F-16 & Cessna mid-air over SC

[xcraftllc]

It's not I was saying it's always a good idea to be up with flight following, although not technically illegal not to be. Also from further looking into the actual report, it appears that ATC might have more or less vectored the F-16 into the area in the first place. Still too early to tell.

[Gravedigger]

The simple truth is that in aviation, sometimes accidents happen despite the best intentions/efforts of the pilots involved. Flight following is a pain in the ass, and growing up flying in KATL's Class B, it was typically the last thing any controller wanted to help with. My home airport was 8 miles north of KMGE and we had F-22s, F-16s and C-130s, combined with the busiest airport in the world, and two of the busiest GA airports in the country. In spite of that, there we never any middairs. Maybe the congestion kept everyone's head on a swivel.

[Jughead]

I don't know if <30 seconds counts as delayed compliance. Especially if he didn't hear/register the 2 miles part. Especially while heads down in a single seat fighter. You don't usually get point outs as late as 2 miles for co-altitude, opposite direction traffic.

On the one hand, the controller used the word "immediately"....

Pilot/Controller Glossary

IMMEDIATELY- Used by ATC or pilots when such

action compliance is required to avoid an imminent

situation.

On the other hand, he muddied the waters by encasing the instruction with "IF you don't see...," etc. [emphasis added], instead of simply giving the instruction.

I suspect a lot of the investigation will focus on the ambiguous wording of the instructions. Sad results, no matter the chain of events or where/in whom fault is found....

[DISCLAIMER: I know nothing about this accident beyond what is posted here & elsewhere in the public domain; my knowledge of what was/wasn't said over the radios is limited to the linked article.]

[icohftb]

In retrospect it appears that a climb would have been more appropriate to avoid that traffic.

[xcraftllc]

In retrospect it appears that a climb would have been more appropriate to avoid that traffic.

Indeed, I wonder why ATC didn't suggest it.

I read through the script again and it looks like the controller should have advised a northern heading with a climb in order to get both vertical and lateral separation. The controller said to turn left heading 180 immediately, and the Viper began a turn to the south but that only seems to have put it right in front of the Cessna, whereas a right turn to 360 would have put it further away. One could say that when ATC told the viper that the traffic was passing below at 1400 feet, the viper should have climbed immediately since it was only at 1500 feet, but the collision occurred 2 seconds later so who knows, might have been too late. Either way the altitude readings were off, maybe a fault on the Cessna's mode C or an altimeter setting issue. Frankly, the vector to the south with no altitude increase is very strange. I guess maybe if the viper banked 90 degrees and did a 9g turn to 180 it would have avoided the Cessna, but a northern turn with a climb would have made a lot more sense, especially since the Cessna's track was 110 (slightly south).

Edit: To clarify what I meant about the 9g turn, ATC said turn 180, and the viper made a total of 45* of heading change (from a 260 to a 215) over the course of 18 seconds, which is just 3 seconds slower than a standard rate turn of 3* per second (probably 3 seconds of looking for the Cessna) which is normal for instrument flight. 18 seconds might seem like forever for a 9g capable aircraft to turn just 45 degrees, but he was flying instruments and being vectored by ATC, not performing an airshow.

Edited July 20, 2015 by xcraftllc

[matmacwc]

Holy Monday morning f'ing quarterback.

1.). If you are a USAF pilot and haven't flown an F prefix, read your post, and think carefully if it applies.

2.). If you are in pilot training, just punch yourself in the balls and go back to the correct forum, not this one.

3.) If you have never flown a USAF airplane, read your post, delete it, punch yourself in the balls, and realize we don't care, a few of your FARs are trumped by our -1's. (not that you know what that is).

4.). We don't know who is right or wrong in this situation, we will not know for about 30 days but will never share that info on this forum. The AIB and NTSB will come up with something and hopefully it is close to the SIB, but this forum will never know.

Back to guessing who killed Kennedy.

[DirkDiggler]

Holy Monday morning f'ing quarterback.

1.). If you are a USAF pilot and haven't flown an F prefix, read your post, and think carefully if it applies.

2.). If you are in pilot training, just punch yourself in the balls and go back to the correct forum, not this one.

3.) If you have never flown a USAF airplane, read your post, delete it, punch yourself in the balls, and realize we don't care, a few of your FARs are trumped by our -1's. (not that you know what that is).

4.). We don't know who is right or wrong in this situation, we will not know for about 30 days but will never share that info on this forum. The AIB and NTSB will come up with something and hopefully it is close to the SIB, but this forum will never know.

Back to guessing who killed Kennedy.

Well said

[Azimuth]

I personally don't have any experience flying around in anything going faster than about 160 knots as of yet, I guess I'll be able to relate when I get to T-38s.

Never miss an opportunity to STFU...

[discus]

Would have never happens if the Viper had a Flight Engineer.

[HossHarris]

We have them, they just stay on the ground.

[whall85]

Holy Monday morning f'ing quarterback.

1.). If you are a USAF pilot and haven't flown an F prefix, read your post, and think carefully if it applies.

2.). If you are in pilot training, just punch yourself in the balls and go back to the correct forum, not this one.

3.) If you have never flown a USAF airplane, read your post, delete it, punch yourself in the balls, and realize we don't care, a few of your FARs are trumped by our -1's. (not that you know what that is).

4.). We don't know who is right or wrong in this situation, we will not know for about 30 days but will never share that info on this forum. The AIB and NTSB will come up with something and hopefully it is close to the SIB, but this forum will never know.

Back to guessing who killed Kennedy.

Big "2" on this one.

[icohftb]

I used to scoff tcas since we have a radar and an interrogator and it's next to useless when you're maneuvering. However this does make me wonder if it would be worth the cost to add. Not sure how complicated it is but heck we got them on 38s now.

[Smokin]

I'm constantly surprised how few people realize that fighters don't have TCAS. If it's outside my radar coverage and ATC hasn't put it on the link, the only thing I have are my Mark 1 eyeballs.

[brabus]

However this does make me wonder if it would be worth the cost to add. Not sure how complicated it is but heck we got them on 38s now

Lots of time and money we don't have to spend (or want to spend because this is low priority stuff in a fighter, as it should be).

[HossHarris]

Hell, even if it's within the radar coverage if it was small, slow, in the beam, or made of fiberglass (damn gliders) it was invisible.

[HuggyU2]

Lots of time and money we don't have to spend (or want to spend because this is low priority stuff in a fighter, as it should be).

I understand your point that items like ADS-B do not improve your combat capes. But DoD aircraft do not operate in a vacuum.

Since all of us that fly have to live in the same playground to play safely, the AF cannot put its head in the sand and ignore it: the ADS-B mandate happens in 53 months. What exactly is their plan? Asking for waivers indefinitely is not a plan. Mike Huerta has already said "not a chance". And with the expected reaction in aviation circles once the F-16 mid-air investigation is released, the AF will have a very difficult time getting any traction or support with congress in delaying it.

Money is very tight... got it. But that excuse simply will not fly, no pun intended.

We should probably drag this conversation over to the ADS-B thread.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Huggyu2

[jcj]

It's not I was saying it's always a good idea to be up with flight following, although not technically illegal not to be. Also from further looking into the actual report, it appears that ATC might have more or less vectored the F-16 into the area in the first place. Still too early to tell.

(.civ pilot viewpoint) The other issue with flight following is ATC can terminate you anytime they are too busy to provide flight following or for other reasons. it's an "if resources are available after managing IFR traffic" kind of resource. IFR traffic separation has priority.

Several years ago, we had a guy going cross country (VFR on flight following) across our state in a Cessna 180. He was a "VFR-only" pilot, and the slowly lowering ceiling and some gently rising flat terrain as he was flying southeast eventually forced him below radar coverage, leading to "FastFlight 1234, radar service terminated, squawk 1200, frequency change approved". ATC didn't pick up any clue that the 180 was in trouble, nor would they be from his confident-sounding voice and lack of mention of trouble on the radio. After being dropped from flight following, he then continued into scud-running until he crashed killing all occupants about 10 miles from where they terminated his flight following. Because his termination from flight following was a "routine" transaction (as opposed to someone falling off radar while on an IFR flight plan) , it took overnight to go back through the radio and radar data to figure out exactly where his flight following was terminated.

I absolutely understand that there were other major issues, and the lack of flight following in no way caused his crash. I understand and appreciate the concept of VFR flight following, but if I'm ever in an environment where I think VFR flight following is necessary, I'm filing IFR. At least they can't drop me from an IFR flight plan without my consent (and yes, I get it not everyone can file IFR - but I am grateful that I can). And yes I am a little too anal about this stuff for my own good).

Edited July 30, 2015 by jcj

[brabus]

I understand your point that items like ADS-B do not improve your combat capes. But DoD aircraft do not operate in a vacuum.

Money/time should always be prioritized on what keeps me alive in combat while allowing me to win the fight, NOT on providing civilian joe a poor man's Link-16 surveillance feed. I'm absolutely not against ADS-B and think it's a great concept/system, but there's about a 1000 good reasons why it's low on the list for some mil aircraft.

I'm sure it'll eventually get shoved down our throats (sts), but it's going to be a long time.

[magnetfreezer]

Plus the downside of having all military traffic available for analysis on flightradar24.com or to civilian Joe with a $20 USB stick.

[HuggyU2]

Brabus,

I'm guessing you are somewhat unfamiliar with NextGen. It isn't just for civilian Joe. Or civilian Huggy. And I get the fact that you're an ACC-trained killer and "anything else is rubbish".

But the reality is that the USAF operates in American airspace as well as combat zones. And the FAA regulates American airspace. And whether you or COMACC likes it or not, it is going to be a fight for the next 53+ months if the AF continues to push back on this.

The prioritization of "what keeps you alive in combat" has never been even close to perfect. That's why, instead of spending more time in the vault, you spend that time doing CBT's, SARC briefs, PT tests that measure nothing meaningful, and the myriad of other queep that is driving mission-oriented people from many facets of the military. But I digress.

I certainly don't know how this ADS-B issue will play out. But based on the FAA's stance coupled with the fallout from the F-16 mid-air, I personally wouldn't bet it would be "a long time" before you see it.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Huggyu2

[Mark1]

Money/time should always be prioritized on what keeps me alive in combat while allowing me to win the fight, NOT on providing civilian joe a poor man's Link-16 surveillance feed. I'm absolutely not against ADS-B and think it's a great concept/system, but there's about a 1000 good reasons why it's low on the list for some mil aircraft.

I'm sure it'll eventually get shoved down our throats (sts), but it's going to be a long time.

I must have missed the paragraph in the commissioning oath that prioritized your safety over that of the people behind the document that you swore to defend.

I always thought the entire point was that you voluntarily sacrificed a level of your own personal safety in order to provide it for the citizens you serve. That could take the form of forgoing the latest and greatest RWR variant in favor of something that makes you less of a hazard in civilian airspace.

However, we wouldn't want to go out of our way to provide a 'service' to civilian joe [or equivalent slightly belittling term for your employer]. That's just not what the military is in the business to do.

Get over yourself.

P.S. If it's any consolation, your MWS hasn't seen combat in well over a decade and most probably never will again. Re-purposing funds away from combat systems and towards FAA/ICAO airspace compatibility probably increases your survivability.

[brabus]

Way to blow it out of context Mark. Don't make this a philosophical argument about service, volunteering, blah blah - that is not even remotely what this topic is about.

1. Fighters are NOT the hazard, the dud not squawking/talking and flying IVO/through "busy" airspace is. The lack of education for many GA pilots is. It's not their fault...I also had zero SA when I predominantly flew GA back in the day; I didn't know what I didn't know. Unfortunately that applies to a lot of GA pilots putting around in a 150/172, whether you want to admit it or not. There are a lot of high SA, good GA pilots, but they are not the majority (and many of those are mil/prior mil or airline-type guys).

1a. Again, one midair between a mil aircraft and a civilian and you blow your gasket - show me anything statistically relevant that demonstrates mil aircraft are dangerous/a hazard to civilian pilots.

2. You have no idea what you're talking about (we'll come back to this again)...it's not about "just losing an RWR". You have zero SA on how acq/procurement works, what it cost in time or money to procure extremely important items, and how we already lose out on potential great capes because of the first two parts. So when you look at a list of things we need, something like ADS-B is well down the line, for good operational reason. After all, that's what the military is for, to fight and win wars, not have to sacrifice capability because civilian joe can't be bothered to communicate with ATC via voice or at minimum electronically.

3. DFresh mentioned one of the good reasons it's bad - read that.

4. You have no idea what you're talking about as you clearly have incredibly through-the-basement low SA, as "my MDS" has been at combat since about 1990. My MDS will be in combat through nearly 2050 - so yes, it's very important to keep up with emerging threats and improve current capabilities, even for the current fight, as this is not just a soap box for "the next war."

5. I routinely fly in a very congested civilian area, so I'm very familiar. Turns out decent ATC, all of my sensors (including my eyeball) are pretty effective at avoiding conflicts. Far more effective then some guy in a C150 glued to a small screen (not looking outside) trying to figure what to do about this blip going 400 kts, then he hits someone else as he's task saturated staring at my blip (the guy who already knew he was there 10 miles ago)...great.

Edited July 30, 2015 by brabus

[Mark1]

Way to blow it out of context Mark. Don't make this a philosophical argument about service, volunteering, blah blah - that is not even remotely what this topic is about.

1. Fighters are NOT the hazard, the dud not squawking/talking and flying IVO/through "busy" airspace is. The lack of education for many GA pilots is. It's not their fault...I also had zero SA when I predominantly flew GA back in the day; I didn't know what I didn't know. Unfortunately that applies to a lot of GA pilots putting around in a 150/172, whether you want to admit it or not. There are a lot of high SA, good GA pilots, but they are not the majority (and many of those are mil/prior mil or airline-type guys).

1a. Again, one midair between a mil aircraft and a civilian and you blow your gasket - show me anything statistically relevant that demonstrates mil aircraft are dangerous/a hazard to civilian pilots.

2. You have no idea what you're talking about (we'll come back to this again)...it's not about "just losing an RWR". You have zero SA on how acq/procurement works, what it cost in time or money to procure extremely important items, and how we already lose out on potential great capes because of the first two parts. So when you look at a list of things we need, something like ADS-B is well down the line, for good operational reason. After all, that's what the military is for, to fight and win wars, not have to sacrifice capability because civilian joe can't be bothered to communicate with ATC via voice or at minimum electronically.

3. DFresh mentioned one of the good reasons it's bad - read that.

4. You have no idea what you're talking about as you clearly have incredibly through-the-basement low SA, as "my MDS" has been at combat since about 1990. My MDS will be in combat through nearly 2050 - so yes, it's very important to keep up with emerging threats and improve current capabilities, even for the current fight, as this is not just a soap box for "the next war."

5. I routinely fly in a very congested civilian area, so I'm very familiar. Turns out decent ATC, all of my sensors (including my eyeball) are pretty effective at avoiding conflicts. Far more effective then some guy in a C150 glued to a small screen (not looking outside) trying to figure what to do about this blip going 400 kts, then he hits someone else as he's task saturated staring at my blip (the guy who already knew he was there 10 miles ago)...great.

1. An aircraft with limited visual signature moving at 400kts is a (not 'the') hazard, just as every other thing in the sky is a hazard. That's a general comment made with absolutely no reference to the incident that spawned this thread, so unwad your panties.

1a. I made zero reference to any mid-air in my previous post. I did reference a piss poor attitude for a public servant, and not much else. You want a statistically significant demonstration that mil aircraft are a hazard to GA? Reference the link provided on page 1 of this thread about a fatal mid-air between an F-16 and a GA aircraft over South Carolina. Regardless of fault, had the military aircraft not been in that airspace at that instant, there would have been no incident. That's about the definition of a hazard. 1 vs. 0 is always statistically significant as it indicates an event is not impossible. Day 1 - Intro to Statistics. Nailed it.

2. I have no SA on how acquisitions works? I could put you in touch we a few guys at BIG SAFARI that might disagree with you. You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating for ADS-B in the F-16. I am not. To form an opinion on the matter I would have to weigh that course of action against its opportunity cost, which would take time and effort...time and effort that I would demand compensation for. What I am advocating is that you lose the self-centered dismissive tone when someone (not me) suggests an addition to your aircraft that improves its integration into civilian airspace...inevitably at the expense of something else. Because, once again, your precious safety in combat (if you ever see it) does not take priority over non-squawky, non-talky, GA pilot Cleetus.

3. Great. I didn't reference ADS-B for the F-16 in my previous post so I'm sure he makes a bunch of great points that don't conflict at all with what I had to say.

4. No doubt your unit showed you their 'everybody gets a trophy' here's what we've contributed, feel-good video when you in-processed. Every unit has one...from the cooks on up. And they're important. Everybody wants to feel needed. Nevertheless, combat requires the exchange of force by at least two parties. From the F-16 perspective, it's been a one sided affair since the Balkans wound down...well over a decade ago as I stated. Yes, the F-16 has intervened in the combat of guys on the ground in OEF/OIF and elsewhere since then, but only from the comfort of a completely different non-combat environment. And that's fine. It's a necessary contribution and the extent of most members of the AF participation. There's no shame in it. In fact it's quite worthy of a level of pride.

Bottom line: the F-16 has, as of late, been shoehorned into the fray just to 'get in the game' in many places at the expense of (relative) poor coverage for guys on the ground and more tanker orbits, but they've contributed quite a bit...from outside a combat environment.

Don't bother to bring up Libya. You and I both know the details and it doesn't qualify. I'd possibly grant you a few days in 2003 but it's splitting hairs.

5. Cool

Although it was off the cuff and I didn't intend for it to be factual, I'd bet more likely than not that investing in equipment to improve integration into civilian airspace would actually increase survivability in the F-16 over putting that money into combat related systems. Before your panties get all wadded up again, I am not suggesting we do that...but I do think that more likely than not it would hold true. Then again, your survivability is not the priority.

[11F]

Really poor form, Mark1.

I would feel bad if Trojan Gilbert's family read this.

BTW: He died while conducting a strafing run so others might live. (That's combat.)

Calm down, dude and think before you type. We're all on the same team here. No need to frat.

[sqwatch]

Brabus,

I'm guessing you are somewhat unfamiliar with NextGen. It isn't just for civilian Joe. Or civilian Huggy. And I get the fact that you're an ACC-trained killer and "anything else is rubbish".

But the reality is that the USAF operates in American airspace as well as combat zones. And the FAA regulates American airspace. And whether you or COMACC likes it or not, it is going to be a fight for the next 53+ months if the AF continues to push back on this.

The prioritization of "what keeps you alive in combat" has never been even close to perfect. That's why, instead of spending more time in the vault, you spend that time doing CBT's, SARC briefs, PT tests that measure nothing meaningful, and the myriad of other queep that is driving mission-oriented people from many facets of the military. But I digress.

I certainly don't know how this ADS-B issue will play out. But based on the FAA's stance coupled with the fallout from the F-16 mid-air, I personally wouldn't bet it would be "a long time" before you see it.

i think he's just frustrated that before capes upgrades happen, the government will have to spend money on equipment that adds little benefit for safety in a regime of flight fighter aircraft spend little time in.

but you're right- if only those "acc trained killers" would stop worrying about what keeps their asses safe over the combat zone, we could finally have some sweet civil radar feeds! not to mention the "free" in-cockpit weather. what a bunch of meat-heads.