F-16 and Cessna Midair in South Carolina, USA

[Airbubba]

Doesn't look good for the Cessna occupant(s). :sad: Hope the Viper driver got out OK.


WATCH LIVE COVERAGE: Plane crash involving F-16 and Cessna in Moncks Corner

By Kelly Bazzle
Published: July 7, 2015, 11:25 am | Updated: July 7, 2015, 12:25 pm

Plane Crash in Moncks Corner

WCBD has confirmed with Berkeley County spokesperson Michael Mule that there has been a plane crash at Lewisfield Plantation in Moncks Corner.

A witness called News 2 and said he saw 2 planes collide in the air and saw a huge explosion, describing it as a “ball of fire in the air.”

WATCH LIVE COVERAGE HERE

A source tells News 2 that an F-16 and a small plane were involved in the crash and Berkeley County Fire has confirmed the crash involved an F-16 and a Cessna. The pilot of the F-16 ejected.


Plane crash involving F-16 and Cessna in Moncks Corner (http://counton2.com/2015/07/07/plane-crash-involving-f-16-and-cessna-in-moncks-corner/)

[Airbubba]

Pictures in the link above show the F-16 afterburner nozzle resting against the side of a camper. The live feed mentions an unconfirmed report that the fighter pilot has been found and that some of the wreckage may be in the water.

A command post has been set up at the Big Lots in Monck's Corner, SC off highway 52.

[B2N2]

That's bad.
Curious about the cause, obviously.
Airspace, transponders, civilian or military ATC.
All will be looked at.

[Airbubba]

It appears that the F-16 pilot has been found.

From the Berkeley County EMS channel 'tell other units to slow their runs, the pilot is Cat 3.'

He will be transported to Shaw AFB according to the radio discussion.

_____________________________________

Some better news, it now appears that the 'no transport' and 'Cat 3' call means the pilot was unhurt, not deceased as I first incorrectly surmised! :ok:

[Moose Loadie]

Appears the F16 was from Shaw AB and shooting instrument approaches to CHS. Cessna had just taken off from our small local airport.

Latest news conference states that the Viper pilot is fine and being checked out at CHS before they return him to Shaw. Multiple agencies are searching for the Cessna occupants as much of the wreckage came down in the river.

[Piper_Driver]

USA Today is now reporting 2 DOAs in the C150. RIP

[p.j.m]

Appears the F16 was from Shaw AB and shooting instrument approaches to CHS. Cessna had just taken off from our small local airport.

Why would the F16 be flying so low around a local airport?

[Piper_Driver]

Military aircraft shoot practice instrument approaches all the time at our local airport. They usually use the VOR approach instead of the ILS. There should be ATC tapes available if an instrument approach was being conducted.

[Super VC-10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Moncks_Corner_mid-air_collision

[Cubs2jets]

I have to say that I am stunned ! Barely more than 12 hours since the accident and there is a Wikipedia entry on it ???

C2j

[deptrai]

and the wikipedia entry is already misleading: "The National Transportation Safety Board has opened an investigation into the accident. They passed the investigation over to the United States Air Force. The Federal Aviation Administration have also opened an investigation."...claiming the FAA is investigating, and the NTSB handed over the investigation to the USAF...I'm pretty sure the NTSB will investigate this, and while the Air Force certainly will cooperate and also do their own internal investigation, I doubt they're in charge here.

[HookEcho]

The F16 was practicing instrument approaches in to Charleston, but also may have been on a low-level IR route. The IR route is very close to the accident site.

The 150 was departing the airport 17nm North of Charleston and headed to Myrtle Beach (opposite direction). From the location of the site, the 150 may have been in a climbing left hand turn. He was outside of the Class C, so he may not have been talking to anyone (yet).

[lomapaseo]

Typically a shared investigation (NTSB, USAF, FAA)

There is a need for ATC stuff, pilot Briefings and of course wreckage examination.

Shouldn't be too hard for the USAF to sort out the angles of impact from the recovered F16 (I'm in serious doubt about the witness statements)

[Super VC-10]

Wikipedia entry has been amended, source was wrong originally.

[Niner Lima Charlie]

Wikipedia entry still has errors.

The Cessna was a C-150M, N3601V. Occupants of the Cessna were Michael Johnson, 68, and his son Joseph Johnson, 30, the owner and pilot of the Cessna 150M.

One witness said the F-16 dropped (jettisoned) three fuel tanks and continued to fly a short distance, loosing altitude, before the pilot ejected.

[Dimitrii]

Feel free to update the Wikipedia article. That is why it was created so quickly. They didn't have to wait for some authority to approve or create it for them. If you can reference your source (just look how the others are done) you will be even more thanked. I am the one that removed the "They passed the investigation over to the United States Air Force."

[RadarContactLost]

loosing ????
I assume you meant "losing"?

[Super VC-10]

The names of the deceased are accurately reported per the source used, the Canadian Broadcasting Commission.

Cessna 150, F-16 collision: Body of passenger found as search for pilot continues - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cessna-150-f-16-collision-body-of-passenger-found-as-search-for-pilot-continues-1.3143521)

[gchriste]

Why are we even discussing who can more accurately update a Wiki about someones death :=

[Intruder]

Dunno why anyone considers it necessary to start a wiki...

[gchriste]

Dunno why anyone considers it necessary to start a wiki...

My guess is it is driven by the "look at me, I was first to create a page on the Interwebs" mentality.

So very sad when that pleasure is being derived from the tragic death of two people.

[Super VC-10]

Sorry, but you guys are missing the point, which is that if an error is made known, it is correctable. IMHO, none of those involved should be named, as they are not individually notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article (AFAIK). I will be raising this point over at Wikipedia with the intention of getting them removed.
I created the article, not to glory in the death of those involved, but to form a record of the accident for future generations. It goes without saying that I wish there was no article to write, but since there is, at least it should be as accurate as possible.
It is a possibility that there will be a major change in the way the American military operate, as there was in the UK following the 1974 mid-air over Norfolk. Time will tell.

[Machinbird]

It is a possibility that there will be a major change in the way the American military operate, as there was in the UK following the 1974 mid-air over Norfolk.
Actually, we had one of those events a few years back. See the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706
That is why the F-16 was almost certainly operating inside the ATC system when the accident occurred.

[Intruder]

A "record of the accident for future generations" will be available at the NTSB and the USAF Safety Center. They will be created when the relevant facts are discovered and analyzed.

IMO, wikipedia is NOT the proper repository of such records, because of the high probability of errors in the reporting.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

I may not live long enough to read the official reports on this accident, so I appreciate all of you who have contributed info from news reports, local knowledge, similar incidents, and Wikipedia, despite the high probability of errors in the reporting. I factor that in. As has been pointed out, Wikipedia has the advantage that errors can be easily corrected. That doesn't happen with news reports or PPruNe posts. And an interesting thing, those official reports sometimes seem a bit politically skewed. For example, the hair-raising F-16 vs Cessna 172 N73829 near Tampa that OK465 cited. Read it and see if you agree that the poor Cessna pilot was in any way responsible, or even ATC. And I'm a USAF veteran. Ignoring the high probability of errors, Kathryn's Report has a good article on this incident and mentions that “Both aircraft had operable transponders". Please continue to contribute any info on this accident you find, that's why I read PPRuNe.

[Niner Lima Charlie]

The yellow airplane you see on Kathryn's web page is not a Cessna 150M. It is a Piper PA-22, either a Tri-Pacer or Colt.

[Super VC-10]

The names have been removed from the article. :O

[rottenray]

Intruder (http://www.pprune.org/members/15686-intruder)

IMO, wikipedia is NOT the proper repository of such records, because of the high probability of errors in the reporting. Wikipedia is what WE make it, and it is ultimately more accessible than the NTSB site.

If you have grief with the accuracy, log in and fix it.

Frankly, if that's your only contribution to this thread, go to bed.

----

Sorry, but you guys are missing the point, which is that if an error is made known, it is correctable.

BTW - Thanks, VC, for helping to make information much more accessible. Hats off, buy you a drink sometime...

[Petercwelch]

Was the F16 in contact with approach? Was the traffic called? Was the Cessna in contact with approach. We all know see and avoid can be difficult, esp. with fast airplanes. Some problems are unavoidable and the fickle finger of fate intervenes.

[7478ti]

This recent F-16 and C150 collision could turn out to be as important as the PSA B727 midair, or the Allegheny DC9 Cherokee collision at KIND, ...to finally lead to long needed evolution of our obsolete airspace system, and improvement of our separation processes. The collision again points out the significant risk still inherent in our present antiquated Air Traffic Separation processes, still depending on a mixture of "see and be seen" and hand carrying 1:1 radar vectors, or even procedural separation, which is now becoming increasingly impractical with small UAVs operating in global airspace and the continued mix of VFR VMC traffic with IFR VMC traffic. Instead, now with the ability to electronically exchange trajectories (e.g., RNP based via data links) at very low cost and high reliability, it may be time to start to move to electronic flight rules (EFR) and phase out VFR, VMC, IFR, and IMC as such, so as to be able to safely assure economic airspace access for any users, but with vastly improved separation assurance. Bottom line is that not only may starting a Wikipedia entry for this tragic event now be appropriate, but with the FAA hearings pending this fall considering the split up of FAA, and the formulation of a long needed separate ANSP that is more accountable to the airspace users, this could become a watershed historic event regardless of the ultimate assignment of responsibility or contributing factors.

[Intruder]

The "evolution of our obsolete airspace system" to a semblance of "electronic flight rules" is already underway, with the upcoming mandate of ADSB-out. However, due to cost, standards, and performance issues, there is still a LOT of pushback in General Aviation.

The FAA itself is as much to blame, with the continuing failure of their contractors to perform on the contracts to update the ATC software so it is capable of handling the ADSB load. The US is FAR behind much of the world in implementing ADS-C and CPDLC over the contiguous 48 states. It's been working in Alaska for years, and even Canada has it working over most of the country now. The new radar system for the enroute centers went on line a month or 2 ago, so I guess there's finally SOME real progress...

[westhawk]

Ahh, the old privatization of ATC argument again... :rolleyes: Yeah, I know that certain airlines, political lobbies and unions favor the idea. They have their reasons.

But there is no good reason to believe this accident would have been any less likely to occur under a private corporation run ATC system than a government run one. In fact, it's the regulations that determine regulatory airspace structure and operating rules. Which entity provides ATC services does not appear to be relevant to this instance. The previous airline vs GA accidents were addressed by airspace and equipments rule changes and appear to have prevented recurrences. Getting speared by military aircraft is a separate issue requiring military regulation changes.

This collision appears to have happened outside of airspace requiring contact with ATC and outside the airspace requiring mode C altitude reporting. It would have been somewhat less likely to have happened with an airliner or bizjet due to the requirement that most such aircraft be equipped with TCAS. US fighter jets and most light aircraft are not required to be so equipped. However most certificated Cessnas of that vintage are equipped with Mode C altitude reporting even though it is not necessarily required if they remain outside airspace requiring it. The area where the collision occurred appears to be one of those areas.

If the Cessna was squawking mode C, the crew of a TCAS equipped aircraft would have received an RA. Without TCAS, an F-16 would rely upon ATC separation, the Mark I eyeball and whichever model of target tracking RADAR they are equipped with. (If switched ON) Older models of F-16 not upgraded with newer RADAR units would have a more difficult time spotting targets below them in the clutter than those equipped with the upgraded units.

My point is that there are holes in the rules that leave the mid-air collision threat wide open in certain situations. To a very high degree, "big sky" theory and the Mark I eyeball remain the last line of defense in those situations. And in some airspace and equipage scenarios, that's all there is folks. In these instances, only extreme vigilance, practiced scanning and some good fortune act to protect one from the collision threat. Venture outside positive control airspace and the rules allow non-participating aircraft that ATC is not required by rule to separate you from. See and avoid is the law of the land and the primary protection in these instances. Until such time as ALL airspace is declared positive control, it will remain so.

The better news is that the ADS-B mandate will close some of the holes. The not so good news is that the emerging UAS industry pressure applied to congress may have the effect of exempting allot of UAVs from those same rules!

Stay sharp.

westhawk

[7478ti]

While it is true that conceptually there is no theoretical difference between the ability of a governmental run ATS system, a Quasi-Governmental run ATS system, or a privatized ATS system to provide safe efficient and economical separation service to all air vehicles, ...the fact of the matter is that the second order effects and biases of the present seriously deficient FAA led system have been disastrous, in both failing to accommodate user ATS needs at an affordable cost, discouraging safety improvements, while blocking capability increases and cost reductions in ATS service provision, that are all now possible with modern technology. We now have the means to reduce user and ANSP costs by likely an order of magnitude. But with ATS buried in FAA, with no substantial airspace user input and oversight, NextGen is spinning out of control (e.g., completely inappropriate criteria and a 2020 deadline, that will not work now, or ever) and hence is heading toward a $40B failure. Hopefully the recent F-16 vs. C150 event, as tragic as it was, will now at least serve as a catalyst, to spur the needed dialogue for ATS massive change in the US and globally, just as the Grand Canyon event did back in '56, or Allegheny 853 on Sept 9 1969. Long live the memory of AL853's Capt. Jim Elrod, who in his and his crew and passenger's death, essentially found himself in the exact same place as that F-16 pilot, but with no ejection seat. Let's learn from this recent F-16/C150 event, and have the courage to move forward with the massive re-design of a failing and poorly formulated Nextgen. We can do much better, at far lower cost, with much higher safety, for both our F-16s and our C150s, let alone our RJs, B777s and A350s.

[HookEcho]

"Was the F16 in contact with approach? Was the traffic called? Was the Cessna in contact with approach. We all know see and avoid can be difficult, esp. with fast airplanes. Some problems are unavoidable and the fickle finger of fate intervenes."

The F16 was shooting approaches into Charleston on a IFR plan, so he was "heads down" and talking to ATC. The 150 was departing a satellite airport just outside of the Class C shelf and was legally not talking to anyone, nor was he required to. The 150 was probably in a left hand climbing turn.

My guess is that it happened too quickly for ATC to see the C150 pop up on radar.

[7478ti]

That is exactly the point!!! Trying to have a human air traffic separation specialist still hand carry "radar vector" airplanes 1:1, with duplex voice, based on outdated or missing data that can never be real time at any feasible fully allocated cost, with a backup of "see and be seen" with a high speed jet flying into into a hazy day sunset, trying to see a C150, or LSA, or glider, or now 3 ft wingspan UAV,... is just nuts!

Current US ATS is pure and simple obsolete for any modern requirements and safety expectations from LSAs, to parachutists, to gliders, to A380s and F22s. The cost per unit separation service is at least one order of magnitude if not more orders of magnitude higher than modern technology with RNP, data links, and automated conflict probe and resolution now readily permits (IF WE HAVE THE PROPER CRITERIA and benefits allocation PUT IN PLACE).

Further, the airport runway capacity per unit time, per acre, per dollar is abysmally low, even at our busiest facilities like KORD and KATL, especially in convective WX. We can do much better, safer, and at lower cost, with many of the CNS tools already at hand (like 3D and 4D RNP, data links, RTA, and automated trajectory separation with conflict probe and resolution), if they're just combined and used the proper way (but NOT as in NextGen).

Now with the advent of UAVs, it is critical that ATS be rethought from first principles, ...just as the phone companies re-designed the phone system in the '50s, and as cellular technology displaced land lines.

Not only is the obsolete ATS configuration that facilitated this sad F-16/C150 event obsolete, but even NextGen's present exceedingly poor design is nothing but a warmed over 1950's version of ADS-B fueled "Pseudo radar", still essentially using hand carried radar vectors. It will be nothing but the modern day equivalent of having a carbon-boron composite nuclear/solar powered automated buggy whip.

[OK465]

Couple of comments about 'head down' instrument work in single-seaters while VMC and also comments about infallible airspace....

This single fighter 'instrument approach practice' scenario struck me as somewhat unusual in that in cases of truly flying instrument practice in the single-seaters, we normally provided for a safety chase. If the type had a two-seater, this was the preferred instrument trainer in the fighters I'm familiar with, the safety pilot being in the front seat. However, even in the single-seater, you do not necessarily have to be 'head down' as such to fly instruments.

With respect to the P/D radar, even the early F-16A radar did not have a problem with ground clutter and was always utilized to provide traffic situation awareness when 'cruising' about if serviceable. There are certain isolated situations where a return may temporarily not be displayed however.

The mil has spent a lot of money on Auto-GCAS to prevent CFIT, but evidently don't feel the same urgency with respect to TCAS.

ADS-B 'out' will be an improvement, but still provides overall situation awareness to the controllers only. In a perfect world everyone would also have ADS-B 'in'. Don't hold your breath.

And I personally think 'VFR non-participation' should always be available to GA, it's the American way, but you takes your chances....and potentially someone else's.

[7478ti]

Yes the F-16 radar could theoretically have spotted the C150 if the pilot had the time to share the complexity of single-seat jet high speed flying duties with added radar operation too, as well as at the same time still assuring "see and be seen", to the extent possible, ... all when he thought ATS was comprehensively providing separation service.

But the long term backup separation CAS solution is ADS-B related automated and nearly instantaneous 3D or 4D RNP based trajectory exchange among vehicles, WITHOUT ANY NEED for any ATS intervention (and NOT the severely flawed poorly designed FAA 91.227 version of ADS-B, which is still both fatally flawed as well as overdesigned, in many respects). Also noteworthy, is the fact that TCAS as presently designed, while it is an excellent tool as a start, particularly for expensive high speed aircraft, is presently far too expensive, too heavy, and is even too limited in capability, and spectrum inefficient, for either the needs of F16s, LSAs, UAVs, or even B777s, and A350s for the long term.

So the type of ADS-B needed for that C150, and everybody else in low end GA too, was a small, light, low cost unit (maybe even portable) of under $500, and NOT needing FAA's absurd overspecified, excessively costly, inappropriate 91.227 driven NIC and NAC, that can be placed on every vehicle in mixed airspace. That way any vehicle from LSAs to parachutists, to UAVs,... could have been visible to higher speed traffic. With a simple device like that on every manned air vehicle, it would have allowed for simple display of cooperative traffic and trajectory assessment on the F16, WITHOUT ANY need for ADS-R (hence the needed move to EFR, and no longer dependence on either VFR or IFR). Fire control radars typically have a difficult time spotting and reliably tracking some very small low speed GA aircraft and distinguishing them from birds, let alone seeing very tiny UAVs. So only then, with a better low cost ADS-B solution, and cooperative automated conflict probe and resolution by ATS (based on RNP trajectories or RNP volumes for certain kinds of airspace operations) and data links for their exchange, with use in most mixed airspace, will there be any reasonable probability that we can economically keep F-16s from running down C150s or gliders, or B777s or A350s from fatally ingesting errant "link lost" tiny wingspan UAVs into their GE90-115Bs or Trent 7000s, such as while flying into a sunset landing on 25L at KLAX, or popping out of a puffy cumulus or cloud deck, as fatally happened to AL853 descending into KIND in September of 1969.

[OK465]

Yes the F-16 radar could theoretically have spotted the C150 if the pilot had the time to share the complexity of single-seat jet high speed flying duties with added radar operation too, as well as at the same time still assuring "see and be seen",

Last time I was in the business, this was part of the job description for single-seat fighter pilot.

This was not:

all when he thought ATS was comprehensively providing separation service

But I agree to some extent here:

So the type of ADS-B needed for that C150, and everybody else in low end GA too, was a small, light, low cost unit (maybe even portable) of under $500

....and a good cheap cigar. :)

[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.

[India Four Two]

The Cessna had taken off from Berkeley County (MKS) and the F16 was planning an approach to Charleston (CHS). The crash site is about 3 nm southeast of MKS (west of the NS river), well outside of the CHS Class C.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/5547237cc3056b93e050f4938ec88c7b_zpsbbfqke5b.jpg

[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]

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 is out.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=1&queryId=9fe64f04-a22b-4e4e-a509-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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[India Four Two]

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?

[olasek]

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.

[ATC Watcher]

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.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

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.

[GlobalNav]

CHS is also an Air Force Base - the F-16 might have only been on UHF.

[porterhouse]

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.

[Ian W]

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.

[OK465]

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.

[7478ti]

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.

[OK465]

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.

[porterhouse]

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.

[galaxy flyer]

Heck, one can fly uncontrolled IFR in IMC within 25 nm of Heathrow. Inbound to Farnborough.

GF

[7478ti]

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.

[olasek]

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. :}

[gums]

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.

[West Coast]

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.

[7478ti]

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.

[olasek]

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?

[7478ti]

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.

[gums]

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.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o196/gatlingums/rightwing.jpg

sluf.org/misc_pages/lef-landing.m4v

[deefer dog]

Nice - hat off to you gums:ok:

[TampaSLF]

Gums,
Nicely done. Thanks for sharing.
:ok:

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

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.

[gums]

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.

[7478ti]

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!

[West Coast]

Gums

How long did it take to return it to an airworthy status? Nicely done!

[gums]

@ 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?

[MarcK]

I also note the Cessna had a decent IFF. Just wish he would have been talking with ATC, huh?
Just who would he be talking to? Area controllers aren't interested unless you are on a flight plan, or at least request flight following, which implies you are going to a particular destination -- not just flying around.

[7478ti]

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.

[ATC Watcher]

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.

[West Coast]

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.

[lomapaseo]

Does it make a difference in this discussion as to who hit who or vector angle of impact ?

[gums]

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!!!!!

[lomapaseo]

Gums

I agree with everything you said. I was just asking a question from anybody whether going into the the forensics of this strike serves any purpose?

[airman1900]

gums:

Well, loma, the F-16 was in contact with ATC and on a published approch to Charleston.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.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&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.

[airman1900]

From the NTSB Preliminary report NTSB Identification: ERA15FA259A

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...07X22207&key=1 (http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&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.Perhaps the Cessna was passing more from the F-16's right to left than the "opposite direction" the controller advised.

[lomapaseo]

Perhaps the Cessna was passing more from the F-16's right to left than the "opposite direction" the controller advised.

This appears also to correlate with the damage to the F16, for whatever it's worth.

A agree that whatever damage, it's obviously secondary to the cause, but in some cases it might help understand the causal factors

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

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.