F-16 & Cessna mid-air over SC

[Ram]

Mark1 is just out of his element. No need to get overly upset.

I can't deny that his motivation is justified, and I know it's all well-intentioned. However, he's way out of his lane to suggest that the merits of ADS-B for the Viper outweigh already planned and pipelined developments to the F-16 avionics suite.

You see, there are a couple problems that jump out at me right away when it comes to this:

1. The MMC (modular mission computer) on the Viper has been running on fumes for years. We're talking about 1980s technology attempting to process WAY more code than it was designed for, and the "brain" of the jet can barely keep up now with the level of information exchange that is supposed to happen on the battlefield. We have ALREADY overtasked that computer just to keep it "combat compliant" with what's expected of a modern pointy-nose asset. Yes, Lockheed is part of the problem, as any physical MMC upgrades are going to come at a hefty cost that we're not willing to pay. I'm sure ADS-B could be stand-alone (mostly) in the Viper, especially in the case of an "out-only" installation, but that system is still going to have to talk to the nav gear in the jet. The goddamn EGI already has issues, and I'm sure one more element in the equation ain't going to help.

2. The way a Viper is wired (literally, the fucking WIRES for components) is a complete shit-show. In the Viper, you have a 1990s era information exchange architecture that can't handle more data. Period dot. Viper CAPES might have helped this, but we won't get that because: money.

3. The Viper is a SEAD asset, and that means it carries gear that's sensitive to EM interference. This might come as a surprise to some, but you can't just slap a gizmo on a Viper (or anything) and expect it to work the way it did before unless there's a shitload of testing and reprogramming of the systems (and associated computing architecture) that are designed to listen to beeps and squeaks. Like running a vacuum cleaner on the same circuit as a cathode-ray (old school) TV, the picture ain't going to be clear. All this can be tested and adjusted for via engineers, but realize that the cost of a new piece of gear in a SEAD airplane is much more than just the per-unit cost of the electronics + labor. Thus, if 2020 is the implementation deadline, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's no fucking way we are anyway close to the contracting / developing / testing / implementing timeline. Especially with Lockheed Martin.

And: With ADS-B not being required for aircraft operating in class E airspace below 10k', I can't think of a Viper-included mid-air (or near mid-air) in recent history where this would have helped.

To whit, it's worth mentioning that the Viper isn't the only 4th generation fighter platform with these issues. I talked to some light Eagle guys who wanted to add a Sniper capability (A/A only) to their jet, but didn't have the computing power to make it happen. Last I heard, they were asking the engineers to borrow processing time from their DVR system to run the Sniper Pod. That's where we're at now w/4th generation fighters, boys.

[Mark1]

You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating for ADS-B in the F-16. I am not.

However, he's way out of his lane to suggest that the merits of ADS-B for the Viper outweigh already planned and pipelined developments to the F-16 avionics suite.

Makes sense.

[Seriously]

Makes sense.

What exactly was your point then?

You said, "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." Clearly, you're implying that instead of a better RWR, F-16s should get an ADS-B equipped IFF. In response, everyone called out your bullshit. You then back-pedaled, trying to play the "that's not exactly what I said" game of semantics. Everyone called your bullshit again.

Most military pilots were or are general aviation pilots as well. Most of us have been on both sides of the fence. The same can't be said for most general aviation pilots. So whose opinion regarding what military aircraft should be eqipped with carries more weight?

You're out of your element.

[Mark1]

What exactly was your point then?

You said, "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." Clearly, you're implying that instead of a better RWR, F-16s should get an ADS-B equipped IFF. In response, everyone called out your bullshit. You then back-pedaled, trying to play the "that's not exactly what I said" game of semantics. Everyone called your bullshit again.

Most military pilots were or are general aviation pilots as well. Most of us have been on both sides of the fence. The same can't be said for most general aviation pilots. So whose opinion regarding what military aircraft should be eqipped with carries more weight?

You're out of your element.

Perhaps refresh yourself on the meaning of the word "could" as opposed to the word "should" in the English language. There's a not so subtle difference between the two words that I believe you're unfamiliar with. I chose to bold it for a reason, but I guess it was a waste of my time. I should have included a dictionary entry instead.

I haven't backpedaled on anything. And although you have no fucking clue what 'my element' is, (for the 4th time) I've made no comment whatsoever on any specific piece of equipment being integrated onto fighter aircraft, so it's immaterial.

[ElLoco]

Just shut up.

[Jaded]

I'd take an iPad mini with an ADS-B puck with me in the viper. More use to me than the HSD going to and from the airspace.

[sqwatch]

And although you have no ######ing clue what 'my element' is, (for the 4th time) I've made no comment whatsoever on any specific piece of equipment being integrated onto fighter aircraft, so it's immaterial.

your element:

[Hacker]

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.

Hmm, and here I was sure there were Vipers in the air at the same time I was dodging SA-2s, -3s, -6s, -8s, Rolands, and 37 and 57mm AAA in Iraq in March and April 2003.

I guess not, though. Thanks for clearing that up.

You Viper dudes all turn your Air Medals and DFCs back in yet?

[Mark1]

Hmm, and here I was sure there were Vipers in the air at the same time I was dodging SA-2s, -3s, -6s, -8s, Rolands, and 37 and 57mm AAA in Iraq in March and April 2003.

I guess not, though. Thanks for clearing that up.

You Viper dudes all turn your Air Medals and DFCs back in yet?

Hmm, and here I was sure that I acknowledged a caveat for that very specific period of time.

I guess not, though.

[Beaver]

You Viper dudes all turn your Air Medals and DFCs back in yet?

No, didn't you hear? We've been acknowledged for that specific period of time.

[Whitman]

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.

Brabus, are you really going to lead with this as your problem statement? You come across as arrogant here and blaming two dead gentlemen for legally flying their aircraft, potentially while squawking 1200 and switching freqs at low altitude to start flight following (aviate navigate communicate right?). It sounds like if you were King, J-3 Cubs would be grounded for lack of transponder and radio IVO "busy airspace". BTW, have you ever flown in SC? It's Moncks Corner, SC dude...we aren't talking about a feeder airport underneath DFW Class B here! YGBSM

[HuggyU2]

Hmm, and here I was sure there were Vipers in the air at the same time I was dodging SA-2s, -3s, -6s, -8s, Rolands, and 37 and 57mm AAA in Iraq in March and April 2003.

I guess not, though. Thanks for clearing that up.

You Viper dudes all turn your Air Medals and DFCs back in yet?

Well, that'll just about cover the flybys.

[brabus]

Brabus, are you really going to lead with this as your problem statement? You come across as arrogant here and blaming two dead gentlemen for legally flying their aircraft, potentially while squawking 1200 and switching freqs at low altitude to start flight following (aviate navigate communicate right?). It sounds like if you were King, J-3 Cubs would be grounded for lack of transponder and radio IVO "busy airspace". BTW, have you ever flown in SC? It's Moncks Corner, SC dude...we aren't talking about a feeder airport underneath DFW Class B here! YGBSM

Not at all, I didn't mean to communicate that, but my choice of words obviously did. My real beef is we have ONE accident involving a mil jet (who's on a published approach, not "hot dogging" around), and people get up in arms about how the mil needs to do X, and combat aircraft need to have Y prioritized over much needed other items, etc. All from people's mouths who clearly have little to zero understanding of fighter aviation, requirements, future procurement, etc. Replace F-16 with Bizjet X and we're not even having a mil-related ADS-B conversation - that could have easily been the alternate case.

I feel very bad for the two that died, and of course more so for their families. They didn't deserve it, nor do I think they were complete idiots for doing what they were doing. However, taking an objective and unemotional look, one large piece of this problem is fact: they were not communicating with ATC. Not required I get it, but these gentleman were very possible failed by instructors and maybe the current Part 61/141 system at large. They didn't know what they didn't know and that was a contributing factor in losing their lives - would you fly at MVA through a radar pattern for a busy airfield without talking to anybody? Legal yes, smart decision no. But again, I bet they had no idea because they were never told, and that's not their fault; I wish somebody had educated them more on this. I wish someone had educated me more on this back in the day - I just got lucky nothing ever happened I guess, considering I was the 1200/not talking guy flying "just outside" required airspace to talk to ATC, at my normal GA altitudes - which coincided with MVA, fixes, etc....that I had zero SA on.

I support GA and really miss it to be honest - I can't wait to start flying when I have time/money to do so, teach my kids to fly, etc. I support 1200/not talking (the Cub dudes as you said), but I also support an improvement in GA education during the private process where you learn more about times/locations when it's a good idea to talk to people even when you're not technically required to. I will certainly teach my kids a hell of a lot more about this related topic than I ever received in my "full up" 141 program back in the day - and it was a good program, but shockingly lacking IMO now that I have far more SA on flight in general.

Keep flying GA Whitman, I support it, keep pushing for ADS-B, etc. on civ aircraft, I support it. I also support continuing education, something for those of us here who fly both sides can help our civ only bros out with. Lastly, it's maybe a "harsh reality" apparently for some here, but mil aircraft are made for war, and yes have to conform to a lot of NAS operation rules, BUT they are and should not ever be forced to 100% the same as all civilians because simply put, we don't have the time, money or certain products may make a jet less combat capable. Our focus is and needs to remain on combat capability with as much safety and NAS flying compliance as we can, but we can not afford to decrease our primary capabilities because of something that will in reality make extremely little difference - and this is not to minimize what happened a few weeks ago.

Edited August 1, 2015 by brabus

[Whitman]

Not at all, I didn't mean to communicate that, but my choice of words obviously did. My real beef is we have ONE accident involving a mil jet (who's on a published approach, not "hot dogging" around), and people get up in arms about how the mil needs to do X, and combat aircraft need to have Y prioritized over much needed other items, etc. All from people's mouths who clearly have little to zero understanding of fighter aviation, requirements, future procurement, etc. Replace F-16 with Bizjet X and we're not even having a mil-related ADS-B conversation - that could have easily been the alternate case.

I feel very bad for the two that died, and of course more so for their families. They didn't deserve it, nor do I think they were complete idiots for doing what they were doing. However, taking an objective and unemotional look, one large piece of this problem is fact: they were not communicating with ATC. Not required I get it, but these gentleman were very possible failed by instructors and maybe the current Part 61/141 system at large. They didn't know what they didn't know and that was a contributing factor in losing their lives - would you fly at MVA through a radar pattern for a busy airfield without talking to anybody? Legal yes, smart decision no. But again, I bet they had no idea because they were never told, and that's not their fault; I wish somebody had educated them more on this. I wish someone had educated me more on this back in the day - I just got lucky nothing ever happened I guess, considering I was the 1200/not talking guy flying "just outside" required airspace to talk to ATC, at my normal GA altitudes - which coincided with MVA, fixes, etc....that I had zero SA on.

I support GA and really miss it to be honest - I can't wait to start flying when I have time/money to do so, teach my kids to fly, etc. I support 1200/not talking (the Cub dudes as you said), but I also support an improvement in GA education during the private process where you learn more about times/locations when it's a good idea to talk to people even when you're not technically required to. I will certainly teach my kids a hell of a lot more about this related topic than I ever received in my "full up" 141 program back in the day - and it was a good program, but shockingly lacking IMO now that I have far more SA on flight in general.

Keep flying GA Whitman, I support it, keep pushing for ADS-B, etc. on civ aircraft, I support it. I also support continuing education, something for those of us here who fly both sides can help our civ only bros out with. Lastly, it's maybe a "harsh reality" apparently for some here, but mil aircraft are made for war, and yes have to conform to a lot of NAS operation rules, BUT they are and should not ever be forced to 100% the same as all civilians because simply put, we don't have the time, money or certain products may make a jet less combat capable. Our focus is and needs to remain on combat capability with as much safety and NAS flying compliance as we can, but we can not afford to decrease our primary capabilities because of something that will in reality make extremely little difference - and this is not to minimize what happened a few weeks ago.

Good stuff man, I agree with you on the education point and it's something we should all contribute to when we get the chance. IE: Air show engagement, Non formal hangar flys, Mid-Air Collision Avoidance meetings, Taking GA pilots to base.

Quick favor though: Please go to skyvector.com or Foreflight and throw in KMKS direct KCRE and tell me how high ATC would be on your priority list. I've flown this route several times and the terrain is pretty remote. My main concern was lack of engine out landing options because of the dense forests river valleys.

It's a terrible tragedy but hopefully we can all learn from it and rally support from both sides to continue to share the airspace in a safe manner. I can tell you, the default response of offended GA pilots to more regulation or criticism from better trained pilots is to squawk STBY and barely skirt the airspace. None of us want that for reasons you've stated Brabus. Going full circle back to the MOA discussion, I think mandating flight following in MOAs or a common freq to monitor is an excellent suggestion and now is the perfect time to advocate.

[brabus]

Went to skyvector - CHS is 17 NM south, the IAF for 15 is 17 NM north of CHS and the IAF for 21 is 10 NM north of CHS. Back in the day I would not have talked to ATC, I would have done exactly what these guys did. But my knowledge level now would absolutely drive me to talk to ATC if I took off to the south from MKS, considering I'm pretty much bracketed by two IAFs. You're taking off damn near directly into the radar pattern (or at least extremely close to it, not sure how CHS approach typically vectors dudes around). I think in this situation a flight plan combined with a courtesy call to CHS approach just prior to takeoff roll could greatly reduce the risk of this type of accident. Not a guarantee, but certainly better than ATC "being surprised" late in the game when they finally get/notice a skin track in/around the radar pattern.

[Whitman]

Went to skyvector - CHS is 17 NM south, the IAF for 15 is 17 NM north of CHS and the IAF for 21 is 10 NM north of CHS. Back in the day I would not have talked to ATC, I would have done exactly what these guys did. But my knowledge level now would absolutely drive me to talk to ATC if I took off to the south from MKS, considering I'm pretty much bracketed by two IAFs. You're taking off damn near directly into the radar pattern (or at least extremely close to it, not sure how CHS approach typically vectors dudes around). I think in this situation a flight plan combined with a courtesy call to CHS approach just prior to takeoff roll could greatly reduce the risk of this type of accident. Not a guarantee, but certainly better than ATC "being surprised" late in the game when they finally get/notice a skin track in/around the radar pattern.

I hope it didn't come across that I'm advocating away from flight following here, it's a great tool.

It's hard to tell if the Cessna would've attempted flight following later. Maybe the radio will be recovered and the preset or current freq will be revealing. Personally, between climbing out, switching freqs, and clearing for birds/planes, I probably wouldn't have had flight following established at only 1400ft. I see no reason to attempt two way on the ground either and if I remember right the reception is not good enough. This is a one and a million situation and there's no need for even more regulation as far as I can tell.

[brabus]

Agreed it's 1 in a million and I certainly do not advocate for more regulation, just more general awareness via increased education. If you know where you are in relation to IAFs, what the MVA is, etc. that's far more than the average private ticket holder has SA on and would certainly pay dividends towards reducing the risk of similar accidents. Do you monitor approach's freq after T/O - sure you won't typically hear a fighter's response, but you'll hear the controller's words - actively listening to those radio calls would also raise one's SA on what's going on w/in 6-9 NM of the civ airfield.

[FishBowl]

I'm a controller at a fighter base and I fly recreationally. I wish every GA pilot could spend a day watching the scopes. It would be a really eye-opening experience and further justification to study your frequented airspace beyond just a glance at a sectional. x2 on the not needin further regulation, but perhaps a shift in culture. We have light a/c skirt the edges of our Delta through the FAF at g/s intercept altitude multiple times daily without flight following.

[Smokin]

I'm a controller at a fighter base and I fly recreationally. I wish every GA pilot could spend a day watching the scopes. It would be a really eye-opening experience and further justification to study your frequented airspace beyond just a glance at a sectional. x2 on the not needin further regulation, but perhaps a shift in culture. We have light a/c skirt the edges of our Delta through the FAF at g/s intercept altitude multiple times daily without flight following.

And this conversation may have actually taken a productive turn... A relatively open invitation to local FBOs to bring their students in once a month to over the shoulder RAPCON during a busy training day might help educate some guys a little better than the standard MACA brief the safety guy gives twice a year.

[HU&W]

And this conversation may have actually taken a productive turn... A relatively open invitation to local FBOs to bring their students in once a month to over the shoulder RAPCON during a busy training day might help educate some guys a little better than the standard MACA brief the safety guy gives twice a year.

Big 2 on this one. I still look back on the field trip we took to Ft Worth Center half way through T-6's. Extremely eye opening.

[DEVIL]

I'm a controller at a fighter base and I fly recreationally. I wish every GA pilot could spend a day watching the scopes. It would be a really eye-opening experience and further justification to study your frequented airspace beyond just a glance at a sectional. x2 on the not needin further regulation, but perhaps a shift in culture. We have light a/c skirt the edges of our Delta through the FAF at g/s intercept altitude multiple times daily without flight following.

Not even that difficult, call and give a days notice with your SSN, I've been to 2 major Class B towers, and a few RAPCONs, no sweat. It also isn't that difficult for the sq safety guy to print out a few pamphlets with info about airspace, callsigns, and danger areas and drop them off at FBOs. put some shiny cool pictures on there and GA folks will read them...

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

I'm a controller at a fighter base and I fly recreationally. I wish every GA pilot could spend a day watching the scopes. It would be a really eye-opening experience and further justification to study your frequented airspace beyond just a glance at a sectional. x2 on the not needin further regulation, but perhaps a shift in culture. We have light a/c skirt the edges of our Delta through the FAF at g/s intercept altitude multiple times daily without flight following.

I brought this up on one of the aviation related FB pages that was discussing this mishap. Not necessarily the taking a tour of a control facility, but more the go a bit beyond the minimum WRT knowing your airspace. The group in that discussion were firmly in the position that the Cessna did nothing wrong and the F-16 was completely at fault for not "immediately" reacting to controller instructions.

I will say that some of the closest calls I've had in an airplane have been vs GA airplanes that were legal, but not smart. We're talking about guys blasting through a MOA squawking 1200 and not talking to anybody, that kind of stuff.

Count me in that this is an education not regulation issue. A little airmanship goes a long way, and in this case, if the Cessna had been listening to CHS approach, even if he wasn't talking to them, perhaps he could have deduced that he was the traffic the F-16 was getting panic vectors for.

[stract]

does the word "immediately" absolve the pilot of performing a standard rate turn?

[icohftb]

Since the "delayed" turn put them in the same piece of sky... Does that imply had he done nothing there would not have been a collision?

[FishBowl]

does the word "immediately" absolve the pilot of performing a standard rate turn?

The word "immediately" doesn't specify the rate of turn; only that expeditious compliance is required to avoid an "imminent" situation. Perhaps a second, updated radar traffic advisory or foregoing the conditional phrase "if you don't have traffic in sight" would have helped avoid this collision. To further play Monday morning QB, perhaps taking aircraft characteristics into consideration, have the pointy-nose climb to avoid and re-vector for the approach. Looking at the illustration, perhaps a turn in the opposite would have been best. We weren't there and we can hindsight it all day. I don't put any party solely at blame, but I believe it was a combination of unfavorable variables.

Edit for online college spelling skills.

Edited August 5, 2015 by FishBowl