Things were simpler in the piston fighter days, plus there was a war on.
The X-35 has no urgency, it's make-work for the defense industry.
F16 vs Cessna 150 collision
- Thread starter DaveA
- Start date
Things were simpler in the piston fighter days, plus there was a war on.
The X-35 has no urgency, it's make-work for the defense industry.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
BINGO!!!
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yes a P-51 is far more simpler than an X-35. I'm trying to show a trend here. Not just about complexity but how red tape and inefficient the system has become. A system that revolves around contractors making money and not any real urgency to produce the finest aircraft in the world. Look at how quickly we pumped out the Century Fighters and look how long it took to procure this thing.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,263
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
Yeah, and we probably didn't care what got dumped in the rivers and sent out the smoke stacks. It's much harder regulatory wise to be a producer/manufacturer these days. Also, remember that stack of paper that accompanies the aircraft? All that testing and documentation takes time and costs money.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That is unfortunately so very true. It is a Federal jobs program. It's the New, New Deal.
EvilEagle
Pattern Altitude
Nope, I just went back and re-read all 17 pages. You didn't say it. You certainly implied that it was the 16's fault with the $100 burger run bit, but you never said that outright. I was mixing you up with all the other military-is-the-root-of-all-that-is-evil-in-aviation folks on this thread. Sorry, I can't keep all the players straight - been all over the map in the last week (2 Delta trips and a Bo trip) so some stuff runs together.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
bnt83
Final Approach
Stuff happens and its usually several failures that led to the event.
A brand spanking new Embraer Legacy (~50,000 pounds at gross) being delivered to its new owner collided with a Boeing 737 at 37,000 feet over Brazil is one that comes to mind.
The Embraer is still flying. All 154 people on the 737 died.
Even being on IFR flight plan. Even both airplanes being equipped with TCAS stuff happens. Both airplanes likely had dual transponders, dual audio panels, and dual VHF com radios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907
A brand spanking new Embraer Legacy (~50,000 pounds at gross) being delivered to its new owner collided with a Boeing 737 at 37,000 feet over Brazil is one that comes to mind.
The Embraer is still flying. All 154 people on the 737 died.
Even being on IFR flight plan. Even both airplanes being equipped with TCAS stuff happens. Both airplanes likely had dual transponders, dual audio panels, and dual VHF com radios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907
Last edited:
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
No worries, I get confused sometimes too. As for the Cessna, well - yes he was on a $100 burger run.
http://www.abcnews4.com/story/29510263/coroner-missing-cessna-pilot-found
The father and son were making a day trip to Myrtle Beach at the time of the collision.
An NTSB investigator said the Johnsons had taken off from the Berkeley County Airport just minutes before the crash happened for a short day trip to Myrtle Beach and had planned to return home the same day.
Read more: http://www.kctv5.com/story/29491579...midair-collision-of-f-16-cessna#ixzz3fVC9ifOa
I don't make stuff up. Were they actually going to go to a restaurant and order an actual burger? I think you get the point.
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
Exactly. And don't forget the defense business has thousands of lobbyists not to mention that they spread parts contracts out to as many states as possible to placate voters. Military pilots for the most part are well educated , well trained and better than a whole lot of GA pilots flying today. The F35 should have been shut down long ago.
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
He was on an instrument proficiency sortie. The radar is not needed to fly an instrument proficiency sortie.
In the F-111 we could do a lot of training without the attack radar, pavetack system, TFRs, ECM etc. We could not take off without a operational TACAN receiver. A significant part of currency training in tactical fighters has nothing to do with weapons employment. An F-16 is an airplane and a F-16 pilot has a number of sorties dedicated to basic and advanced aircraft handling and instrument proficiency.
Actually, the transponder on the Embraer was off. And ATC was totally negligent/reckless in that case. The point is that with nearly all collisions, someone somewhere is negligent.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Is there a widely accepted definition of negligence in aviation law?
Any law. Basically, someone is negligent if they're not reasonably careful under the circumstances. You can be negligent even if you don't violate the FARs or any law. If you fail to comply with good operating practices or procedures, even if not strictly required under any regulation, that can still constitute negligence.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
And you're convinced that this pilot was not reasonably careful under the circumstances? He was not operating with good operating practices or procedures? If it would have been any other pilot from his squadron, this would not have happened?
bnt83
Final Approach
I'm not sure what your point is.
Failure to ensure transponders are on.
Failure of the controller to recognize it.
Failure to establish communications in a timely manner
Failure to communicate with the doomed 737
Every disaster has a chain a failures whether equipment or human error. Correcting just one of them typically prevents the disaster.
I didn't say that. I said that in almost all cases, a collision is the result of negligence somewhere. It could be ATC that failed to give a traffic advisory, or it could be the F16 pilot who failed to take action in response to the ATC advisory. If ATC gave an advisory and the F16 did nothing to avoid the collision, would you not agree there was negligence? Conversely, if ATC saw the Cessna on radar and didn't issue an advisory, wouldn't you conclude that ATC was negligent? Or, it could be the Cessna pilot who had an inop transponder.
Well the most important issue there was instruction by ATC for an incorrect altitude. So my point was that the collision was a result of negligence, which it almost always is. You've identified a number of causes, each of which independently constitutes negligence. Together, they probably constitute recklessness (which is why people actually went to jail over that accident).I'm not sure what your point is.
Failure to ensure transponders are on.
Failure of the controller to recognize it.
Failure to establish communications in a timely manner
Failure to communicate with the doomed 737
Every disaster has a chain a failures whether equipment or human error. Correcting just one of them typically prevents the disaster.
Hank S
En-Route
Spoken like a true lawyer. There are no accidents, nothing ever "just happens," there is someone to blame for every bad thing that happens. And that responsible party either has money to pay a fine for their action(s) or lack thereof, or keep looking until you either find someone with money or with insurance, even if the moneyed involvement is merely tangential, because the victim must be paid. To say nothing of the huge chunk taken by the victim's lawyer.
Tort reform is desperately needed to stop the courtroom fortune hunt. This is part of why airplanes, aircraft parts, service and insurance are so expensive.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand tort law in the least. By the way, nice try but I'm not a plaintiffs' lawyer. And the cost of aircraft has little to do with tort law, and much more to do with limited supply and limited demand (econ 101).
Additionally, your attitude is extremely callous. If your family were killed because of some ATC error or pilot error, you'd just shrug and say, "oh well, serves them right"? There's a difference between a freak accident and an avoidable, preventable accident. In the latter scenario, victims deserve to be compensated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I think there is a possibility of negligence but I'm not one to judge any single person at this point based on the limited information we have. I wasn't sitting behind the scope, I wasn't flying the Cessna and I wasn't in the F-16.
weirdjim
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,171
- Location
- Grass Valley, CA (KGOO)
- Display Name
Display name:
weirdjim
I obviously am not in a position to judge who was where and why. I'd just like a simple answer to a hypothetical question.
Suppose, just suppose, that the pilot of the military aircraft had his head down inside the aircraft and locked on the instrument approach. THat he had no information or warning that he was on a collision course with the Cessna, nor was he looking around to see if there was traffic in his path, whether or not he could see and avoid at his airspeed and configuration.
Let us presume that the investigation board found that the pilot was not looking for traffic, be it on the internal radar on outside visual. That his sole interest at the moment of collision was the completion of his instrument approach.
Let us presume that the bluestone ringtapper pilot agreed with the board's findings but that his defense was that he was on a mission that had been approved and had been executed by this particular command for a long time with no adverse effects.
What action do you suppose the military board will find appropriate for one of their brother officers in this instance?
THanks,
Jim
Suppose, just suppose, that the pilot of the military aircraft had his head down inside the aircraft and locked on the instrument approach. THat he had no information or warning that he was on a collision course with the Cessna, nor was he looking around to see if there was traffic in his path, whether or not he could see and avoid at his airspeed and configuration.
Let us presume that the investigation board found that the pilot was not looking for traffic, be it on the internal radar on outside visual. That his sole interest at the moment of collision was the completion of his instrument approach.
Let us presume that the bluestone ringtapper pilot agreed with the board's findings but that his defense was that he was on a mission that had been approved and had been executed by this particular command for a long time with no adverse effects.
What action do you suppose the military board will find appropriate for one of their brother officers in this instance?
THanks,
Jim
redtail
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,408
- Location
- 93 million miles from the sun
- Display Name
Display name:
Redtail
You can say that again. I experienced that problem recently when I flew over Oceana NAS on my way home from First Flight Airport. I was on flight following and ATC was advising me of various F-16s inbound. I looked all over the place and couldn't see a darn thing, even though I think I had the targets on the G1000 TIS.
The only Falcons I saw were the ones down on the airfield as I flew over. I wasn't too happy about being unable to spot them only a few miles off my right wing.
Last edited:
Depends. Did ATC notify him of the traffic? If not, why not? If he had head down in VFR conditions and wasn't looking outside, that to me is the picture definition of negligence. (Why do you think we require safety pilots?) The regs are pretty clear that IFR in VMC is still responsible for see and avoid. If you're not looking outside, then you're not seeing or avoiding, obviously. That's just based on your hypothetical.
Last edited:
EvilEagle
Pattern Altitude
How do you fly an instrument approach without looking down? Single seat means you have to multi task. We have to do approaches in the real jet, not just simulators. You can't wait till it's an IFR day to do them because of the precious few sorties you get anyway.
Maybe he wasn't clearing as well as he could. Bottom line is that no one knows yet.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I've read several of the USAF accident investigation reports, and if anything, they are far more open, and far more brutal than anything the NTSB ever puts out.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Don't know about specific AF regs, but generally military aviation accident reports are not releasable to the public. I've seen plenty of accident vids in the Army that you would never see online.
If that information does get out, it's either because it was leaked or most likely because the appropriate releasing authority let it out for public benefit.
The two I can specifically recall were the B-52 in TX and C-130 in Alaska, and I can see the 'public benefit' in pointing out the result of not untypical human factors issues.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I agree
The interesting thing is those reports were not only critical of the pilot behaviors, but the command behaviors as well.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Not familiar with a B-52 in TX but if you're referring to the Fairchild AFB crash, yes, the report on the command climate surrounding that accident was interesting.
Now that I think of it, I don't recall a C-130 AK accident either. C-17 air show a few years back?
Was it a C-17? But yeah, that accident.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The one where they stalled in a right bank and spun in? Yeah, C-17. I really don't know the background of the pilot in that accident.
Yeah, that's the one.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
He wasn't quite a Bud Holland, but he was a guy who was known for pushing limits and his superiors both knew that and didn't do much to reign him in.
Somewhere in the accident report there was a statement along the lines of the accident pilot commenting to others that it was impossible to stall a C-17.....he found out the hard way how wrong he was.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah, unfortunately a lot of us had those traits when we were young and dumb. As an SP, Col Holland should have known better.
Really? Do you want to actually quote from the accident report or are you just inventing stuff? He was known as an extremely knowledgeable and precise aviator. He never said that it was impossible to stall the C17, he said that during max performance maneuvers it was not uncommon for the stall warning to trigger. That's completely different from saying it's impossible to stall. Are you actually a pilot?
If I say "During slow flight the stall warning horn may trigger as the plane is being operated on the edge of a stall," that indicates to you my belief that the plane is impossible to stall? Ooook
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
A well respected aviator who developed a flight program that violated Air Force protocols not just on that accident but before as well. Now that I've read about him he wasn't "young and dumb" either. Over 3,000 hrs in the C-17, he should have known better.
No, he didn't say the C-17 couldn't be stalled. But he commented that the stall warning was inaccurate. Maybe it was???
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 7,000
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
I've always found the proposition of whipping boring whale transport category airplanes like they are remotely related to a fighter or piston aerobatic airplane, a sad and laughable affair. Bud Holland is a beer word in my former community and for a good reason.
We had a loss in 2008 in Guam and although the board never went out and said it because they have no proof, there's a lot of similarities to these air show crashes that we gathered from the Bro Network. Matter of fact, that one was also a practice run for a parade flyover. The community has a lot of malcontents and IFF/B-course/medDQ washouts who wish they'd fly Mudhens or the like, so stuff like this happens as a result. A lot of heavy communities have internal dynamics like that, to varying degrees. With the advent of the UAV, the soul-crush has become even more widespread amongst the pilot sub-categories.
We had a loss in 2008 in Guam and although the board never went out and said it because they have no proof, there's a lot of similarities to these air show crashes that we gathered from the Bro Network. Matter of fact, that one was also a practice run for a parade flyover. The community has a lot of malcontents and IFF/B-course/medDQ washouts who wish they'd fly Mudhens or the like, so stuff like this happens as a result. A lot of heavy communities have internal dynamics like that, to varying degrees. With the advent of the UAV, the soul-crush has become even more widespread amongst the pilot sub-categories.