F-16 and Cessna Midair in South Carolina, USA
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
I googled "f-16 failed leading edge flap" and selected images to get more of the story. It's on F-16.net More amazing than the Sioux City DC-10 incident.
PLZ do not get carried away about an old fighter pilot's "save". Did more than that one in the Viper and other jets, BTW.
I referenced the incident because in the video when tower advises me about traffic you will soon see a box on left side of HUD with an "x". That was when I hit the dogfight switch and then depressed the cursor control on the throttle and slewed left. The radar locked on to the C-141 and I saw it visually and then told tower.
My point is that the Viper pilot had a lot more going for him than the Cessna.
Whole thing bugs me, and it should not have happened.
I referenced the incident because in the video when tower advises me about traffic you will soon see a box on left side of HUD with an "x". That was when I hit the dogfight switch and then depressed the cursor control on the throttle and slewed left. The radar locked on to the C-141 and I saw it visually and then told tower.
My point is that the Viper pilot had a lot more going for him than the Cessna.
Whole thing bugs me, and it should not have happened.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice Flying Gums!
Nice flying gums!
Your HUD tape reminded me of some of my 185kt+ (FltTst) landings at well over 100K above MLW... I needed and used every inch of the rwy, but didn't have a hook for a departure end engagement option...
Hat's off to you for both your service, and outstanding airmanship!
Your HUD tape reminded me of some of my 185kt+ (FltTst) landings at well over 100K above MLW... I needed and used every inch of the rwy, but didn't have a hook for a departure end engagement option...
Hat's off to you for both your service, and outstanding airmanship!
OFF topic, but relevant in one way
@ westie, et al
The flap drive tube was not correctly connected to the hydraulic drive unit at the wing root. Technicians forgot to insert a "keeper bolt", so the tube gradually slipped out during taxi and initial roll. Maintenance owed me big time after that and I had really good treatment rest of my tour.
Back to problem at hand.......
My main point is that a competent Viper pilot has more going for him than the Cessna dude. We look out. We use available electronic stuff like cosmic radar. We talk to ATC if there's a potential conflict.
I feel really bad about the ATC controller. I also note the Cessna had a decent IFF. Just wish he would have been talking with ATC, huh?
The flap drive tube was not correctly connected to the hydraulic drive unit at the wing root. Technicians forgot to insert a "keeper bolt", so the tube gradually slipped out during taxi and initial roll. Maintenance owed me big time after that and I had really good treatment rest of my tour.
Back to problem at hand.......
My main point is that a competent Viper pilot has more going for him than the Cessna dude. We look out. We use available electronic stuff like cosmic radar. We talk to ATC if there's a potential conflict.
I feel really bad about the ATC controller. I also note the Cessna had a decent IFF. Just wish he would have been talking with ATC, huh?
I also note the Cessna had a decent IFF. Just wish he would have been talking with ATC, huh?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar advisories a good idea
Gums is correct, using ATS radar advisories for traffic is certainly a good idea, as well as using all available tools, such as the F16's radar. But if the C150 pilot requested advisories and was rejected (e.g., happens sometimes, especially with requests for Class B transits), or feared being issued a massively circuitous and sometime dangerous route (which also happens sometimes in Class C or B, as for re-routes over open water at low altitude in an ASEL airplane), then it underscores the point that the present ATS system is still seriously obsolete, if not broken, and needs reconsideration and re-design. Regardless, the fully allocated cost of providing such radar advisories to the C150 in the present ATS is very high, and for the most part is economically indistinguishable from IFR IMC ATS ops costs. So for the long run these separation service costs need to be reduced by at least an order of magnitude. That said, any cost, regardless of how high, would have likely been better than the outcome in this case, for both the C150 and the F16. All three victims deserve our support in this case, the C150 occupants, the ATS specialist, as well as the F16 pilot, at least until all the facts are independently established and verified.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixing a C150 and an F16 in the same bit of airpace with a Controller only talking to one aircraft is bad news from the start.
I do not think technology alone will not provide the solution to this problem, same for UAVs integration in controlled airspace btw.
Unfortunately segregation is the only safe way for the moment.
The current "GA" ADS-B does not work well for anticollison , especially in the arrival/departure phases . I know , I use it on my small GA aircraft, it is verty nice to have, provide an extra layer of alert, but in a busy environment, for a single pilot flying by hand at low speed , forget it, it can even be counter productive .
For a one to one encounter in the pampa, yes, but say, taking the Easterly VFR inbound route to Vegas North around an active Nellis AFB ? forget it.
Watch and scan outside all the time, ( no head down watching a display) and talking to ATC still are your best anti collision and will remain so for a long time .
I also feel sorry for everyone in this collision , because a simple procedure , like e.g. VFR deps stay below 1500 and IFR stays above 2000 until re-entering class C or redesigning the class C to protect the ILS would not involve high tech, cost near to nothing to implement and would solve the problem.
I do not think technology alone will not provide the solution to this problem, same for UAVs integration in controlled airspace btw.
Unfortunately segregation is the only safe way for the moment.
The current "GA" ADS-B does not work well for anticollison , especially in the arrival/departure phases . I know , I use it on my small GA aircraft, it is verty nice to have, provide an extra layer of alert, but in a busy environment, for a single pilot flying by hand at low speed , forget it, it can even be counter productive .
For a one to one encounter in the pampa, yes, but say, taking the Easterly VFR inbound route to Vegas North around an active Nellis AFB ? forget it.
Watch and scan outside all the time, ( no head down watching a display) and talking to ATC still are your best anti collision and will remain so for a long time .
I also feel sorry for everyone in this collision , because a simple procedure , like e.g. VFR deps stay below 1500 and IFR stays above 2000 until re-entering class C or redesigning the class C to protect the ILS would not involve high tech, cost near to nothing to implement and would solve the problem.
Have you ever been involved in a project to design/redraw air space in the US? I have on numerous occasions, the most recent being the SAN class B and I promise you its far from quick and painless. Redirect some noise and the lawyers come out of the woodwork.
Well, loma, the F-16 was in contact with ATC and on a published approch to Charleston. Whereas, the Cessna was not in contact with anybody, but still looked to be careful, to a point. Looking at that sectional, I would have stayed real low for a few miles before climbing.
Many of us here have flown under "MARSA" rules and such, and many of us have flown at 480, 540 or faster down low on published training routes. The cardinal rule was always look!!!! Our cosmic radar was neat, but an eyeball is worth a thousand mile radar contact!!!!!
Many of us here have flown under "MARSA" rules and such, and many of us have flown at 480, 540 or faster down low on published training routes. The cardinal rule was always look!!!! Our cosmic radar was neat, but an eyeball is worth a thousand mile radar contact!!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gums:
The F-16 was being vectored to the final approach course for runway 15.
The collision occurred about 10 nautical miles east of the final approach course for runway 15 which is about 13 nautical miles north-northeast of CHS.
The TACAN runway 21 final approach course is close to where the collision occurred.
From the NTSB Preliminary report NTSB Identification: ERA15FA259A
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...07X22207&key=1
Well, loma, the F-16 was in contact with ATC and on a published approch to Charleston.
The collision occurred about 10 nautical miles east of the final approach course for runway 15 which is about 13 nautical miles north-northeast of CHS.
The TACAN runway 21 final approach course is close to where the collision occurred.
From the NTSB Preliminary report NTSB Identification: ERA15FA259A
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...07X22207&key=1
According to preliminary air traffic control (ATC) radar and voice communication data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the F-16 pilot contacted the approach controller at CHS about 1052 and requested to perform a practice tactical air navigation system (TACAN) instrument approach to runway 15. 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.
Last edited by airman1900; 25th Jul 2015 at 01:45. Reason: corrected collision direction to north-northeast of CHS
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the NTSB Preliminary report NTSB Identification: ERA15FA259A
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...07X22207&key=1
Perhaps the Cessna was passing more from the F-16's right to left than the "opposite direction" the controller advised.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...07X22207&key=1
The Cessna continued its climb, and began tracking generally southeast over the next 3 minutes. For the duration of its flight, the pilot of the Cessna did not contact CHS approach control, nor was he required to do so. 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.
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. At that time, the Cessna reported an indicated altitude of 1,400 feet, and was established on an approximate track of 110 degrees. At 1100:52 the controller advised the F-16 pilot, "traffic passing below you 1,400 feet."
...
Both of the Cessna's wings displayed uniform leading edge crush damage throughout their spans that was oriented aft and upward. Paint transfer and rub markings oriented in a direction from the airplane's left to right were observed on the upper forward surfaces of both wings.
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. At that time, the Cessna reported an indicated altitude of 1,400 feet, and was established on an approximate track of 110 degrees. At 1100:52 the controller advised the F-16 pilot, "traffic passing below you 1,400 feet."
...
Both of the Cessna's wings displayed uniform leading edge crush damage throughout their spans that was oriented aft and upward. Paint transfer and rub markings oriented in a direction from the airplane's left to right were observed on the upper forward surfaces of both wings.
Last edited by airman1900; 25th Jul 2015 at 01:30. Reason: added directionto quote
Perhaps the Cessna was passing more from the F-16's right to left than the "opposite direction" the controller advised.
A agree that whatever damage, it's obviously secondary to the cause, but in some cases it might help understand the causal factors
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-16 had turned left 45 degrees at the time of impact. They were approaching at 150 degrees, 180 being head on, when the controller said "traffic 12 o'clock, 2 miles, opposite direction". So it was initially more head on than otherwise. The Cessna took off, then turned left toward the F-16 to head for Myrtle Beach. It only flew for about 3 minutes, climbing 500 ft/min to 1500', so there was very little time to impact, nor did it go very far with a Vy of 67kts. Tough situation for everyone involved.
