Tümü
← Back to Squawk list
Report details final seconds before deadly F-16, Cessna crash
F-16 pilot "warned" of traffic ahead before deadly collision with Cessna aircraft. (www.usatoday.com) Daha Fazlası...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Hey old preach--don't go away. The midair was not in class C. The outer tier is 1200 to 4000MSL. The inner tier is surface to 4000MSL. The fact that the Cessna didn't file a flight plan made it difficult for CHS approach to see and know what he was doing. They only had full control of the jet. Sorry, but I would NEVER fly around a known military base without talking to them. The uncontrolled Berkeley field is only 17NM from CHS VOR. What nav equipment did the Cessna have? How did he think he was out of class C? He was going to Myrtle Beach which is about a 060 heading from his departure. He was flying a course of approx 150? I guess he wanted to fly over to the coast and sight see then turn north east. What in Hell is a GA Cessna think he has a right to do? Well, under current rules, he was OK. Now he's dead. I feel badly for the family but I can't reverse what happened.
George, better you take your argument to the FAA and AOPA. I have well over 10,000 hours in more than 4 types. The military does not have types for fighters and others, so I actually have more than that. There were omissions in this accident on both sides. Let it go.
As I previously posted---all commercial jets and even turboprops can fly at speeds well above a Cessna. The Cessna was totally out of touch with anybody. The fighter was in total touch with CHS and being vectored. This Cessna came in out of nowhere. He was in the way of an aircraft on an approved approach and under full radar and voice contact. If the Cessna had tuned in CHS approach, they could have told the Cessna to not cross the path of an aircraft obeying all the rules and just like I said before---this could have been me in my scheduled, IFR clearance, commercial airplane with passengers and no ejection seat. I have flown into CHS many times and there for the grace of God, this didn't happen to me.
I'll raise an issue I have with ATC. They will routinely ask you if you have the airport in sight. If you agree--you are on your own. I never said "airport in sight" until the final approach and I felt I would make a safe landing and had clearance from tower or announced to CTAF.
George---Over and out--no more discussion. Have a safe and happy flying career.
As I previously posted---all commercial jets and even turboprops can fly at speeds well above a Cessna. The Cessna was totally out of touch with anybody. The fighter was in total touch with CHS and being vectored. This Cessna came in out of nowhere. He was in the way of an aircraft on an approved approach and under full radar and voice contact. If the Cessna had tuned in CHS approach, they could have told the Cessna to not cross the path of an aircraft obeying all the rules and just like I said before---this could have been me in my scheduled, IFR clearance, commercial airplane with passengers and no ejection seat. I have flown into CHS many times and there for the grace of God, this didn't happen to me.
I'll raise an issue I have with ATC. They will routinely ask you if you have the airport in sight. If you agree--you are on your own. I never said "airport in sight" until the final approach and I felt I would make a safe landing and had clearance from tower or announced to CTAF.
George---Over and out--no more discussion. Have a safe and happy flying career.
Pete,
I respectfully ask that you check out the information at the following link: (http://www.pilotworkshop.com/tips/flight_plan_advisories.htm). I have verified it independently with the appropriate FAA resources (local and center ATC facility management, a respected operations inspector at local FSDO, manager at regional FSS, and several different very experienced and well regarded CFI's with combined experience of >100 years). Perhaps a little more such research when you post will, in the future, help prevent from posting incorrect and potentially dangerous information. VFR flight plans add nothing to air traffic control traffic separation functions or in-flight safety. They only facilitate helping search and rescue find the wreckage and casualties-PERIOD! And again, I agree that ATC flight following, when available is always advisable for VFR cross country flight.
I respectfully ask that you check out the information at the following link: (http://www.pilotworkshop.com/tips/flight_plan_advisories.htm). I have verified it independently with the appropriate FAA resources (local and center ATC facility management, a respected operations inspector at local FSDO, manager at regional FSS, and several different very experienced and well regarded CFI's with combined experience of >100 years). Perhaps a little more such research when you post will, in the future, help prevent from posting incorrect and potentially dangerous information. VFR flight plans add nothing to air traffic control traffic separation functions or in-flight safety. They only facilitate helping search and rescue find the wreckage and casualties-PERIOD! And again, I agree that ATC flight following, when available is always advisable for VFR cross country flight.
I personally hope that your argument is over, but it probably isn't. I have a little past double your time on about 6 different Aircraft, mostly civilian big iron. That said, there will always be a disagreement between GA and big iron. Most folks on GA don't contact ATC and unless a cross country or something, won't even file a flight pan, where it is a way of life on big iron, regardless of what FAR you fly under. All that said, and while having been into CHS a time or 2, I'm not that familiar with it. From the report I just draw a couple of conclusions: The main one is that for whatever reason it appears the 150 strayed over in controlled airspace and ATC saw him in there. The F16 was on a controlled approach. The main thing I see here was that ATC did not issue an IMMEDIATE TURN on the first call. My 2cts and I'm outa here
George, you are being a bit abrasive here. It sounds like you don't like planes that can fly 250 below 10000. As I previously said, commercial aircraft--be it a Cessna Citation or an ERJ-170 routinely fly at speeds around 150 to 175 when being vectored for an approach. Forget that it was an F-16. That pilot has twice the responsibility to see and avoid as would a commercial jet with two crew and 4 eyes and in radar and voice contact with approach control. This accident could have easily been avoided if the Cessna listened to CHS or filed a flight plan for his destination with cruising altitude and route. Not only this terrible midair but if the Cessna had a problem, he would be instantly in contact with help.
Peter,
I was not being abrasive at all, but I'm about to be. I have repeatedly agreed with your repeated insistence that VFR flight following with ATC is an excellent safety tool with many safety advantages and that I personally ALWAYS use it WHEN AVAILABLE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS. I do not agree that you should never fly VFR without it, NOR DOES THE FAA OR NTSB. IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAR'S AND, QUITE FRANKLY, IF YOU CAN'T FLY VFR WITHOUT IT, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT COMPETENT ENOUGH TO FLY AT ALL! Nor do I agree faster, heavier IFR traffic should be allowed to blast blindly around in the VMC sky, ploughing over any VFR "mosquitoes" unfortunate enough to get in their path. In addition, I have to ask, have you ever heard of either NORDO or no transponder in Class F airspace; both legal and even necessary for some aircraft. Is that abrasive enough for you?
Remember flight training 101, Peter? Under or unpowered traffic has the right of way over higher powered traffic? Lower traffic has the right of way over higher traffic? STILL ALWAYS TRUE IN VMC!! See and avoid? ALWAYS TRUE IN VMC FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING IFR TRAFFIC!!! Nothing wrong with aircraft below 10,000' going 250 knots VFR, but they need to understand and practice their responsibility to SEE AND AVOID, ESPECIALLY IN VMC!! You just seem determined to pin this one on the Cessna 150 pilot's failure to use flight following and hold the controller and the F-16 pilot blameless, no matter what!
I wrote my last post because I fly an aircraft with similar visibility to the Cessna 150 and I wanted to see first hand what the Cessna 150 pilot would have seen. All aircraft have visual blind spots where traffic can approach them unseen and I wanted to verify whether or not this was true for this instance in a Cessna 150 for higher converging traffic in the particular geometry of this accident. My observations confirmed my hypothesis; the higher traffic would have extremely difficult to impossible for the Cessna 150 pilot to see. He had to count on higher crossing VFR traffic approaching in those blind spots to successfully practice see and avoid (a reasonable, if not as positive, protection given the geometry and frontal visibility for higher, crossing traffic) and the same visual see and avoid from IFR traffic in his blind spots, in addition to their positive IFR separation. This is required (for the IFR traffic) by the FAR's. Of course, low winged aircraft have corresponding blind spots to lower crossing climbing traffic. These blind spots makes the slower aircraft particularly vulnerable.
The Cessna pilot had general see and avoid responsibilities, although that was extremely difficult to impossible in this particular geometry to perform due to wing and structural obscuration and interception angle. The F-16 pilot, on the other hand, was sitting in arguably one of the best visual aerial observation platforms on the planet with the slower crossing traffic almost straight ahead and 2 miles or less away. He failed to visually detect the traffic (which should have been clearly visible given the geometry), even after it was pointed out by ATC! Then he failed to follow a relatively unambiguous conditional instruction to turn if he didn't have the traffic in sight (he neither had the traffic in sight nor turned). Further, even after the ATC controller gave him a second turn ORDER, which was clearly collision avoidance instructions which included the word "immediate", he undertook an unhurried correction in course (from the NTSB Preliminary Report describes as "Over the next 18 seconds, the track of the F-16 began turning southerly."). Pilot in Commend is responsible for the safety of his flight PERIOD. I feel badly for him, but unless the respective NTSB and USAF investigations show some pre-existing and substantial mitigating circumstances (in-flight failure, emergency, etc) which did not even merit mention in the NTSB Preliminary Report, he's failed in his legal duties as a pilot and is substantially at fault for this accident and its consequences. It's called a Preliminary Report for a reason, but would take HIGHLY unusual subsequent factors to change culpability.
The ATC controller was probably properly performing his duties properly right up until he failed understand that he had an extremely probable imminent collision (indicated by course, and altitude, and, probably, electronic alarms on his ATC tracking equipment) for converging traffic, all of which were obviously accurate, and failed to order DRASTIC EMERGENCY separation instructions to the F-16. After his first instruction was ignored, he should have been issuing EXTREMELY CLEAR and EMPHATIC EMERGENCY ORDERS to the F-16 pilot for EMERGENCY TURN AND CLIMB. He failed in his legal duties to provide positive traffic separation service to the F-16 pilot even given that pilot's unsatisfactory performance. Unless the results of the full NTSB investigation uncovers some important factors and/or circumstances unknown and unreported in the NTSB Preliminary Report, the ATC controller seriously failed in his legal duties and job performance and will be found to be substantially at fault for this accident and its consequences.
Now my "take away" from this is STILL to use ATC flight following WHENEVER AVAILABLE. Now, I think I'll also use my position tail strobe in the daytime as well as night. Really might have made a difference in this accident. As far as flying VFR in the same airspace with fast, heavy iron unwilling or unable to comply with MANDATORY VMC see and avoid practices or IFR traffic flown by pilots unwilling to follow ATC mandatory traffic separation (collision avoidance) or guided by controllers unable to convey the impending gravity of the convergence, I'll just have to take my chances and be extra aware and observant that such IFR traffic and controllers exist. I may have to share VMC with IFR pilots willing to fly 50/50 see and avoid in VMC or controllers who don't understand the concept of imminent convergence (collision), but I ain't going to hide quaking in the hanger...
OVER AND OUT!
I was not being abrasive at all, but I'm about to be. I have repeatedly agreed with your repeated insistence that VFR flight following with ATC is an excellent safety tool with many safety advantages and that I personally ALWAYS use it WHEN AVAILABLE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS. I do not agree that you should never fly VFR without it, NOR DOES THE FAA OR NTSB. IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAR'S AND, QUITE FRANKLY, IF YOU CAN'T FLY VFR WITHOUT IT, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT COMPETENT ENOUGH TO FLY AT ALL! Nor do I agree faster, heavier IFR traffic should be allowed to blast blindly around in the VMC sky, ploughing over any VFR "mosquitoes" unfortunate enough to get in their path. In addition, I have to ask, have you ever heard of either NORDO or no transponder in Class F airspace; both legal and even necessary for some aircraft. Is that abrasive enough for you?
Remember flight training 101, Peter? Under or unpowered traffic has the right of way over higher powered traffic? Lower traffic has the right of way over higher traffic? STILL ALWAYS TRUE IN VMC!! See and avoid? ALWAYS TRUE IN VMC FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING IFR TRAFFIC!!! Nothing wrong with aircraft below 10,000' going 250 knots VFR, but they need to understand and practice their responsibility to SEE AND AVOID, ESPECIALLY IN VMC!! You just seem determined to pin this one on the Cessna 150 pilot's failure to use flight following and hold the controller and the F-16 pilot blameless, no matter what!
I wrote my last post because I fly an aircraft with similar visibility to the Cessna 150 and I wanted to see first hand what the Cessna 150 pilot would have seen. All aircraft have visual blind spots where traffic can approach them unseen and I wanted to verify whether or not this was true for this instance in a Cessna 150 for higher converging traffic in the particular geometry of this accident. My observations confirmed my hypothesis; the higher traffic would have extremely difficult to impossible for the Cessna 150 pilot to see. He had to count on higher crossing VFR traffic approaching in those blind spots to successfully practice see and avoid (a reasonable, if not as positive, protection given the geometry and frontal visibility for higher, crossing traffic) and the same visual see and avoid from IFR traffic in his blind spots, in addition to their positive IFR separation. This is required (for the IFR traffic) by the FAR's. Of course, low winged aircraft have corresponding blind spots to lower crossing climbing traffic. These blind spots makes the slower aircraft particularly vulnerable.
The Cessna pilot had general see and avoid responsibilities, although that was extremely difficult to impossible in this particular geometry to perform due to wing and structural obscuration and interception angle. The F-16 pilot, on the other hand, was sitting in arguably one of the best visual aerial observation platforms on the planet with the slower crossing traffic almost straight ahead and 2 miles or less away. He failed to visually detect the traffic (which should have been clearly visible given the geometry), even after it was pointed out by ATC! Then he failed to follow a relatively unambiguous conditional instruction to turn if he didn't have the traffic in sight (he neither had the traffic in sight nor turned). Further, even after the ATC controller gave him a second turn ORDER, which was clearly collision avoidance instructions which included the word "immediate", he undertook an unhurried correction in course (from the NTSB Preliminary Report describes as "Over the next 18 seconds, the track of the F-16 began turning southerly."). Pilot in Commend is responsible for the safety of his flight PERIOD. I feel badly for him, but unless the respective NTSB and USAF investigations show some pre-existing and substantial mitigating circumstances (in-flight failure, emergency, etc) which did not even merit mention in the NTSB Preliminary Report, he's failed in his legal duties as a pilot and is substantially at fault for this accident and its consequences. It's called a Preliminary Report for a reason, but would take HIGHLY unusual subsequent factors to change culpability.
The ATC controller was probably properly performing his duties properly right up until he failed understand that he had an extremely probable imminent collision (indicated by course, and altitude, and, probably, electronic alarms on his ATC tracking equipment) for converging traffic, all of which were obviously accurate, and failed to order DRASTIC EMERGENCY separation instructions to the F-16. After his first instruction was ignored, he should have been issuing EXTREMELY CLEAR and EMPHATIC EMERGENCY ORDERS to the F-16 pilot for EMERGENCY TURN AND CLIMB. He failed in his legal duties to provide positive traffic separation service to the F-16 pilot even given that pilot's unsatisfactory performance. Unless the results of the full NTSB investigation uncovers some important factors and/or circumstances unknown and unreported in the NTSB Preliminary Report, the ATC controller seriously failed in his legal duties and job performance and will be found to be substantially at fault for this accident and its consequences.
Now my "take away" from this is STILL to use ATC flight following WHENEVER AVAILABLE. Now, I think I'll also use my position tail strobe in the daytime as well as night. Really might have made a difference in this accident. As far as flying VFR in the same airspace with fast, heavy iron unwilling or unable to comply with MANDATORY VMC see and avoid practices or IFR traffic flown by pilots unwilling to follow ATC mandatory traffic separation (collision avoidance) or guided by controllers unable to convey the impending gravity of the convergence, I'll just have to take my chances and be extra aware and observant that such IFR traffic and controllers exist. I may have to share VMC with IFR pilots willing to fly 50/50 see and avoid in VMC or controllers who don't understand the concept of imminent convergence (collision), but I ain't going to hide quaking in the hanger...
OVER AND OUT!