Pilot error caused fatal F-16 crash

[DelaneyT]

Pilot error caused fatal F-16 crash

Monday Sep 28, 2009

Inexperience and disorientation during a night training flight led to the fatal crash June 22 of an F-16 Fighting Falcon in Utah, an Air Combat Command {USAF} accident investigation board concluded in a report released Monday.


The report noted that while {the mishap pilot} had 1,572 hours piloting military planes — primarily in T-6 Texans as a first-assignment instructor {FAIP} — he only had 156 hours in F-16s and was considered an inexperienced F-16 pilot.

The fatal mission at the Utah Test and Training Range called for... a high-angle strafing run at night, the report said.

The {pilot} started his dive 4,000 feet above ground, about 2,000 feet lower than rules called for...

There was no evidence he tried to bail out.
:(



Pilot error caused fatal F-16 crash - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/09/airforce_f16_fatal_aib_092809w/)

[Mick Strigg]

Why oh why does the USAF allow the Air Force News to use the term "Pilot Error"?

Inexperience and Disorientation is not Pilot Error. It is Inexperience and Disorientation!

[green granite]

Inexperience and Disorientation is not Pilot Error.

One could equally argue that it was an error made by the pilot due to inexperience and disorientation

[Flap62]

Because ultimately the pilot made a mistake - the reasons he made it might be entirely due to inexperience and disorientation, but he made a mistake. Therefore it was pilot error.
There is nothing wrong about admitting pilot error if you get it wrong and live to tell the tale - hopefully in an open and honest culture that's how we learn from our mistakes. Similarly there is nothing wrong in giving the cause of a crash as pilot error if that's what it was. Especially if the report gives attenuating circumstances. No criticism of the pilot, he just got it wrong and paid the ultimate price for it.

[Mick Strigg]

But you have to ask WHY he made an error. e.g. Perhaps his superiors made him do a sortie that he wasn't ready for; then it isn't pilot error, but supervision error.

The term Pilot Error is a misused catch-all that does nothing to answer why an accident happened. Bin it!

[airborne_artist]

A training/briefing error is possible, or even an error by a controller, if he started the run at the wrong height while under the control of someone outside the cockpit?

[Wader2]

But you have to ask WHY he made an error. e.g. Perhaps his superiors made him do a sortie that he wasn't ready for; then it isn't pilot error, but supervision error.

This happened to a friend of mine.

He was an F4 driver, competent but no ace. When he returned from leave he was slated for an operational deployment to an airfield with a short runway, unpredictable landing winds and no over or under shoot.

He flew a sortie or so to get his hand back in but assessed that he was not yet ready to deploy and asked for more time. He was refused by his navigator sqn cdr. On arrival he landed short and clipped the wheels on the edge of the runway.

He was courts martialled for deliberately hazarding the aircraft to avoid operational duty.

While he was acquited his career was blighted whereas the nav retired as an AVM. It was very clearly a case of supervision error.

[grizzled]

Have to agree with Mike

There are many reasons that we should bin the term "pilot error" -- at least in official aviation contexts such as accident investigations.
The most important (IMV, as an investigator) is that the use of the term has a strong tendency to preclude deeper, more thorough, investigation. Even the most reputable investigative agencies in the world exhibit this bias, tending to place little effort and few resources on "contributing factors" once the pilot has been shown to have made "an error". The term too often carries the sense that the "pilot error" was the sole error. Human error, for instance, is a much better term as it carries the more accurate connotation that we will all, of course, make errors.
Systemic factors, training factors, and of course human factors, are always at play. But we still don't always put enough effort into examining their role in a particular accident.

my two cents,
grizz

[Two's in]

I thought it was 'Human Factors (Aircrew)" in the MoD. This sorry tale has all the hallmarks of inadequate training, poor supervision and Operational pressure - guess they were lucky they could nail it all on the Pilot rather than fix the system.

[Sideshow Bob]

It certainly is "Human Factors-Aircrew" now but under the new D-FSOR/ASIMS system that has to be then broken down into contributory factors, such as fatigue or communication. Human Factors-Aircrew simply means it wasn't broken and the ground crew didn't do it.

[green granite]

Is not, at the end of the day, the captain of the aircraft responsible for it's safe operation and therefore, if tasked to do something that's out side his perceived capabilities, refuse to do it on safety grounds or ask for it first to be flown dual with a suitable instructor?

Ok I know it's not quite that simple but press-on-itus and overconfidence has killed an awful lot of pilots.

[airborne_artist]

GG - here's a case in point - in 1981 two ASW SKs were directed into each other in very poor vis just S of the IoW. We buried five people, including a course-mate. I've not seen the BoI report, so assuming that both aircraft had correctly followed the controller(s) instructions on height/heading, then it's fair to say that it's not the fault of either captain.

Even in the case of the F-16 above, it's highly likely that errors/omissions by others contributed to his CFIT.

[BOAC]

I don't really mind what it is called.The pilot made an error. That is a fact. A 33% error in actual fact - fairly large. The only alternative for me would be an altimeter malfunction which I assume was eliminated. He sadly learnt the hard way that if you bury your nose in a fast jet at 4000' you have a fair chance of not surviving. (RIP 2 friends who learnt the same lesson, one Jaguar and one Harrier). NB He had succesfully completed the SAME mission 5 times before, so 'inexperience'/'lack of training' does not wash..

AA - to be a relevant comment the BoI would have to have found 'pilot error' (shades of the Mull........) - did they? I think your last sentence should read it's highly UNlikely.

[DelaneyT]

The publicly-released version of the formal Accident Investigation Board report is available (.pdf format) at:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090928-037.pdf


....quite a bit of detail on the circumstances of the mishap...