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

Final Report: Near-hit F15C vs F70 2012/04/19 Sylt

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

Final Report: Near-hit F15C vs F70 2012/04/19 Sylt

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 21st Sep 2013, 08:50
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Final Report: Near-hit F15C vs F70 2012/04/19 Sylt

Apologies if this is covered in another thread.

Some quite unusual comments in the report:
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads...ing-en-def.pdf

If USAF(E) was an Airline ... ?
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2013, 14:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nothing particularly unusual about US armed forces refusing to cooperate with other countries' civil investigations. Remember the cowboy that took out the tram lift cable near Aviano?
sb_sfo is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2013, 15:50
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One can hardly pile huge amounts of blame on the F15 guy. This reads like one monumental airspace coordination and planning cock-up.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2013, 19:39
  #4 (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 Cows getting bigger
One can hardly pile huge amounts of blame on the F15 guy. This reads like one monumental airspace coordination and planning cock-up.
Lots of assumptions made -
  • 'it is an active danger area so its sterile for us'
  • 'Everyone knows we allow IFR flights on upper air routes through _our_ danger areas'
  • 'I am receiving a radar service so I will be vectored clear of any traffic'
  • 'The exercise aircraft understand our non-standard phraseology'
  • etc

The plan is to move away from 'static' airspace reservations and air routes toward 'business trajectories' and Flexible Use of Airspace. Exercise areas will be explicitly set up with their own rules and the controllers' conflict detection software will provide deconfliction advice to ensure that aircraft that do not meet the reserved airspace rules avoid the airspace volume. That is the theory anyway

This means that grandfathered-in letters of agreement and memoranda of understanding and even locally developed quick fixes - will be replaced by the FUA protocols. So this type of administrative 'misunderstanding' should not happen in the future airspace systems.

Currently that is the vision for ~10 years time in European airspace.

Last edited by Ian W; 21st Sep 2013 at 19:39. Reason: Formatting
Ian W is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2013, 08:52
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger
One can hardly pile huge amounts of blame on the F15 guy. This reads like one monumental airspace coordination and planning cock-up.
Not sure the F15 pilot comes out completely squeaky clean. But the F15 pilot and his/her controller do seem to have been rather dropped in it.
Two days before the aircraft proximity occurred, he [fighter controller] had expressed his concerns to the fighter allocator regarding the conditions of the exercise, i.e. the location of the regen airfield close to an active airway and the airway itself. The fighter allocator had informed the liaison officer at Leeuwarden Air Base about this. This message did not result in any changes.
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2013, 09:29
  #6 (permalink)  
10W

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crux is whether the F15 pilot received and acknowledged his restriction to fly not above FL320. If he did, then he failed to comply and directly caused the incident. If he didn't, then the fighter controller didn't ensure separation and is the causal factor.

The other planning screw ups and differences of opinion on airspace status and responsibilities are aggravating factors.

It would have been nice to have the RT transcript to see what took place between the fighter controller and the pilot. It would answer the main question.

In my experience, the USAF are usually pretty good at providing information regarding civil vs military incidents to help investigations. Not sure why they were not forthcoming this time.
10W is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2013, 10:20
  #7 (permalink)  
5LY
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
20 years ago I had a near miss with an F-16 over Nurnberg. I could hear the noise of his engines as he passed just under my nose climbing. I'm sure he was messing with us, but it was a shock. I had a 737 full of pax. I filed a near miss report. A few weeks later a report came back saying that according to the Americans I was mistaken.

They cooperate when it suits them.
5LY is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2013, 13:31
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Classic visual in an IFR environment. The fighter is used to operating visually and probably felt comfortable that the collision risk was minimal, the airliner used to IFR felt very differently. The min sep for the fighter would have been 1000' head sector and 500' stern all axis which is not very compatible with 5nm and 1000' vertically.

Not right but just the way it is. It takes the mil to start flying heavies before they realise how vulnerable you can feel. Another example is clipping zones hitting low level.
Schnowzer is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2013, 15:45
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It does seem to indicate a certain contempt that USAFE refused to provide any information to the enquiry. And I doubt if an airliner infringed a military restricted area they'd say "...that's just the way it is". That said, it sounds more error chain than individual negligence.

The most worrying part though, is that it seems to have come as a big surprise to the exercise organisers that the airways( which hadn't been closed) had aircraft using them!

Last edited by ShotOne; 23rd Sep 2013 at 17:47.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2013, 16:24
  #10 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,156
Received 229 Likes on 69 Posts
Sly. I have to agree with you. Many years ago I was involved in a formation of three F111s. Two went down the portside and one the starboard. I filed an airmiss report and it was downgraded to a sighting, because according to the USAF "the airliner rocked its wings, indicating it had seen the formation". Considering that the time between sighting and passing was less than five seconds, how much wing-rocking can the average airliner do?
Herod is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



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.