconds after request for immediate deviation the F16 has manged to turn 45 degrees to 215 (assuming he was at 260 to start which is a big assumption).

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?

If we focus on this single situation, we can deduct that 35 seconds was enough to prevent the collision. But keep in mind that this pilot probably had numerous traffics pointed to him during the few approaches he made in his training flight. Some high, some low, some with no mode C and he was able to see and avoid without doing any changes to his flightpath.

This time is no different, he is pointed to a traffic sqwaking VFR lower and he tries to locate it. The controller doesn't like what he sees and tells him to turn left IF he doesn't see the traffic. We don't have the tone of the controllers voice but we know the pilot wants to confirm the distance"confirm 2miles?". That's when the controller decides to insist and adds "immediatly" to his instruction and from initial findings, looks like the pilot gets off his approach and starts a turn. As he was established on his arc, so around a 310hdg or so, the pilot sems to follow the controller's instruction and starts a left turn and is observed on a 205 hdg just prior to impact, that's about 100 degrees left of his approach heading.

So I say there is a lot of informations missing. My main question is around the presence or use of an airborne radar in the F16. The end result could be a unilateral blame on the pilot, a shared blame on pilots and controllers, a system fault along with individual blames or? But from this sketchy information, I don't think we should "hang" anyone and we should wait for the results of the inquiry before making judgements, but I realize that others have different view on this aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there is some info missing.  I do not agree that we know he was on a DME arc at the time.  I know that according to the report, last heading assigned to the F16 was 260.  I believe he was well Northeast of the DME arc.  There are a number of different scenarios that could play out. However, the response times, lack of execution and lack of read back bothers me.  When ATC tells a pilot "turn left heading 180 if you don't see the traffic"  8 seconds after calling the traffic, then you're supposed to turn the airplane left to heading 180, not wait for another 8 seconds until you here the words "IMMEDIATELY" and then start a gentle turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seeing an airplane painted some shade of grey with the profile of a fighter against background clutter? Yeah, good luck.

Also, he was sightly above them coming from left to right closure rate was probably greater than 200kts. Interesting that there is no mention of speed in the prelim. We know the Cessna was doing no more than about 85kts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I have no idea where this assumption that he was one the DME arc came from. Please correct me if I am saying something stupid here so I can go back and edit my post so it doesn't look like I said something stupid.

 

In order for a collision to happen with the fighter on the DME arc the Cessna basically would have had to violate CHS airspace.

Airspace 10nm = DME arc 10nm = Cessna Pilot would have been doing something wrong and going the wrong way.

 

Also if he was on the DME arc his heading at the time of impact would have been 270 or greater based on the arc.

Did you guys look at the map?

When the controller advised traffic opposite direction, they should have been exchanging paths at approximately respective headings of 065, 245. With regards to a 23 departure from MKS then a direct to CRE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the F16 was direct CHS from MYR it is entirely possible that he was given a 260 heading as a vector to final approach for the TACAN 15 Approach. They were not in controlled airspace nor were they in IMC. They were both tasked with "see and avoid". However, the C150 was was broad sided by a fast mover that is painted to in a way to make it less visible.

I mapped this out according to the prelim. It'll be interesting to see the final report. I do not understand why the prelim makes no reference to speeds or the location of crash site.

I am not trying to hang the F16 pilot out to dry, perhaps the prelim has left out some important details. Regardless of what those details may be, the transcript reads as though there was no sense of urgency with regard to avoiding a known target. That makes me sad, because it was so easily avoidable...

post-8069-0-77874900-1437664817_thumb.pn

post-8069-0-86061000-1437664837_thumb.pn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ross, it says they found the wreckage in/near the west fork of the copper river.

I also fail to understand the disclosure of the speeds and whatnot.

Obviously not a ton of detail as far as location of collision, but a close-ish guess.

The west fork basically runs "right next to the airport" which would make sense for left traffic essentially making a u-turn to head northeast from 23.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The area I have highlighted is the West Branch of the Cooper River. Later reports said the 150 came down near the Lewisfield Plantation. I searched it and if you look at the inset attachment, you can see Lewisfield Plantation Rd is just north of where I estimated the debris field to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Guys, by trying to prove that there is more in an accident that meets the eye and to let the investigators investigate, I demonstrated an example of what could have happened that wasn't based on fact either, since we don't have much to stand on.

I convinced myself about the type of approach and the fact that the vector was to intercept an Arc, not a final approach course, but nothing tells me in the facts presented that the F16 pilot had already intercepted his DME arc. So I'll just listen to my own advice and shut up until the investigator comes up with a report, as a show of respect to the victims and those involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drapo, you seem especially "vested" in others NOT interpreting the results of this incident. Care to explain why you feel our being able to read and interpret is such an affront to you? I have read and re-read the preliminary report and keep coming to the same conclusion, yet you seem to really take issue with that interpretation. Information is information. Analysis by me isn't worth a thimble full of sweat...You continue to respond to shut up and wait. Why do you keep double, triple, quadruple down on this?

Why sir does it bother you so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only been given an IMMEDIATE instruction from ATC one time, but I was turning then before I pressed the push to talk to acknowledge it a while second later. Had I taken 30+ seconds! hindsight tells me that I may well have had a T-bone collision like this one, as myself and another Mooney had been cleared to land on runways with a common approach end that diverged about 40° from each other. We'd have crossed flight paths on short final or during the round out . . .

Reading the report posted above, the DME / TACAN approach uses an arc 10 nm from CHS, yet the collision was 34 nm out. The F16 was being vectored for the approach, not on it and not entering it, although at his (not reported) likely speed, he'd have started the approach soon. Even at 300 knots, 5 miles a minute, it would take him several minutes to cover the 20-odd nm to get there. So why did he ignore repeated traffic avoidance calls from ATC? Guess it may come out in either the AF or NTSB report, if the pilot interview is released.

As for the poor 150, it appears that he was still in the initial climb and talking on CTAF for the field he was departing. How many of us check in with Center within 2-3 miles of our uncontrolled departure field? Down here in flat Lower Alabama, the ATL Departure frequency is blankly silent until I reach ~2500 msl, so I can't check in. They usually report me to be 6-8 miles from the field when I show up on radar . . . What is your experience with this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.