F16 vs Cessna 150 collision

frcabot said:
Actually, when I was in the Navy I used to be called a sea lawyer, because I knew the regs pretty well. But that was before I became an internet lawyer.
Click to expand...

Well first off, sport, I doubt you were ever in the Navy, because you just established that you don't understand what the term sea lawyer is all about.

But thanks for playing.

Here's another term for someone who claims to understand the Navy:

Boom, Hit Alpha.

Buh bye.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Well first off, sport, I doubt you were ever in the Navy, because you just established that you don't understand what the term sea lawyer is all about.

But thanks for playing.

Here's another term for someone who claims to understand the Navy:

Boom, Hit Alpha.

Buh bye.
Click to expand...
Ok, E-2 / C-2 NFO. Best of the best, obviously. I know exactly what sea lawyer means, but thanks for playing. Here's a term you should be familiar with: "Tool." If you're as charming in person, you must be really popular in your command. :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
mikeinbama said:
I am certain CTLSi is posting again, probably two different ID's.
Click to expand...
Hardly, I wasn't enlisted and I never claimed to be a chief. Plus I think my spelling/grammar are a lot better than his.
 
So I'm late to the thread and don't really want to go through 7 pages of squabbling and egos, so my question is- If the C-150 had had TCAS, or TAS, or ADS-B in and out, TIS, or TAS would they have seen this F-16 coming, or does the government keep these flights all hush hush and off the radar?
 
Not specifically slower, but in general it's the least maneuverable or slower of converging aircraft that have ROW. Unpowered aircraft have ROW over powered aircraft, a slower or less maneuverable aircraft have ROW over more maneuverable aircraft, when an aircraft is being overtaken, the overtaking aircraft must alter course, etc. Just generalizing 91.113.
 
Dav8or said:
So I'm late to the thread and don't really want to go through 7 pages of squabbling and egos, so my question is- If the C-150 had had TCAS, or TAS, or ADS-B in and out, TIS, or TAS would they have seen this F-16 coming, or does the government keep these flights all hush hush and off the radar?
Click to expand...

Sure, I pick up fighters on TCAD all the time. If they're squawking mode 3C you'll see them. Modes 1,2,4 or 5??? I would think not.
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
So I'm late to the thread and don't really want to go through 7 pages of squabbling and egos, so my question is- If the C-150 had had TCAS, or TAS, or ADS-B in and out, TIS, or TAS would they have seen this F-16 coming, or does the government keep these flights all hush hush and off the radar?
Click to expand...

F-16 should have been squawking mode 3C of "4000" on a low level route. I know nothing about TCAS or ADS-B, but if they are transponder based tools (as I have always thought they were), then yes, I'd guess it would have been seen. F-16 would not have had any of the above systems though.
 
frcabot said:
Ok, E-2 / C-2 NFO. Best of the best, obviously. I know exactly what sea lawyer means, but thanks for playing. Here's a term you should be familiar with: "Tool." If you're as charming in person, you must be really popular in your command. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean here.....no NFO's on the COD/C-2, just pilots and loadmasters. Also, I had to lol a little bit like fearless with your description of "sea lawyer"........said title is not bestowed on a guy "who knows the regs really well". I don't doubt your background, but I would say that you might not want to throw yourself into the "sea lawyer" category :)
 
35 AoA said:
Not sure what you mean here.....no NFO's on the COD/C-2, just pilots and loadmasters. Also, I had to lol a little bit like fearless with your description of "sea lawyer"........said title is not bestowed on a guy "who knows the regs really well". I don't doubt your background, but I would say that you might not want to throw yourself into the "sea lawyer" category :)
Click to expand...
Was obviously a joke. Just like my reference to Internet lawyer. Well I guess not so obvious.
 
Last edited:
frcabot said:
Was obviously a joke. Just like my reference to Internet lawyer.
Click to expand...

there is no joking allowed on this forum........you must have missed that none of us have any sense of humor :) The internet lawyer is real and I am jealous of their bandwidth.....
 
35 AoA said:
there is no joking allowed on this forum........you must have missed that none of us have any sense of humor :) The internet lawyer is real and I am jealous of their bandwidth.....
Click to expand...
Reminds me of when I was a JORG and the CMC told me my fingernails were too long. Oldest MCP in the Navy. :rolleyes2:
 
frcabot said:
Reminds me of when I was a JORG and the CMC told me my fingernails were too long. Oldest MCP in the Navy. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

CMC might be the most (unintentionally) entertaining character in any command. I've met few people as out of touch with literally every member of the squadron (aside from maybe the front office) as the CMC.
 
SbestCFII said:
Not specifically slower, but in general it's the least maneuverable or slower of converging aircraft that have ROW. Unpowered aircraft have ROW over powered aircraft, a slower or less maneuverable aircraft have ROW over more maneuverable aircraft, when an aircraft is being overtaken, the overtaking aircraft must alter course, etc. Just generalizing 91.113.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you don't know the rules or just can't communicate effectively. Slower only comes into play when one aircraft is overtaking the other.
 
I fly in/out of KSJT often where there are based several Cessna Citations that are outfitted with "F-16 radar" as explained by crewmembers. These fly for ICE or Border Patrol or whoever that hunts and tracks aircraft crossing our southern border, whether or not on flight plans.
Looks like if this is "F-16 radar" it should be able to spot C150 traffic, xponder or not when installed in a F-16.
 
MikeELP said:
The article says that the NTSB was doing the investigation, but then handed it over to the Air Force.

I'm not familiar with military/civilian mid-air investigations. Is that normal? :dunno:
Click to expand...

The NTSB hand a military/civilian mid-air investigation over to the Air Force? Not going to happen. It's the NTSB's responsbility by law and the military recognizes that (see AFI 91-206(I)/AR 95-30/OPNAVINST 3750.16C/COMDTINST 5100.28, para 1.3.2.2).

EvilEagle said:
Yes. Typically the NTSB doesn't have the clearance to sift through the records or watch the video from the fighters so the USAF does it, then shares the unclassified stuff with NTSB.

Before anyone gets going on "yeah, like the USAF would ever tell us when someone screwed up..." - I have had several friends completely hung out to dry by the USAF accident and safety investigation boards. It's not an "all in the family" type thing when it comes to accident investigations with today's USAF.
Click to expand...
And they can provide military-unique expertise.
Click to expand...
 
35 AoA said:
Not sure what you mean here.....no NFO's on the COD/C-2, just pilots and loadmasters. Also, I had to lol a little bit like fearless with your description of "sea lawyer"........said title is not bestowed on a guy "who knows the regs really well". I don't doubt your background, but I would say that you might not want to throw yourself into the "sea lawyer" category :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, no I think fearless is a SWO. Btw just did some light reading on that career field (granted, on Airwarriors)....All I got to say is , wow, poor bastard. Makes nonners in our Chair Force look like Pollyannas.

A coworker told me recently the submarine corps is all closet aviator aspirants or med DQs, is it the same in the at-large SWO career field? Our Navs/ABMers can apply for the pilot board; can swo's do the same in the Navy or can only your NFOs (you equivalent of our navs I take it) make that jump?
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah, no I think fearless is a SWO. Btw just did some light reading on that career field (granted, on Airwarriors)....All I got to say is , wow, poor bastard. Makes nonners in our Chair Force look like Pollyannas.

A coworker told me recently the submarine corps is all closet aviator aspirants or med DQs, is it the same in the at-large SWO career field? Our Navs/ABMers can apply for the pilot board; can swo's do the same in the Navy or can only your NFOs (you equivalent of our navs I take it) make that jump?
Click to expand...
I've heard of a couple NFO selects switching but it's been in flight training. SWOs eat their young. Basically, friends don't let friends go SWO. Haven't known any sub/nuke guys who have switched to Naval Aviation. There's a couple reasons. One is the age cutoff for primary training which I think is 27 - I could be very off here as it's been a long time since I looked at this. Another is the commitment which is 6-8 years for aviation (depending on helos / fixed / fighters). Third is if the Navy has already paid to put you through Nuke school, what's their incentive to then have you spend a few more years in primary/advanced aviation training?

At least through my source of commissioning everyone who wanted naval aviation either got picked up for that or NFO (qualifying astb scores permitting). So if someone went Nuke or SWO, there was probably a reason and it wouldn't make sense for them to switch down the road. There are plenty of subs / SWOs who end up switching to restricted lines, but that's because you can't choose a restricted line in most cases through most commissioning sources directly. Aviation is unrestricted, so like I said, if you want it and you had decent grades, a passing astb and weren't medically DQed, you got it (albeit mostly helos).

All this being said, I'm not the best source for gouge as my information is, at best, several years out of date.
 
Last edited:
gov98 said:
...I agree with everything you said, and maybe the 150 was NORDO with a faulty Mode C. It's possible. And my mind is open, at the same time, that's where my thoughts initially go, but ...it's not evidence and it's just a message board to voice some thoughts, but apparently, unapproved thoughts require scolding now...It's the SJW thing to do.
Click to expand...

My interpretation of local media reports was that the Cessna was still on Unicom in the MKS area, and the F16 was being vectored by controllers at Charleston AFB. Both aircraft were on the radio. Just not the same freqs...
 
frcabot said:
Nice partial quote.
Click to expand...
Here's your full quotes...
frcabot said:
Granted, but I hate the rush to judgment (seen on many news articles) that obviously the private pilot screwed up somehow (because it's always GA's fault, obviously).
Click to expand...

frcabot said:
I said the rush to judgment against GA, which is often the victim in these situations.
Click to expand...

frcabot said:
Cessna was flying NNE, from KMKS to KMYR. F16 was travelling South, from KSSC to KCHS. F16 T-boned the Cessna on the left. Hence the Cessna had the right of way. Remember the rules of the road (or the air) (91.113): The airplane to the other's right has the right-of-way. The F-16 had the C150 on its right (before it slammed into it). Hence the F16 was absolutely at fault here. (emphasis added) This is somewhat academic as a C150 is obviously not going to purposefully pull in front of an F16 just because the C150 technically has the right of way, but the fact remains that the C150 DID technically have the right of way.

And, remember, an IFR plane is VMC remains responsible for separation from other VFR aircraft.
Click to expand...
So it seems you only hate a rush to judgement when it's only towards one party. Against the F-16 pilot, sure, rush away!

I didn't go back and reread all the posts, but I don't remember one single post that rushed to judgement and blamed the GA pilot. But plenty, especially yours, that has already tried and convicted the F-16 pilot. Great! Based on what? News reports and all these internet experts.

In my gut, I think we're going to find out that this was just an unfortunate accident. Nobody doing anything wrong, illegal, or against regulations or instructions. Just bad timing that found two aircraft occupying the same bit of sky at the same time. Profoundly sad and my heart goes out to the deceased, their families and also to the Air Force Major and his family who will have to deal with the ramifications of this tragic event.

I, for one, will wait until the official investigation is complete before I assess blame to one party or another.
 
There are two kinds of pilots - those who have been buzzing along, scanning for traffic, all of the sudden to have a windshield full of someone elses airplane, and those who will.

**** happens. Unfortunately sometimes with tragic results.
 
35 AoA said:
F-16 should have been squawking mode 3C of "4000" on a low level route. I know nothing about TCAS or ADS-B, but if they are transponder based tools (as I have always thought they were), then yes, I'd guess it would have been seen. F-16 would not have had any of the above systems though.
Click to expand...

Even if the Cessna had ADS-B IN (Stratus for example), he would not necessarily have seen the Viper without ADS-B Out and I doubt many 150s have that.
 
FlySince9 said:
Are you kidding? It's our airspace? Maybe we should lease it to the military when they are using it...:dunno:
Click to expand...

Yes, it's our airspace. Just like the national parks and forest are our land.
 
frcabot said:
vi·o·late
ˈvīəˌlāt

rape or sexually assault (someone).
synonyms: rape, sexually assault, assault, force oneself on, abuse, attack, molest, interfere with; archaicdefile, deflower, dishonor, ruin; literaryravish
"he drugged and then violated her"
Click to expand...
Yep. You are a lawyer all right. :mad2:
violate
Click to expand...
[vahy-uh-leyt]






verb (used with object), violated, violating. 1. to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise, instructions, etc.).

2. to break in upon or disturb rudely; interfere thoughtlessly with: to violate his privacy.


3. to break through or pass by force or without right: to violate a frontier.


4. to treat irreverently or disrespectfully; desecrate; profane: violate a human right.


5. to molest sexually, especially to rape.
Click to expand...
At least one of your definitions could be considered valid, if you take it out of context.
 
hindsight2020 said:
A coworker told me recently the submarine corps is all closet aviator aspirants or med DQs, is it the same in the at-large SWO career field? Our Navs/ABMers can apply for the pilot board; can swo's do the same in the Navy or can only your NFOs (you equivalent of our navs I take it) make that jump?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There are far more fallen angels in the SWO community than Subs. 'Needs of the Navy' does have an effect though. I was just talking to a coworker yesterday who's husband was Naval Academy and wanted to be a pilot, but they needed more sub guys that year. It happens.

Yes, you can lateral transfer to aviation as a SWO, but not many do it. I have only known 2 in the 15 years I've been in. With aviation, people usually know in advance that is what they want to do. Most of the SWOs who would want to be pilots were medically unfit in the first place, so a later transfer doesn't help.

BUT, that said, don't believe all the chest thumping on Air Warriors. People go Surface for way to many varied reasons to broad brush like that. Neither the SWO or Sub communities are chock full of aspiring aviators and not every Naval Aviator is living a life of fun and glory. Want to see a bunch of pi$$ed off pilots? Go talk to guys that are ship's company on CVNs and LHDs.

They all have their advantages and disadvantages and all of the communities (aviation included) suffer from poor personnel management. Aviators got CRUSHED in the FY15 O4 selection board. They are also doing moronic things like sending H-60 guys to H-53s as Department Heads because they short-sightedly previously downsized the H-53 community.
 
FlySince9 said:
:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Yes, because we've been invaded so much, and been fighting so many invading armies on our soil in the past 200 years. Not counting the Japanese on one of the Aleutians, the last time any foreign army set foot on American soil was, what, 1812ish?

What really keeps what's ours ours is location. No matter how much you want to pat yourself on the back. The logistics of invading here are not worth the effort.
 
Sluggo63: Thanks for pointing out that while GA is first to be blamed in the media, the military is first to be blamed in GA.

I didn't realize we had so many experts on the board that have extensive knowledge of air to air radar, fighter tactics/procedures and in-depth knowledge of what was going on inside the cockpit of that F-16. Wow, I'm impressed!

Stay classy POA... stay classy... :rolleyes:
 
EvilEagle said:
Sluggo63: Thanks for pointing out that while GA is first to be blamed in the media, the military is first to be blamed in GA.

I didn't realize we had so many experts on the board that have extensive knowledge of air to air radar, fighter tactics/procedures and in-depth knowledge of what was going on inside the cockpit of that F-16. Wow, I'm impressed!

Stay classy POA... stay classy... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You have to remember the over-arching theme of many here at POA. If there is any way/shape/form to blame a government conspiracy then the tinfoil crowd will gravitate to just that. The military (by default) is part of said government.
 
EdFred said:
Yes, it's our airspace. Just like the national parks and forest are our land.
Click to expand...

The same is technically true of all military airspace too. You should go land at Nellis AFB. After all, it's "yours".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top