F16 vs Cessna 150 collision

dmspilot said:
I actually don't think the NTSB will care about that. They look at the big picture, they don't split hairs like the FAA would.
Click to expand...

While I don't think the lack of issuing a word will be a contributing factor, fact is it wasn't issued when it should have been. That word puts the the course of action on the pilot. By trying to take positive control of the situation, this controller unfortunately made things worse.

Proper phraseology it scrutinized by everyone involved. From the NTSB to the FAA to faciluty management to the trainers who trained that particular controller. I've sat on a few "tape talks" and when things go bad (operational errors) they look for anything that wasn't by the book.
 
They had no idea what the Cessna was going to do, but they could be pretty sure it was not about to start climbing at several thousand feet per minute. I hope that after this, the FAA drills it into the head of every controller that an instruction to climb is usually the safest course of action for a loss of separation between a fighter jet and a 1200 target.
 
MassPilot said:
They had no idea what the Cessna was going to do, but they could be pretty sure it was not about to start climbing at several thousand feet per minute. I hope that after this, the FAA drills it into the head of every controller that an instruction to climb is usually the safest course of action for a loss of separation between a fighter jet and a 1200 target.
Click to expand...

This is if the controller didn't have conflicting traffic overhead. :dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
But you are looking at things through the lens of hindsight. I've noticed that you like to second-guess controllers for some reason.
Click to expand...
If you were to put a 'fill-in-the-blank' in this quote instead of "controllers" this would apply to most of the posts in this (and most any other accident) thread.

Nauga,
who has no need to guess
 
vintage cessna said:
I used to be. I've explained in previous posts why the 7110.65 makes it a suggested course of action and not mandatory.

This was in Class E, an IFR and a VFR. Seperation in this case is a PIC responsibility with possible assistance from ATC. ATC is not in control or even talking to the VFR, so they have no clue what it might do. ATC would give as much assistance as possible but not mandate what the pilot would do.

When ATC issued a vector in this situation, they essentially took responsibility for seperation.
Click to expand...

This is what it says in 7110.65V, Pilot/Controller Glossary, PCG T-6

TRAFFIC ADVISORIES− Advisories issued to alert pilots to other known or observed air traffic which may be in such proximity to the position or intended route of flight of their aircraft to warrant their attention. Such advisories may be based on:
a. Visual observation.
b. Observation of radar identified and nonidentified aircraft targets on an ATC radar display, or
c. Verbal reports from pilots or other facilities.
Note 1: The word “traffic” followed by additional information, if known, is used to provide such advisories; e.g., “Traffic, 2 o’clock, one zero miles, southbound, eight thousand.”
Note 2: Traffic advisory service will be provided to the extent possible depending on higher priority duties of the controller or other limitations; e.g., radar limitations, volume of traffic, frequency congestion, or controller workload. Radar/nonradar traffic advisories do not relieve the pilot of his/her responsibility to see and avoid other
aircraft. Pilots are cautioned that there are many times when the controller is not able to give traffic advisories concerning all traffic in the aircraft’s proximity; in other words, when a pilot requests or is receiving traffic advisories, he/she should not assume that all traffic will be issued.
(Refer to AIM.)
TRAFFIC ALERT (aircraft call sign), TURN (left/right) IMMEDIATELY, (climb/descend) AND MAINTAIN (altitude).
Note it does not say "Advise you ... [Turn left/right/climb/descend/etc.]," although it does say that elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Well, except for hitting the Cessna in VMC. Notwithstanding the instructions given, or their challenging phraseology, the pilot of each aircraft is responsible for seeing and avoiding other traffic in VMC conditions.

I doubt whether the NTSB will put this all, or even majority on the ATC. As PIC you don't give up traffic avoidance in VMC just because you talk to someone. That is precisely why the major responded 'looking', and the controller assigned a vector when the major didn't have visual.

Predicating fault on the controller in this case would drastically change the dynamic of current VMC operations. Frankly, I don't want anyone, F-16 down to lawn-chairs strapped to balloons to be 'head down' and talking while in the clear.

I respect your last post on the subject, I guess we will see what we will see. Exculpating the major of any fault is pretty daring. :wineglass:
Click to expand...
The NTSB has said over and over again that see and avoid doesn't work.
 
frcabot said:
This is what it says in 7110.65V, Pilot/Controller Glossary, PCG T-6

TRAFFIC ADVISORIES− Advisories issued to alert pilots to other known or observed air traffic which may be in such proximity to the position or intended route of flight of their aircraft to warrant their attention. Such advisories may be based on:
a. Visual observation.
b. Observation of radar identified and nonidentified aircraft targets on an ATC radar display, or
c. Verbal reports from pilots or other facilities.
Note 1: The word “traffic” followed by additional information, if known, is used to provide such advisories; e.g., “Traffic, 2 o’clock, one zero miles, southbound, eight thousand.”
Note 2: Traffic advisory service will be provided to the extent possible depending on higher priority duties of the controller or other limitations; e.g., radar limitations, volume of traffic, frequency congestion, or controller workload. Radar/nonradar traffic advisories do not relieve the pilot of his/her responsibility to see and avoid other
aircraft. Pilots are cautioned that there are many times when the controller is not able to give traffic advisories concerning all traffic in the aircraft’s proximity; in other words, when a pilot requests or is receiving traffic advisories, he/she should not assume that all traffic will be issued.
(Refer to AIM.)
TRAFFIC ALERT (aircraft call sign), TURN (left/right) IMMEDIATELY, (climb/descend) AND MAINTAIN (altitude).
Note it does not say "Advise you ... [Turn left/right/climb/descend/etc.]," although it does say that elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Those are examples of phraseology from the glossary. You could use that phraseology for seperation between two IFR aircraft.

Go back to the 7110.65, chapter 2 , para 2-1-6 and read it carefully. Especially what is says about the pilot.
 
vintage cessna said:
Those are examples of phraseology from the glossary. You could use that phraseology for seperation between two IFR aircraft.

Go back to the 7110.65, chapter 2 , para 2-1-6 and read it carefully. Especially what is says about the pilot.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of what it says. My point is that the same order contains inconsistencies.
 
frcabot said:
The NTSB has said over and over again that see and avoid doesn't work.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change that it's the law of the land(air, as it were). If they want to change it, put up an NPRM and see where it goes.
 
frcabot said:
I'm aware of what it says. My point is that the same order contains inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't , you are taking stuff out of context. Did you see the part about once the alert has been issued, it is the pilot's sole prerogative as to what course of action to take, if any?

I would go the trouble of cut and pasting the entire section on safety alerts if I thought it would do any good.

The other retired controller that posts here has put that section up countless times, no one seems to understand it, or want to understand it.
 
docmirror said:
That doesn't change that it's the law of the land(air, as it were). If they want to change it, put up an NPRM and see where it goes.
Click to expand...
It's not up to the NTSB, that's up to the FAA. The NTSB can make recommendations, but that's it. They've said repeatedly that see and avoid is a failure and not sufficient to avoid mid-airs, and that's not the fault of either pilot.

In any event, the NTSB doesn't typically assign blame to see and avoid accidents, they just say that see and avoid was inadequate. Here the NTSB is likely to say that ATC gave an inappropriate recommendation/instruction for collision avoidance, or that the military pilot didnt execute the ATC instructions properly and timely, or both.
 
docmirror said:
Thank you.

I was taking off out of Boeing field one day, and reported ready to depart, southbound. Tower came back instantly and said 'spamcan 123, cleared for takeoff no delay, aircraft behind you on final.'

As I swung around onto the pavement without ack the call, I saw a HUGE aluminum overcast coming at me with 47 lights on, and trailing gobs of engine exhaust from 8 or 10 or 14 engines. I pushed the throttle so hard forward I felt the heat rise off my engine. :D
Click to expand...

And if he needed to make a go around, it would have been like Jonah and the Whale.
 
My "they" was non-specific reference to those who would write an NPRM for this issue, not the NTSB per-se.
 
What's the sweep time of terminal radar? 6 seconds plus processing time? Entirely possible that the controller gave am instruction based on stale data. That is a factor at the speed of the jet.
 
wsuffa said:
What's the sweep time of terminal radar? 6 seconds plus processing time? Entirely possible that the controller gave am instruction based on stale data. That is a factor at the speed of the jet.
Click to expand...

That is just one more justification of the rule in the 7110.65. The targets are so close, and with positional error, not to mention that the past is always being presented , that it is best left to the pilot.

The controller may think they are at 12 and 12 , but in reality they may be something else entirely.So you give the pilot the info , convey with a sense of urgency,(TRAFFIC ALERT) , make a suggested course of action if you have the presence of mind to do so, and let the pilot do his thing.

The 7110.65 makes it quite clear that what actions or no action is the perogative of the pilot in this situation.
 
Do I read this that if the 16 had not turned it may have passed behind the 150?
 
tmyers said:
Do I read this that if the 16 had not turned it may have passed behind the 150?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have passed behind him, both aircraft would have the other pass by on their left sides.
 
nauga said:
If you were to put a 'fill-in-the-blank' in this quote instead of "controllers" this would apply to most of the posts in this (and most any other accident) thread.
Click to expand...
True...
 
vintage cessna said:
Hey, you are on to something. Maybe that is why the 7110.65 tells the controller not to turn his best guess into a mandatory instruction?
Click to expand...
Does it? I have gotten plenty of vectors to avoid VFR traffic to whom the controller was not talking. Didn't the controller guess what the traffic was going to do? Were these vectors mandatory? I assume vectors to be mandatory while IFR unless they add some clarifying language or unless there is some very good reason not to comply.
 
SbestCFII said:
There's no reason for any hostility on a board like this...not even the passive-aggressive snarkiness. Pilots should be able to comment back and forth without the incivility one sees from the imbeciles on political forums.
Click to expand...
Yet you feel the need to bring that snarkiness here.
 
Everskyward said:
Does it? I have gotten plenty of vectors to avoid VFR traffic to whom the controller was not talking. Didn't the controller guess what the traffic was going to do? Were these vectors mandatory? I assume vectors to be mandatory while IFR unless they add some clarifying language or unless there is some very good reason not to comply.
Click to expand...

Did you ask for vectors? Were the vectors suggestions? If the answer to either of those two questions is yes, then what the controller is doing is fine. If the answer is no, he shouldn't be doing it. ( Assumimg this is Class E airspace ).

Of course he is guessing, and the FAA doesn't like seperation based on guess work.

You see what happened in this accident, and you have your own example with the acro plane.

Are the vectors mandatory? Since the controller left the rule book, it is confusing to know what you are required to do or not do, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
vintage cessna said:
Did you ask for vectors? Were the vectors suggestions? If the answer to either of those two questions is yes, then what the controller is doing is fine. If the answer is no, he shouldn't be doing it. ( Assumimg this is Class E airspace ).
Click to expand...
Answer is usually no to both. If they are suggestions they are usually not worded as such.

vintage cessna said:
Of course he is guessing, and the FAA doesn't like seperation based on guess work.

You see what happened in this accident, and you have your own example with the acro plane.
Click to expand...
Actually I would rather them vector me away from VFR traffic. Sometimes they are vectors, sometime they restrict the climb or descent. Sometimes I know it's for traffic and sometimes not. What happened with the acro airplane was a one-time thing and could not have been anticipated either by us. I don't blame the controller at all.

vintage cessna said:
Are the vectors mandatory? Since the controller left the rule book, it is confusing to know what you are required to do or not do, isn't it?
Click to expand...
No, not confusing until reading what you keep posting. Next time maybe I should tell them, "some guy on the internet says you shouldn't be giving us these vectors and they are optional". [/sarcasm]
 
Everskyward said:
Answer is usually no to both. If they are suggestions they are usually not worded as such.

Actually I would rather them vector me away from VFR traffic. Sometimes they are vectors, sometime they restrict the climb or descent. Sometimes I know it's for traffic and sometimes not. What happened with the acro airplane was a one-time thing and could not have been anticipated either by us. I don't blame the controller at all.

No, not confusing until reading what you keep posting. Next time maybe I should tell them, "some guy on the internet says you shouldn't be giving us these vectors and they are optional". [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Do what you want, you are PIC. But in discussing this accident, you shouldn't get on me for commenting on the controllers actions. You indicated the controller didn't know what the C150 was doing and he gave it his best guess, and that **** just happens and some people just want to blame somebody.

If anything is to be learned from an accident, you can't be emotional about it.
 
vintage cessna said:
Do what you want, you are PIC. But in discussing this accident, you shouldn't get on me for commenting on the controllers actions. You indicated the controller didn't know what the C150 was doing and he gave it his best guess, and that **** just happens and some people just want to blame somebody.

If anything is to be learned from an accident, you can't be emotional about it.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one who's blaming anyone...
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not the one who's blaming anyone...
Click to expand...

I have been discussing the facts and the rules, chips fall where they may.

You should also be aware that the unsolicited vectors for VFR traffic you are getting is totally different from the situation being discussed, basically harmless . Plenty of distance, steady track of the target etc. Beneficial in your eyes .

But in the situation being discussed, this was an imminent situation from the first traffic call. Got to go with the rule book, best chance of success.
 
vintage cessna said:
I have been discussing the facts and the rules, chips fall where they may.

You should also be aware that the unsolicited vectors for VFR traffic you are getting is totally different from the situation being discussed, basically harmless . Plenty of distance, steady track of the target etc. Beneficial in your eyes .

But in the situation being discussed, this was an imminent situation from the first traffic call. Got to go with the rule book, best chance of success.
Click to expand...
First you say unsolicited vectors for VFR traffic are not OK, then you reverse your position, except in imminent cases. But even in imminent cases the controller is making a guess about what the VFR target will do. Regardless, I'm guessing that most IFR pilots are not going to think a vector is just a suggestion unless it is stated that way.
 
Everskyward said:
First you say unsolicited vectors for VFR traffic are not OK, then you reverse your position, except in imminent cases. But even in imminent cases the controller is making a guess about what the VFR target will do. Regardless, I'm guessing that most IFR pilots are not going to think a vector is just a suggestion unless it is stated that way.
Click to expand...

I didn't reverse my position. I just told you that the unsolicited vectors you are getting are harmless (probably) .

But in an imminent situation, you have got to do what the book and training have told you to do, forget the guessing.

It doesn't sound like the vectors are suggestions to me either. If they are not following the rules , they aren't following the rules. In your case , you are not likely to have your windshield filled up with the sight of another airplane though.
 
vintage cessna said:
But in an imminent situation, you have got to do what the book and training have told you to do, forget the guessing.
Click to expand...
What I'm trying to ask here is that even if the controller uses the proper terminology, isn't he or she still guessing what the VFR target will do?
 
Last edited:
vintage cessna said:
No it doesn't , you are taking stuff out of context. Did you see the part about once the alert has been issued, it is the pilot's sole prerogative as to what course of action to take, if any?
Click to expand...
Yes, and phrasing doesn't change that. So I don't understand what your point is.
 
Everskyward said:
What I'm trying to ask here is that even if the controller uses the proper terminology, isn't he or she still guessing what the VFR target will do?
Click to expand...

If you are referring to an imminent situation where a TRAFFIC ALERT is issued and the controller makes a suggestion, yes it is a guess. That doesn't mean the controller should even try to guess though. It would be a very saavy guess to tell an F16 to climb reference a slow moving target, but that is hindsight.

In the situation we are discussing, the proximity is too close to even consider suggesting vector, no less assigning one.

However, in the excitement of the moment, if the controller errs and suggest a vector, it is still up to the pilot to decide what to do. One of the reasons for a TRAFFIC ALERT is to convey urgency in a way a traffic call does not. The procedures and phraseology in the 7110.65 has evolved over time, the result of a lot of hard lessons learned. The controller can either take advantage of that experience that has been gained or ignore it.

Given that the pilot just heard TRAFFIC ALERT shouted at him and told the traffic was at the same altitude, if he follows the suggestion to turn , he may elect to haul back on the stick also.

That last bit is speculation on my part, but I have explained to you what the proper procedure is for this situation . If you think there was no problem with the controllers performance in light of the rule and procedure I have explained, fine. It you still don't think it would have made a difference, fine. I'm tired of explaining the same points over and over.
 
Everskyward said:
What I'm trying to ask here is that even if the controller uses the proper terminology, isn't he or she still guessing what the VFR target will do?
Click to expand...

I might also add, that if a controller is in the habit of issuing unsolicited vectors to IFR acft to avoid VFR acft that he is not in communication with in Class E airspace, his first reaction in this kind of situation may be to resolve it himself rather than issue a TRAFFIC ALERT.
 
Just got notice of a meeting here in CHS with Controllers. 6:30 pm on Friday. I'd attach the invite but can't figure out how to do that.
 
2-1-6. SAFETY ALERT
Issue a safety alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is in a position/altitude which, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft. Once the pilot informs you action is being taken to resolve the situation, you may discontinue the issuance of further alerts. Do not assume that because someone else has responsibility for the aircraft that the unsafe situation has been observed and the safety alert issued; inform the appropriate controller.
NOTE-
1. The issuance of a safety alert is a first priority (see para 2-1-2, Duty Priority) once the controller observes and recognizes a situation of unsafe aircraft proximity to terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. Conditions, such as workload, traffic volume, the quality/limitations of the radar system, and the available lead time to react are factors in determining whether it is reasonable for the controller to observe and recognize such situations. While a controller cannot see immediately the development of every situation where a safety alert must be issued, the controller must remain vigilant for such situations and issue a safety alert when the situation is recognized.
2. Recognition of situations of unsafe proximity may result from MSAW/E-MSAW/LAAS, automatic altitude readouts, Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert, observations on a PAR scope, or pilot reports.
3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken.
a. Terrain/Obstruction Alert. Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is at an altitude which, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain/obstructions. Issue the alert as follows:
PHRASEOLOGY-
LOW ALTITUDE ALERT (call sign),

CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY.

THE (as appropriate) MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA IN YOUR AREA IS (altitude),

or if an aircraft is past the final approach fix (nonprecision approach),

or the outer marker,

or the fix used in lieu of the outer marker (precision approach),

and, if known, issue

THE (as appropriate) MDA/DH IS (altitude).
b. Aircraft Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert. Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware of another aircraft at an altitude which you believe places them in unsafe proximity. If feasible, offer the pilot an alternate course of action.
c. When an alternate course of action is given, end the transmission with the word “immediately.”
PHRASEOLOGY-
TRAFFIC ALERT (call sign) (position of aircraft) ADVISE YOU TURN LEFT/RIGHT (heading),

and/or

CLIMB/DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate) IMMEDIATELY.
[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-14-1, Conflict Alert (CA) and Mode C Intruder (MCI) Alert.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-14-2, En Route Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (E-MSAW).
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-15-6, CA/MCI.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-2-23, Altitude Filters.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-2]Hopefully, they have all received mandatory refresher training on the above. I would encourage all pilots to read this.
[/SIZE]
 
Went to the FAA/Controllers/Pilots meeting here in CHS. These were the take-always:

1. They wouldn't discuss the accident as it's an open investigation. That pink elephant sat in the room for over an hour until a pilot raised the question.

2. Dropping any inbound traffic (F16 never mentioned) to 1600' well in advance to the approach is a controller preference. Some like to do that.

3. Call us on the radio, we want to hear from you if you're VFR.

4. If you call us, we may be too busy to respond.

5. Our charts and plates are wrong. Two of their freq got cancelled But changes weren't updated on charts and plates. Some controllers listen to old freq, some don't.

6. They're not in line for NEXGEN (where THEY get Ads-B on their scopes) until some indeterminate date in 2016...

7. As pilots we can select our own risk profile. They prefer VFR to check in and climb to 2500' if transiting but that's our call... Again, it's all about pilot pref and controller pref.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top