F-16 and Cessna Midair in South Carolina, USA

[ATC Watcher]

Thanks a lot I-4-2- looks much clearer now.
.
I heard that the collision occured 3 min after the C150 took off , which would be consistant with the 3 NM from airport (asumimg @ 60Kts Ground speed) , but at 2 pax in a 150 you would probably not get much more than 4-500ft/min so I would bet the collision occurred at or below 1500ft, and what is the minimum clean speed of an F16 ? 200 kts ?, Is this considered is " normal ops" in the USA to be with an F16 at this altitude so close to a VFR airfield in class G airspace ?
Not trying to aportion any blame to anyone, we do know know all the facts yet, just asking a question. .

[MarkerInbound]

The initial approach altitude for the ILS to 15 is 1600 feet. They would be in Class E airspace at that altitude.

[KKoran]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

From what I read here it looks like both aircraft were where they were supposed to be and in contact with their respective ATS units . ( the F16 with APP and the C150 with the Departure TWR)
To get a collision one of the 2 apparently was where it was not supposed to be, or does the airspace around those 2 airports is in pure class G ?

Can someone in the know clarify, or put a map of the area up ?

As to ADS-B, it is not the solution to everything. I have it on my ( small GA) aircraft, to use it as an anti collision tool you need to put the detection range between 4 and 8 NM , it does not work well with F16s coming at you at 250 Kts when you are doing yourself 70 Kts on the climb. Plus it only warns you of the aircraft having a transponder, and set on ALT.
So in VFR country , using eye balls is still the most effective effective way to avoid each other.

There is no tower at the airport the C-150 departed from. It is likely they were still on the airport's Common Traffic airport Advisory Frequency.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Preliminary NTSB Report ERA15FA259A

Preliminary NTSB report is out.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...9-b021bbcf042d
Excerpt: "At 1100:18, the controller advised the pilot of the F-16, "traffic 12 o'clock, 2 miles, opposite direction, 1,200 [feet altitude] indicated, type unknown." 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."

[OK465]

In a way this brings to mind discussion of an incident unrelated to this, utilized for classroom training in the early days of ASAP.

One of the ASAP program student group leaders analyzed the discussion incident like this:

"Everyone did everything right....

....and we never want that to happen again."

There was a thoughtful quiet delay before the chuckling.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Excellent Advice

300 kt (I've read that's the minimum recommended airspeed for an F-16) is 5 miles per minute. Traffic at 2 miles is impact in 24 seconds. "If you don't have that traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately" is excellent advice.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

From what I read here it looks like both aircraft were where they were supposed to be and in contact with their respective ATS units . ( the F16 with APP and the C150 with the Departure TWR)

There is no tower at Berkley County.

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

To get a collision one of the 2 apparently was where it was not supposed to be, or does the airspace around those 2 airports is in pure class G ?

That's speculation not supported by facts. Berkley County is 17 NM north of Charleston Airport, so the collision took place outside of Charleston's Class C airspace. It was almost certainly within Class E airspace. I haven't sen anything which suggests that either aircraft wasn't entitled to be where it was.

[ATC Watcher]

A squared: I think you read my post too fast . I was not making statements but asking questions not being familiar with US airspace .
Thanks for your answers , so in this scenario, uncontrolled airport , asuming the circle around Berkley Co on the map above is class E , if this was in my country both aircraft would have been on the Berkley co "advisory frequency " ( which we call in here A/A or auto info ) .
In my country if a military jet is low flying above a VFR uncontrolled airport , it makes a short call before entering stating position , heading and altitude . You do not do this in the U.S. ?
Again this might have been done in this case , as even doing this is no guarantee you will not have a collision .
Big case of bad luck still hits you sometimes even if you do everything right.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Thanks for your answers , so in this scenario, uncontrolled airport , assuming the circle around Berkley Co on the map above is class E , if this was in my country both aircraft would have been on the Berkley co "advisory frequency " ( which we call in here A/A or auto info ) .
In my country if a military jet is low flying above a VFR uncontrolled airport , it makes a short call before entering stating position , heading and altitude . You do not do this in the U.S. ?

Obviously, this would be a good practice. If I knew that I were flying at low level through the immediate area of an uncontrolled airport, I would certainly dial up the advisory frequency (CTAF in the US, Common Traffic Advisory Frequency)

However, if you were a pilot based elsewhere, and you were being vectored around that area, and you didn't have a VFR chart open (unlikely that you would) you might not be aware that you were in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

Personally, I'm wondering what the F-16 was doing so low, so far from the airport. Not attempting to assign fault, there was nothing inherently wrong with what he was doing and he had been cleared to descend to that altitude, but I'd expect to be a little higher on a normal descent for landing that far out.

[Groucho]

I cannot work the link in PPRT's post to the NTSB report, but I am puzzled by

"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."

18 seconds is a long time to be turning - did the collision happen in the turn? Do we know what was the time of the collision?

According to PPRT's post, the 'immediate' avoiding action was called 16 seconds after the "2 miles' call, which should have been enough, I feel.

[hans brinker]

I cannot work the link in PPRT's post to the NTSB report, but I am puzzled by

"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."

18 seconds is a long time to be turning - did the collision happen in the turn? Do we know what was the time of the collision?

According to PPRT's post, the 'immediate' avoiding action was called 16 seconds after the "2 miles' call, which should have been enough, I feel.

18 seconds according to the ATC radar returns, as radar updates could be 10 seconds apart and it would take a few updates for the turn to show on the radar that in itself does not mean it took the F16 pilot 18 sec to start the turn.....

[wanderinwilco]

This sort of airborne integrity lapse within the USA should not come as a surprise, such mistakes are legion.

Some years ago I turned final, beneath 1000 feet, on the approach to Key West and was instructed:
"Follow the 737, clear land"
My response says it all:
"Roger, clear land after the 737, VISUAL THE PAIR OF F16s PASSING BENEATH ME!"
ATC went silent.

[poorjohn]

My read of the ATC conversation suggests the problem was its wishy-washy nature. The F16 pilot was kinda-maybe-sorta thinking he just might maybe be seeing the Cessna, and ATC, who didn't want to inconvenience anyone with unnecessary deviations, suggested "IF you don't see the target, immediately turn'.

"F16, IMMEDIATE TURN 180" would have avoided headlines, but no one thought it necessary.

Aside from wishy-washy [as a GA pilot] I find it difficult not to condemn the F16 pilot. If you're allowed to drive a Formula 1 car in city traffic, you have a huge responsibility to not kill too many drivers (and destroy millions of dollars of taxpayers' hardware in the process, though that's small potatoes compared to a single life.)

Bring it on.

[gums]

F-16 systems and such

I have to go with OKIE on his posts. I may have flown the jet earlier than he did, but even the real old jets from the mid-80's had excellent radar, and normal procedure was to have it in air-to-air mode when down low for approaches.

The system allowed one simple switch on the throttle to go to an auto-acquisition mode and pick up almost anything +/- 5 degrees vertical and 15-20 degrees left/right. Further, pressing another button on the throttle you could slew the search pattern left/right and up/down. On my leading edge flap failure video you will hear tower telling me about a transport on long final while I was on a loose base leg. I begged off telling tower that I had my hands full ( severre structural damage) but still flipped the switch and slewed left. POW! Locked up the C-141 and got a visual.

So I have a feeling this guy had a bad radar or was in the ground map mode. Nevertheless, he could have easily got a lock with one switch but didn't. Don't like it, especially when plenty of warning of a potential conflict and an easy switch action.

Okie also points out the use of the family model or a chase plane. I flew hundreds of chase hours and had the radar in the air-to-air mode 95% of the time when practicing instrument approaches.

Lastly, Viper VMC down low is like 250 knots IAS for instrument patterns until gear down. And you still have 3 or 4 gees available!!!

Something smells here about the procedures by both pilots, but ATC seems to have done a good job with warnings and advisories.

[Intruder]

"F16, IMMEDIATE TURN 180" would have avoided headlines, but no one thought it necessary.

NOT true!

Eight seconds later, the controller stated, "if you don't have that traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately."

Initially the Cessna was 300' below the F-16, but apparently continued climbing. The last indication the F-16 pilot had via radio was that the Cessna was 100' below him...

[PastTense]

If the F-16 had continued on his course (and not turned) there would have been no collision, correct?

[ATC Watcher]

PastTense If the F-16 had continued on his course (and not turned) there would have been no collision, correct?

This sentence is the nightmare of any controller : you do not say anything and they collide ,or you give a suggestion or an instruction to avoid and they collide , you can never win , and a judge will crucify you for one or the other .
This is why many ATC OPS manuals are instructing controllers to only pass traffic info , and nothing else , but if it ends up in a collision unfortunately this also is not enough for a judge, you could always have done more . I feel very sorry for the controller involved in this .

Intruder :

Initially the Cessna was 300' below the F-16, but apparently continued climbing.

Was the Cessna supposed to stay below a certain altitude ? Was there a NOTAM indicating F16 exercises above a certain altitude in the area ?

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Intruder :
Was the Cessna supposed to stay below a certain altitude ?

Given that the collision was outside the Charleston Class C airspace, it's pretty unlikely that there was any altitude restriction applicable to the Cessna.

If the Cessna was underneath the outer shelf of the Class C airspace, he's have been required to remain below 1200 ft MSL unless he'd established 2 way communication with Charleston Approach, but he was well outside that area.

[porterhouse]

if this was in my country both aircraft would have been on the Berkley co "advisory frequency

There is no regulatory requirement in the US to be on any frequency when operating into/out of an uncontrolled airport, in fact you don't need a radio at all in such case. I don't have the map in front of me but F-16 pilot certainly had no reason to be on Berkley's CTAF (or sometimes called Unicom) frequency when practicing approaches to adjacent airport, he probably was tuned to the other airport's tower or approach control (sorry, I didn't read the thread from the beginning). I am not sure what this F-16 was practicing however - if you shoot a practice approach and weather is VFR you must look out and still rely on see-and-avoid method, being IFR doesn't relieve you from this duty, so unless you have another pilot, you really can't practice IFR in VFR weather. If this was pure class E airspace and weather was VFR - both had right to be there and both had to use their eyes.

[Ian W]

It is easy to be wise after the event in cases like this. However, I find it strange that the controller was not a little more positive as 2 nm head on is not anywhere near time to be relaxed about avoidance. The inference I take from the account is that the Cessna was a pop up and 500ft below, the next update showed it 300 ft and still going up. The easiest and fastest avoidance with an F-16 would have been
"climb immediately to 2500ft for separation from traffic 12 O'clock 2 miles reciprocal climbing"
of course given no traffic above. At 2 miles or less separation track jitter and tracking delays and slow pilot response mean that a turn could well be onto a collision course.