F16 vs Cessna 150 collision

PPC1052 said:
I am not sure that I take quite the same thing from the report. Obviously, since they hit, if F16 had done anything differently, they would likely not have collided. If there was no vector at all, they would have missed. To me, the real question is why, when the 150 was to the south, ATC said to turn south. Why not have him turn to the North? Or climb? No way the 150 has the same climb rate.
Click to expand...

The real question is why the controller chose to try a vector the F-16 at such close proximity in the first place. The fist traffic call at 3.25 miles with "CA CA" going off should have been a safety alert and not a normal traffic call. Not to mention, I would have liked to have seen a normal traffic call well before that.

Actions I'm sure the NTSB will report, but nothing I'd consider gross negligence on the controller's part.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
I never contact approach until I'm well outside the airport environment. i.e. I stay on CTAF until at least 5 miles out. You could make a similar argument that the F-16 should have been monitoring CTAF since he was inside "the airport environment." When I'm out bopping around at low altitude, I always tune #2 radio to the CTAF of any airport I get w/i 10 miles of. Over 3,000' agl I don't bother, under, I do.
Click to expand...

This is an important point. It's much more important to keep the radio tuned to the local airport when still in the area than it is to call for FF. I do the same thing. I keep on the local airport frequency until out of the area. I'm MUCH more likely to have a conflict with another flight in/out of the local airport than I am a military jet flying though the same airspace at 3 times my speed.

Flying out of my home base, we often have to keep an eye out for the KC130 refueling tankers flying pattern laps at the local National Guard base. But ATC keeps them at least 3K' over our field, and they're HUGE compared to a F16. A little easier to see. It would be very disconcerting to see one of them overfly the field at 1600'.

When I went to a See & Avoid seminar at KPSM, where they also have a National Guard base, they talked about some of the low level routes they used to do through the NH mountains. One route they used went right over a small GA airport at pattern altitude. That got changed after the pilots at that airfield complained.
 
timwinters said:
Yes, and he executed his turn with the AP. The controller states that she was expecting him to do a maximum performance turn with her second instruction:
Click to expand...

There's nothing in any USAF regulation that would support doing a maximum performance turn at the behest of a controller. If we are on an IFR plan and we get a vector, we turn as if in the weather - usually with the AP on. If there is inflection in the controllers voice and if they say traffic alert, etc it's up to the pilot to decide how to expedite the turn. There's nothing ATC could say to me other than "there's a mountain off your nose for less than a mile, climb NOW!" that would make me max perform my jet in IMC or in/out of clouds. ATC doesn't have anyway to know what a "maximum performance turn" is - it varies greatly based on configuration, speed, fuel weight, etc. Any controller that thinks "turn south immediately" will get a max performance turn while in IMC/IFR flight plan is mistaken.

timwinters said:
The other thing I don't understand is how a controller and pilot think it's okay to basically overfly "the airport environment" at 250kts (+) at less than 1500' agl. If I'm visualizing everything correctly, and properly estimating the distance a climbing 150 will travel in three minutes, the accident happened within 2 or 3 miles of the departure end of rwy 23. WTF?
Click to expand...

As stated, that is normal operating speeds for fighter traffic. 250 is actually slow for us - by regulation we can't get below 230 until we fully configure in the Eagle.
 
I don't blame the Cessna pilot either, but I think there are some (understandable) misconceptions here about the reality of flying an instrument approach in a single seat fighter jet. Most have been highlighted, all I would say is that it is a somewhat different experience, and it can be a lot more task saturating depending on conditions/approach than the same in a more properly configured civilian multi piloted aircraft which was built to operate from pt A to pt B shooting precision approaches to mins. These things were designed to drop bombs and shoot missiles, everything else is just an afterthought……..an often poorly implemented one at that.
 
EvilEagle said:
There's nothing in any USAF regulation that would support doing a maximum performance turn at the behest of a controller. If we are on an IFR plan and we get a vector, we turn as if in the weather - usually with the AP on. If there is inflection in the controllers voice and if they say traffic alert, etc it's up to the pilot to decide how to expedite the turn. There's nothing ATC could say to me other than "there's a mountain off your nose for less than a mile, climb NOW!" that would make me max perform my jet in IMC or in/out of clouds. ATC doesn't have anyway to know what a "maximum performance turn" is - it varies greatly based on configuration, speed, fuel weight, etc. Any controller that thinks "turn south immediately" will get a max performance turn while in IMC/IFR flight plan is mistaken.



As stated, that is normal operating speeds for fighter traffic. 250 is actually slow for us - by regulation we can't get below 230 until we fully configure in the Eagle.
Click to expand...

At Bagram the F-15Es used to come in to land hot. Wasn't until a couple years latter when I read a Flying article, I think the pilot said they were landing at 210 indicated. At 5,000 PA and temps in the summer, I can only imagine how high their touchdown speed was.
 
Last edited:
EvilEagle said:
As stated, that is normal operating speeds for fighter traffic. 250 is actually slow for us - by regulation we can't get below 230 until we fully configure in the Eagle.
Click to expand...

Understood, you guys gotta do what you gotta do, but transitioning thru an airport environment (i.e. w/i 5 miles of a field) at those speeds within 500' of TPA seems quite reckless. There's an article over at AOPA right now about this crash and it looks like they impacted exactly 3 miles from the MKS runway.

I remember Bobby ( @Graueradler ) telling me about the issues he used to have with C130s when he managed RUE. They'd fly in herds right thru the TP IIRC. Caused havoc, and those are slow movers.

Edit: I fully understand that it was the controller who put the F16 inside the airport environment. There were a lot of bad assumptions and decisions made by the controller who was at least 75% responsible for this tragedy IMO.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Everyone has their opinion, I'm out. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Who cares what these POA "experts" have to say. :D Treat it as entertainment value only.

I just read through the NTSB report. Very interesting and sad. Like so many accidents it looks like it was the combination of several factors (including bad luck for example the wing strut obscuring the view of the 150 pilot until the last second).
 
mscard88 said:
Here's the US Air Force accident investigation.

http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftAccidentReports/Documents/2016/070715_F-16_Cessna_SC.pdf
Click to expand...

Similar to the NTSB report, they put most of the blame on the controller. Should've done a safety alert earlier with a climb vs a mandatory turn at the last minute.

They mention the vector passed MKS as a contributing factor. While not the best place to take a 250 kt fighter, that sort of thing is going to happen. Just down the road at NBC, you've got two airports (HXD & ARW) located in close proximity to common approach paths into the air station. Aircraft pass those fields going 250-400 kts between 1500-3000 ft. The PAR at the air station for rwy 32 goes right over ARW at 1500 ft. There's risk involved in that but it's acceptable. Like MTRs (IR-18 & VR-1040) that go in close proximity to uncontrolled fields. You just got to be on the lookout for fast movers.
 
Seems to follow with the previous comments that the controller vectored the F-16 directly into the 150. Ouch.
 
Maybe I missed it but what happened to the F-16 pilots? Was he held partially responsible? It sounds like it was ATC all the way, but they did throw in that the aircraft should have used equipment on board to avoid the collision. I'm assuming they mean the F-16's radar, or IFF?
 
Anthony said:
Maybe I missed it but what happened to the F-16 pilots? Was he held partially responsible? It sounds like it was ATC all the way, but they did throw in that the aircraft should have used equipment on board to avoid the collision. I'm assuming they mean the F-16's radar, or IFF?
Click to expand...
You'll likely never know. Unless the pilot was an O5 or above, or unit CO, you are unlikely to ever see the results of any punitive action.
 
Anthony said:
Maybe I missed it but what happened to the F-16 pilots? Was he held partially responsible? It sounds like it was ATC all the way, but they did throw in that the aircraft should have used equipment on board to avoid the collision. I'm assuming they mean the F-16's radar, or IFF?
Click to expand...

Most likely nothing to the pilot. The NTSB partially blamed the "inherent limitations of the see and avoid concept," on both pilots.

The F-16 was using radar in search mode but AF personnel have stated it would likely not pick up a small, slow moving target. It's not known if the pilot had its IFF detection equipment on but even if it were, the report states it doesn't provide a precise location. Don't think either technology would have benefited the F-16 pilot in this accident. The NTSB does say that an in the cockpit display (TCAS), could have helped the F-16 pilot avoid the collision.

A late traffic call followed by a bad safety alert and the pilots failing in the see and avoid concept.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm....

Plaintiff’s attorney Mary Schiavo says the family intends to pursue a jury trial to determine whether they’ll be awarded damages.
Click to expand...
 
Anthony said:
the aircraft should have used equipment on board to avoid the collision. I'm assuming they mean the F-16's radar, or IFF?
Click to expand...

What leads you to believe that such equipment wasn't being used or, if it was, was being used improperly?
 
If the F-16 radar is like that of other look-down-shoot-down radars then it may reject targets with less than ~80 knots of groundspeed.
 
It's been a few years now. Were any procedure or tech changes made to prevent an accident like this today? As a student pilot I'm trying to figure out how I could avoid being run over by fast moving military aircraft.
 
elvisAteMySandwich said:
It's been a few years now. Were any procedure or tech changes made to prevent an accident like this today? As a student pilot I'm trying to figure out how I could avoid being run over by fast moving military aircraft.
Click to expand...

Don't know about procedures, etc., but I do know some options for reducing or eliminating the possibility:

a. Stay on the ground and avoid all military aircraft at all costs. That will eliminate the chance of being run over by one.

b. Fly at airports located away from known military bases and/or airways. This will reduce the chance.

c. Decide the risk of being run over by a military jet is really very minor in comparsion to the multitude of other risks you take on every time the wheels leave the ground, and go fly. Eyes outside the cockpit, ear to the radio.

Situational awareness is really the only way to avoid mid-airs, as far as I know. As for risk, chances of being creamed by a fighter are far smaller than crashing due to pilot error and as a fellow student pilot, I'm pretty sure I am the primary risk factor in the plane anyway. Just my opinion, though!
 
I regularly fly over an MOA (Travis) but the traffic is mostly C5's, and they are really easy to see and avoid.
 
There are charted military routes. They're grey with little arrows indicating the direction of the route and an identifier for the route. For example, IR308 is a NE to SW route west of KPUB (Pueblo, CO), The SW to NE route (same grey line) is IR137. Going across a charted route? Pay extra attention.
 
elvisAteMySandwich said:
It's been a few years now. Were any procedure or tech changes made to prevent an accident like this today? As a student pilot I'm trying to figure out how I could avoid being run over by fast moving military aircraft.
Click to expand...

No, no procedural changes were made because it was determined controller error. You just can’t throw an F-16 directly at a VFR and hope a traffic call will work. Believe me, as an approach student I used to do just that until my instructors made me aware of the purpose of the ATC system...prevent collisions. This particular controller failed in that respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top