Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

F-16 and Cessna Midair in South Carolina, USA

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

F-16 and Cessna Midair in South Carolina, USA

Old 20th Jul 2015, 16:52
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saigon SGN/VVTS
Posts: 6,625
Received 58 Likes on 42 Posts
Ian W,

I was thinking exactly the same thing - a climb would have been the best instruction.

I feel very sorry for the controller, who will have to live with what happened that day.

On my leading edge flap failure video ...
gums,

Can you post a link?
India Four Two is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 18:10
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was thinking exactly the same thing - a climb would have been the best instruction.
Regardless, F-16 pilot received instructions not once but twice and he did not comply or complied half-heartily, unless something changes he will be assigned with the blame or at least will share the blame with Cessna who failed to see and avoid. Also his instructions to turn are probably standard instructions as per procedures and per information available to him.
olasek is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 18:32
  #63 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
a climb would have been the best instruction.
How do you know? you have seen the traffic picture the controller had ? Possibly other known traffic in vicinity, or above ? remember what a controller sees is what the radar returns gives him , delayed info..

Capt Hindsight is always right...but better be left alone after an accident.
I also feel very sorry for the controller. I hope they do have CISM in place in his unit, because if he/she feels responsible for the collision he/she most probably will never actively control again.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 19:39
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't fault the controller

I would not fault the controller, he specified an immediate 80 degree left turn but the F-16 had only turned 45 degrees at impact. Nor would I fault the Cessna pilot, the F-16 was above him at his 10 o'clock, which would be obscured by his left wing. "Traffic 12 o'clock, 2 miles, opposite direction" was an urgent situation, with only 32-34 seconds to impact according to the preliminary report. "If you don't have that traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately" was a good call. Climb, or right turn would have been better, but "turn left heading 180 immediately" would have done the job. Also, the F-16's transponder put him at 1500 feet, when he was supposed to be at 1600. Don't know if that's a margin of error thing, but that 100' would have made it a near miss.
PrivtPilotRadarTech is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 19:41
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,070
Received 151 Likes on 53 Posts
Does the F-16 even have VHF?

CHS is also an Air Force Base - the F-16 might have only been on UHF.
GlobalNav is online now  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 21:24
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I feel very sorry for the controller, who will have to live with what happened that day.
I don't, I don't want to sound callous and no doubt the controller will remember this day forever however at the same time he most likely acted the way he was trained and there is little else that he could have done. In other words there was no negligence on his part.
porterhouse is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 18:03
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
How do you know? you have seen the traffic picture the controller had ? Possibly other known traffic in vicinity, or above ? remember what a controller sees is what the radar returns gives him , delayed info..

Capt Hindsight is always right...but better be left alone after an accident.
I also feel very sorry for the controller. I hope they do have CISM in place in his unit, because if he/she feels responsible for the collision he/she most probably will never actively control again.
If you look at my post you will find that I made the same caveats you made on hindsight and other traffic. However, from several years of threading fighter aircraft through slow civilian traffic; a head on at 2 miles is not a time for gentlemanly language. an "if not sighted climb immediately to" in an 'urgent' voice would have been more effective than a turn - and I did add that it depended on traffic above.
Ian W is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 18:06
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 79
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Geometry: Descartes before the Horse

Regardless, F-16 pilot received instructions not once but twice and he did not comply or complied half-heartily
I wonder if that's truly a fair assessment.

He was issued the 80 degree turn at 1100:26 and at 1100:49 had turned through roughly 45 of those degrees. That's a cumulative rate of 2 degrees per second even with a minimal delay taken into account.

An instrument standard rate turn of 3 degrees per second at 250 KIAS (257 KTAS at 1500' on a slightly hotter than standard July day) would have required 33 degrees of bank. Not that the F-16 is not capable of plenty of bank, but if he was turning at 25-30 degrees of bank as one would expect in a practice IFR environment, turn rate would have been around 2-2.5 degrees per second resulting in a total amount of turn of between 45 and 56 degrees. Still not enough time to complete the 80 degree turn prior to merged plots. A 737 or C-17 under the same conditions could have ended up in the same place (without TCAS).

The geometry was not optimum for this maneuver, nor was the amount of time available to delay any assessment until a clearer picture of the geometry became evident. I think an insidious situation like this can generate the appearance of different faults to different people, where in fact under other circumstances everyone involved may have been doing what they do normally every day without incident.

There will probably be a certain amount of risk associated with pure VFR flying for a long time....if not longer.
OK465 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 18:47
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Fundamental Issue: VFR and IFR are BOTH Obsolete

The Fundamental Issue here is that both VFR and IFR are entirely obsolete. The entire US ATS is based on the long obsolete flawed premise of "see and be seen" related to 91.113(b), which has failed time and time again, from the Grand Canyon midair, to AL853 (Sept '69) to Aeromexico 498 at Cerritos, to PSA182 in San Diego.

Further, seeing hundreds of thousands of new tiny UAVs flying into a sunset, for anybody, from F-16s to B777s, to even low end GA, is virtually hopeless. We now can economically and safely do EFR (Electronic Flight Rules) globally, but IF AND ONLY IF WE reformulate ATS from first principles, use dynamic RNP 3D and 4D trajectory based separation, exchange the correct "state vector" data, (and NOT FAA's ridiculous overspecified overexpensive seriously flawed version of ADS-B with UAT and ADS-R), and finally do C-N-S properly (but NOT NextGen, which really should be called PastGen).

This event isn't the F-16 pilot's fault, it isn't the C150 pilot's fault, it isn't the Air Traffic Separation specialist's fault (I feel bad for all of them, and they all deserve our sympathy and support).

Instead, IT IS primarily the FAA's FAULT, and our fault, for completely failing to force the needed ATS evolution over the past 4 decades, and OUR failing to hold FAA adequately accountable for sustaining this broken, antiquated, seriously flawed system, that will someday see this sad event again repeated if we don't now take action. FAA needs to be broken up this fall in the budget hearings, and re-constituted with a completely separate ATS that is PROPERLY modernized, and much more closely held accountable for its design, costs, benefits, and performance, ...directly to the airspace users, and NOT to FAA's contractors, consultants, avionics companies trying to economically benefit from mandates, and politically appointed or career FAA officials with marginal or no serious aviation experience.
7478ti is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 20:23
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 79
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
VFR may be 'obsolete', but how do you get Bubba & Sissy in their no-radio, minimally nav equipped tail-dragger from Anadarko, located under the heavily utilized Wa****a MOA, across the heavily travelled V14 & V272, past 2 private strips and into Hinton, where they fly gliders and hangout and drink coffee at the FBO on the weekend? And then back to Anadarko to feed the livestock?

Bubba's got a 3D flat screen....but no 3D RNP, and may have some difficulty spelling ADS-B.

The age old aviation question of who's allowed to play....where and when and with what.
OK465 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 22:57
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The entire US ATS is based on the long obsolete flawed premise of "see and be seen"
No, it ain't obsolete and neither it is flawed, it works every day. Whatever you would like to replace it with will also be somehow 'flawed' in the sense that it won't be 100% reliable. By the way, don't try to suggest that US is the only country in the world with 'see and avoid' rules.
porterhouse is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 01:12
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Heck, one can fly uncontrolled IFR in IMC within 25 nm of Heathrow. Inbound to Farnborough.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 02:15
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are vastly better, safer, and less expensive ways

Bubba and Sissy will fly those desired paths (or airspace volumes) the same way gliders, Stearmans, tiny UAVs, LSAs, cropdusters, and parachutists will some day, ...with very inexpensive but effective trajectory definition and exchanges, using inexpensive RNP based navigators and data links, that mimic what the systems will eventually do on jet transports and other higher speed airspace users. That is the ONLY way any of low end GA will be able to afford to survive. It can now be done for a fraction of the cost of the present ATS system, with vastly better reliability and improved airspace access.

As for the utility of VFR, it is hard to get enthusiastic about continuing to support it as a useful or effective primary method in this modern era, when I still have first hand direct memories of AL853's Capt Jim Elrod's remains still buried in that soybean field in KIND from his midair, or countless other similar examples, including personal examples of nearly ingesting a vertically diving Zlin doing acrobatics into my GE90-115B as I popped out of a towering CU on a STAR flying into a sunset one evening.

It is easy to say that "VFR works" for someone who has meager flight experience, or never tried to spot traffic into a sunrise or sunset, or against the background metropolis night lights of KLGA, KDCA, KLAX, KORD, EGLL, or even RJTT, or that never has had to comfort the families of dead friends or passengers in the fighter, airline, or glider community from a midair, or had to investigate one of these sad events.

We all owe our flight crew member brothers and sisters, and families, and passengers much more than "you all be careful out there", and abide by FAR91.113(b), 91.159, 91.121, 91.209, 91.117, 91.111, and 91.155.
7478ti is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 02:35
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
with vastly better reliability and improved airspace access.
Yeah, it all can be done, just like that, and while we are on it we can also eradicate hunger and poverty to boot.
olasek is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 03:27
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
No need to be too sarcastic, Okie.

The map I have for this area looks like garbage, and seems useless.

Sad thing is with zero course changes, no mid-air.

Secondly, I flew the jet as Okie has. No way could I have missed seeing a potential conflict on my radar - part of your crosscheck. Sheesh, no ground clutter and neat symbols that show alt, heading, speed and so forth with no pilot action required. The radar is track-while- scan and coverage is prolly +/- 5 or more degrees vertical and +/- 45 degrees horizontal in basic mode.

It is extremely hard to accept that a perfect intercept happened without either pilot trying. So very sad. And I was always a "big sky" proponent.

I think ATC did their best.

I also think we have a serious human factor contribution to the accident on the part of the Viper pilot even if he was following ATC directions.
gums is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 04:02
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
It is easy to say that "VFR works" for someone who has meager flight experience, or never tried to spot traffic into a sunrise or sunset, or against the background metropolis night lights of KLGA, KDCA, KLAX, KORD, EGLL, or even RJTT, or that never has had to comfort the families of dead friends or passengers in the fighter, airline, or glider community from a midair, or had to investigate one of these sad events.
How is your grand plan going to affect a rancher buzzing around his fields at 300 AGL looking for cattle? For someone who wants to go hit the aerobatic box? Pipeline patrol aircraft? Police helos on patrol? Some operations are inherently VFR, its not going away, its not going to be altered significantly. There's not a need, nor is there a will to make fundamental changes.

GA isn't all that healthy as is. You add extensive avionics requirements beyond 2020s requirement as a segment of the aircraft are going to be parked for good.
West Coast is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 05:02
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trajectory (or volumetric) separation based on RNP works.

If those ranchers at 300 ft AGL in their Super Cub, or gliders occupying a wave block at FL245 to 265 over Colorado or the Sierras, properly define and exchange a suitable RNP defined block (volume) of dynamic airspace for use, ... then even 450kt Vipers on a low-level route or an air refueling track, ...or pipeline patrol UAVs, can safely and reliably miss each other. It isn't rocket science any more, RNP for airspace volumes can work just as we already use it to miss terrain or other aircraft trajectories at places like NZQN or PAJN, ...albeit for GA potentially at 1x10E-4 the cost and complexity of a current jet transport FMS and D/L.

Further, ...yes a Viper radar if used effectively can certainly provide some measure of protection, especially the Block 50s, and yes the new AESA radars will even be better, and yes, it is still typically in the job descriptions of operational squadrons, since before the F86 and F94 to present, to still look out the window, and use the radar when and as needed, especially for MARSA, and they do,...but even when each pilot of a single ship practicing ILSs, or a 4-ship, is doing everything right, the APG-68 has challenges to see small RCS slow movers, particularly with the doppler notch, and if it's adjusted to see these small slow movers at all, it also can display a plethora of other noise (e.g., ground return moving trucks etc). Moreover, we've all seen cases where fighters have already done things like wacking a UAV, or been canopy to gear to a Cherokee crossing the KLUF FAC,...and that doesn't even count a fast mover pilot dealing with rare-normal or non-normal events in a single seat jet. Even in the big birds, with TCAS and multi-crew, it isn't a cake walk, and isn't uncommon for a pilot to have one close call in about every 3000 flying hours. Just in one recent year alone in the US, in air carrier ops, we had over 38,000 unwanted TCAS advisories. So the very concepts of VFR and IFR both now need major reassessment, and evolution, globally. So we all need to cut that Viper driver some slack, at least until the facts are in.
7478ti is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 05:14
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How is your grand plan going to affect a rancher buzzing around his fields at 300 AGL looking for cattle?
More importantly how is it going to affect 99% of other GA accidents/fatalities that have nothing to do with mid-airs. Like running out of fuel or flying VMC into IMFC or simply poor airman-ship? Any miraculous remedies for that?
olasek is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 07:03
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The focus here is about reliably keeping air vehicles separated

The issue at hand is safely, economically, and effectively keeping air vehicles separated, while assuring reasonable airspace access, and also while addressing needed airport runway capacity, ... essentially independent of day, night, or adverse WX conditions. While GA safety (beyond the issue of mid-air collision) is a completely legitimate issue and open question, it is a subject well beyond the scope of this argument.
7478ti is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 14:06
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
Thanks, 747, I forgot about the doppler notch as it seemed to be headon. Further, they raised the speed from the initial system once the jets got to Europe and all the autobahn speedo types. Early systems easily picked up 95% of folks on the interstate, as the notch was about 60 knots.

For those not familiar, the pulse doppler radars can be set to only show targets with a ground speed above "x" knots ground speed relative to your course. So even a 500 knot target will not show if it is flying 90 deg to your own jet - it's in the "notch". So end of briefing.

Secondly, since we first got HUD's back in the 70's, we are looking outside a lot more than in the old days. You can do the entire approach using the HUD and just crosscheck the steam gauges every few seconds ( USAF policy but may have changed). My LEF video shows the ILS display, as well as the crappy weather that day. So by request, here's a link and do not abuse it!!!!

My problem was that a large section of my wing folded up shortly after gear retraction, so figure 160 - 170 knots. I was first guy that landed alive, as first troop got too slow short final and didn't make it. Next guy after me bailed.



sluf.org/misc_pages/lef-landing.m4v

Last edited by gums; 22nd Jul 2015 at 20:27. Reason: additional background
gums is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.