F16 vs Cessna 150 collision

There is no "unjustifiably" trashing the pilot here. The pilot owns this one. He's doing a single pilot IFR approach in VMC and chose to prioritize the approach to th neglect of traffic avoidance.
 
Henning said:
There is no "unjustifiably" trashing the pilot here. The pilot owns this one. He's doing a single pilot IFR approach in VMC and chose to prioritize the approach to th neglect of traffic avoidance.
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read the prelim report?

The F16 was on an assigned heading of 260 to intercept the approach. He was then turned by ATC to left to fly heading 180. By all indications, when told to turn immediately , he entered a standard rate turn and 15 seconds later was on heading 215. He did what he was told. If his speed was 250kts, what angle of bank would achieve a standard rate turn?

I've tried to explain to you what the proper ATC procedure is for this situation, but you refuse to listen.
 
vintage cessna said:
Did you even bother to read the prelim report?

The F16 was on an assigned heading of 260 to intercept the approach. He was then turned by ATC to left to fly heading 180. By all indications, when told to turn immediately , he entered a standard rate turn and 15 seconds later was on heading 215. He did what he was told. If his speed was 250kts, what angle of bank would achieve a standard rate turn?

I've tried to explain to you what the proper ATC procedure is for this situation, but you refuse to listen.
Click to expand...

You refuse to accept that he sat there looking for traffic for 8 seconds then got an "immediate" from ATC at which point not seeing the traffic he should have abandoned the approach and approach flight parameters and made that thing turn and climb like an F-16 in visual conditions can. It was up to him to abandon the approach, not the controller.
 
Henning said:
You refuse to accept that he sat there looking for traffic for 8 seconds then got an "immediate" from ATC at which point not seeing the traffic he should have abandoned the approach and approach flight parameters and made that thing turn and climb like an F-16 in visual conditions can. It was up to him to abandon the approach, not the controller.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the responsibility for separation in this situation rests with the PIC, and it should have been left there, with perhaps some "suggestions" from ATC. A traffic alert should have been issued. It is not a good a idea to try to establish lateral separation only in such a close proximity as this, which is what the controller attempted to do. Since the 1200 code is not in communication with ATC, the target could turn in any direction.

If the F16 hadn't of turned at all, what would have happened?

Your conclusion ( and I'll be nice here) that the pilot was fixated on continuing the approach is erroneous .
 
Jaybird180 said:
First call was traffic 12'oclock 2 miles. I am still unsure of how he hit it IF he actually turned to AVOID.
Click to expand...

Becuase he wasn't turning to avoid something he could SEE. The two aircraft were 2 miles apart, nose to nose, opposite direction.

It is very possible the C150 pilot spots the F16 and turns right as per regulation. The F16, instead of turning right also, turns left as directed by ATC. The F16 is now on an intercept course rather than an avoidance course.
 
Seriously doubt the C150 saw it. Ever try spotting a F16 on a converging course? It's a major ***** even if you know where to look. I still wonder what the F16s airspeed was.

The c150 turning is kind of like a toddler on a big wheel trying to turn to avoid a F1 car about to hit it at full bore. Not that significant.
 
jesse said:
Seriously doubt the C150 saw it. Ever try spotting a F16 on a converging course? It's a major ***** even if you know where to look. I still wonder what the F16s airspeed was.

The c150 turning is kind of like a toddler on a big wheel trying to turn to avoid a F1 car about to hit it at full bore. Not that significant.
Click to expand...

What we do know for sure, is that the F16 did in fact turn to the left. His course altered at least 45 degrees by the time of the collision.
 
The aircraft, at the first traffic call are 2 miles apart, nose to nose, Cessna on a south easterly heading the F16 260 heading, pretty much opposite direction.

The F16 starts a left turn and at 1100:49 the F16 is 1/2 mile NE of the C150 that is tracking 110 degrees. That puts the F16 at the C150's 10 o'clock position . The F16 track is now 215 degrees and presumably still turning left to 180.

That is an intercept heading no matter how you look at it. Not deliberate of course, but that is how it worked out.
 
Please also note that with the C150 at 110*, and the F16 coming out of 215 is at 9 to 10 high and turning, at ~11am local time, this will put the jet approx into the sun from the Cessna as well. Scattered @ 2600, moving at somewhere around 250Kts is going to be hard - nay extremely hard for the Cessna to see and avoid. This does not absolve the Cessna, but surely the F16 would have a much better visual aquisition position with respect to the sun, cloud cover, and aircraft lighting than the Cessna.

The F16 response to, and actions from the instruction seem at a min casual, and at max lackadaisical given the initial call; 'traffic 12 o'clock 2 miles'. That would wake me up right damn now if I was in a fast mover(which I have never flown).

<edited for clarity>
 
docmirror said:
Please also note that with the C150 at 110*, and the F16 coming out of 215 is at 9 to 10 high and turning, at ~11am local time, this will put the jet approx into the sun from the Cessna as well. Scattered @ 2600, moving at somewhere around 250Kts is going to be hard - nay extremely hard for the Cessna to see and avoid. This does not absolve the Cessna, but surely the F16 would have a much better visual aquisition position with respect to the sun, cloud cover, and aircraft lighting than the Cessna.

The F16 response to, and actions from the instruction seem at a min casual, and at max lackadaisical given the initial call; 'traffic 12 o'clock 2 miles'. That would wake me up right damn now if I was in a fast mover(which I have never flown).

<edited for clarity>
Click to expand...

Who knows? I'm thinking that during those 8 seconds he was bugged eyed trying to aquire the traffic.

There is a reason why the 7110.65 proscribes precise phraseology and procedures in these situations . This is , in my opinion, an imminent situation. In that case the 7110.65 dictates the procedure and phraseology as TRAFFIC ALERT. That will definitely get your attention. Then , the controller will advise or suggest a course of action to the pilot.

The reason the controller only suggests an action is becuase he is not in control of the other aircraft and doesn't know what it will do and the seperation responsibility lies with pilot. With such close proximity and a rapid closure rate, if you got an F16 and the target is a slow mover, suggest an immediate climb. The controller in addition to suggesting a climb could have also reccomended altering course to the right. Why he chose left, I don't know.When in doubt, altitude will bail you out.

Apparently, the controller decided to assume seperation responsibility rather than leave it to the pilot. Why, I don't know that either.

I don't know how the AF is going to deal with the Major, but I''m fairly certain how the FAA/NTSB will. I don't think the Major deserves the trashing he is getting here. At least not based what is in the prelim report.
 
docmirror said:
Shouldn't the fact he made a full orbit be in the prelim report? I would think this would be easy enough to establish from the radar track. Since it's not in the report, and the time required to make a full orbit doesn't fit well, I'm going to discount this, and say he went from 260 > 215 on his way to 180. There's no indication that the pilot made a full orbit and then another ~45 deg turn to the south.
Click to expand...

Time required- you assume that he maintained 1/2 standard rate. I do not assume since there is a problem with radar track resolution and I try and assume he didn't want to ruin his (or anyone else's) day.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Time required- you assume that he maintained 1/2 standard rate. I do not assume since there is a problem with radar track resolution and I try and assume he didn't want to ruin his (or anyone else's) day.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming anything. You are inserting something into the prelim(full orbit) that is clearly facts not in evidence. I can't imagine that a full 360 turn, plus an additional 45 deg turn would not be mentioned. Also, the controller didn't give the guy an instruction to orbit left, he said 'left turn to 180 immediately'. Any turn to a discrete heading doesn't mean full orbit and then take up 180.
 
Are mil jets not equipped with TCAS? If not, why not? A TCAS instruction to climb would have saved lives.
 
vintage cessna said:
Who knows? I'm thinking that during those 8 seconds he was bugged eyed trying to aquire the traffic.

There is a reason why the 7110.65 proscribes precise phraseology and procedures in these situations . This is , in my opinion, an imminent situation. In that case the 7110.65 dictates the procedure and phraseology as TRAFFIC ALERT. That will definitely get your attention. Then , the controller will advise or suggest a course of action to the pilot.

The reason the controller only suggests an action is becuase he is not in control of the other aircraft and doesn't know what it will do and the seperation responsibility lies with pilot. With such close proximity and a rapid closure rate, if you got an F16 and the target is a slow mover, suggest an immediate climb. The controller in addition to suggesting a climb could have also reccomended altering course to the right. Why he chose left, I don't know.When in doubt, altitude will bail you out.

Apparently, the controller decided to assume seperation responsibility rather than leave it to the pilot. Why, I don't know that either.

I don't know how the AF is going to deal with the Major, but I''m fairly certain how the FAA/NTSB will. I don't think the Major deserves the trashing he is getting here. At least not based what is in the prelim report.
Click to expand...
If I'm picturing the tracks correctly, isn't the Cessna converging from the right?
 
Lindberg said:
If I'm picturing the tracks correctly, isn't the Cessna converging from the right?[/QUOTE

The F16 would have been converging from the C150's left. Since the F16 was turning, can't tell what the relative position was of the C150 to the F16.

If you read the report and draw it out on paper, you can visualize what happened.
Click to expand...
 
frcabot said:
Are mil jets not equipped with TCAS? If not, why not? A TCAS instruction to climb would have saved lives.
Click to expand...


No fighters have TCAS, we'd love to have it but there's no money for it. (Or so we're told)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
docmirror said:
I'm not assuming anything. You are inserting something into the prelim(full orbit) that is clearly facts not in evidence. I can't imagine that a full 360 turn, plus an additional 45 deg turn would not be mentioned. Also, the controller didn't give the guy an instruction to orbit left, he said 'left turn to 180 immediately'. Any turn to a discrete heading doesn't mean full orbit and then take up 180.
Click to expand...

Granted. We're at opposing extremes on assumptions.
 
The more discussion I read, the less I understand the logic behind the F16's flight.

Maybe I'm stuck but I haven't seen an explanation for why an F16 would have been cleared down to 1600' 30 miles out.

Regardless of everything that followed, that decision makes no sense and set the chain in motion that led to this accident.

For those who don't fly down here, that altitude and the intercept course from Myrtle Beach to the 15 approach put the F16 in the vicinity of three GA and one private airport. I've read the posts where it's stated "you don't know what a 1200 is going to do". OK, then why would you put a fast mover at low altitude in exactly the environment where you're CERTAIN to get "pop up" 1200s as pilots depart a GA airport.

1600' is 600' above the pattern altitude... It's hotter than hades and everyone is gonna climb as fast as they can to find cooler air.

Sorry but this strikes me as incredibly stupid. The AF has tons of MOAs in the area where they can fly low and fast. This F16 was in the wrong place to be doing its thing! As someone else posted, there's no mention in the report of the F16s speed... They have that data and they're not releasing it at this time. I wonder why...

If anything good comes from this it will be a prohibition against this kind of flying outside a hot MOA.
 
Tiger843 said:
The more discussion I read, the less I understand the logic behind the F16's flight.

Maybe I'm stuck but I haven't seen an explanation for why an F16 would have been cleared down to 1600' 30 miles out.

Regardless of everything that followed, that decision makes no sense and set the chain in motion that led to this accident.

For those who don't fly down here, that altitude and the intercept course from Myrtle Beach to the 15 approach put the F16 in the vicinity of three GA and one private airport. I've read the posts where it's stated "you don't know what a 1200 is going to do". OK, then why would you put a fast mover at low altitude in exactly the environment where you're CERTAIN to get "pop up" 1200s as pilots depart a GA airport.

1600' is 600' above the pattern altitude... It's hotter than hades and everyone is gonna climb as fast as they can to find cooler air.

Sorry but this strikes me as incredibly stupid. The AF has tons of MOAs in the area where they can fly low and fast. This F16 was in the wrong place to be doing its thing! As someone else posted, there's no mention in the report of the F16s speed... They have that data and they're not releasing it at this time. I wonder why...

If anything good comes from this it will be a prohibition against this kind of flying outside a hot MOA.
Click to expand...

The guy is coming in for an instrument approach. He's not doing maneuvers that would require being in a MOA.

While 34 miles might sound far out, these guys are doing anywhere from 250-400 kts GS. You got to get them down and below traffic that you do have separation responsibility for. In this case, IFR aircraft and VFRs within the Class C. If he stays high, you've got just as many aircraft to deal with. Also, the impact occurred like 11 miles north of CHS. That's a normal altitude to be for the TACAN in that particular area. I'd be willing to bet if he stayed in the pattern for multiple approaches, he'd be vectored at 1,600 the whole time. At NBC, pattern altitude for GCAs is only 1,500 ft.

This is nothing more than a tragic accident where two aircraft just happened to be in the same area at the same time. The controller could've leveled him off at 3,000 ft and they still could've hit. We just don't know. They only thing that could've been done better is the controller could've issued a safety alert earlier and the F-16 could've turned faster. I hate to arm chair quarterback people when they're doing the best job they can for the circumstances.
 
Tiger843 said:
The more discussion I read, the less I understand the logic behind the F16's flight.

Maybe I'm stuck but I haven't seen an explanation for why an F16 would have been cleared down to 1600' 30 miles out.

Regardless of everything that followed, that decision makes no sense and set the chain in motion that led to this accident.

For those who don't fly down here, that altitude and the intercept course from Myrtle Beach to the 15 approach put the F16 in the vicinity of three GA and one private airport. I've read the posts where it's stated "you don't know what a 1200 is going to do". OK, then why would you put a fast mover at low altitude in exactly the environment where you're CERTAIN to get "pop up" 1200s as pilots depart a GA airport.

1600' is 600' above the pattern altitude... It's hotter than hades and everyone is gonna climb as fast as they can to find cooler air.

Sorry but this strikes me as incredibly stupid. The AF has tons of MOAs in the area where they can fly low and fast. This F16 was in the wrong place to be doing its thing! As someone else posted, there's no mention in the report of the F16s speed... They have that data and they're not releasing it at this time. I wonder why...



If anything good comes from this it will be a prohibition against this kind of flying outside a hot MOA.
Click to expand...

CHS is a joint use airport, the F16 was IFR and operating in the "system". The F16 was not doing anything different from what a civilian aircraft might be doing.

I see what you are saying about being that low in the vicinity of GA airports. However, it could happen at a higher altitude also.

If an aircraft is operating within the "system" it would be desirable that all the system rules are adhered to.
 
dmspilot said:
Is this not a contradiction?
Click to expand...

Nope. Like Clark said above. They have waivers. At NBC we had an LOA for F-18s to do 350 KIAS. With 350 KIAS their TAS will be well above that. Throw in a tailwind and you've got speeds that could easily exceed 400 kts below 10,000 ft. I'd say at the air station we averaged 375 kts GS for inbounds and 275 for pattern work.

If you want to talk MOAs, I've seen GS between 550-600 kts at just a few hundred feet above the ground. On one occasion our local Hornets went supersonic during an attack...obviously not intentional.

Also, doesn't matter what aircraft we're talking about, if the aircraft's flight manual specifically requires a higher speed than 250 kts below 10K, ATC can approve it.
 
Looking at the times in the report and calculating how long it took to close a 2 mile gap, it appears the F16 probably was 250 kits or less.
 
I've got F-16s and F-35s going over my house at ~2000-8000' and +250Kts every month.

We're littered with GA airports too. Many times, no FF because a lot of the traffic is just scooting around the B, or local flights. It could happen anywhere.
 
Velocity173 said:
The guy is coming in for an instrument approach. He's not doing maneuvers that would require being in a MOA.

While 34 miles might sound far out, these guys are doing anywhere from 250-400 kts GS. You got to get them down and below traffic that you do have separation responsibility for. In this case, IFR aircraft and VFRs within the Class C. If he stays high, you've got just as many aircraft to deal with. Also, the impact occurred like 11 miles north of CHS. That's a normal altitude to be for the TACAN in that particular area. I'd be willing to bet if he stayed in the pattern for multiple approaches, he'd be vectored at 1,600 the whole time. At NBC, pattern altitude for GCAs is only 1,500 ft.

This is nothing more than a tragic accident where two aircraft just happened to be in the same area at the same time. The controller could've leveled him off at 3,000 ft and they still could've hit. We just don't know. They only thing that could've been done better is the controller could've issued a safety alert earlier and the F-16 could've turned faster. I hate to arm chair quarterback people when they're doing the best job they can for the circumstances.
Click to expand...


According to the report, a safety alert was not issued. If a decision is made by the controller to assume responsibility for separation, don't screw around with non standard phraseology that could be lead to interpretation in the pilots' mind or a delayed reaction. Just tell the pilot to "Turn left..."
 
This is my last post on this.

Each player in this scenario had their own duties and responsibilities . In my opinion, if it had been left to that, I doubt this tragedy would have happened.

It is like a confusing hybrid situation was created...if you see the traffic you take care of it, if you don't see the traffic I will take care of it.

This was not a hybrid situation.

I only commented this much becuase some people pin all the blame on the Major, some place partial blame, and some think he did not react strongly enough.

My opinion, the Major did absolutely nothing wrong at all in any regard .

My best guess is that on the civilian side of the investigation is that the report will not have any criticism of the Major.
 
vintage cessna said:
According to the report, a safety alert was not issued. If a decision is made by the controller to assume responsibility for separation, don't screw around with non standard phraseology that could be lead to interpretation in the pilots' mind or a delayed reaction. Just tell the pilot to "Turn left..."
Click to expand...

I agree. According to the report, a quasi safety alert was issued but it wasn't a by the book one. That's why I think a correct safety alert issued earlier would have prevented this. It's got to be in time for the pilot traveling at these speeds (250 kts) to be of value.

It also appears though that the first command to turn left to 180 wasn't adhered to as well. If the F-16 would've have taken it at that time the accident might not have occurred.

Could've, should've, would've.
 
vintage cessna said:
This is my last post on this.

My opinion, the Major did absolutely nothing wrong at all in any regard .

My best guess is that on the civilian side of the investigation is that the report will not have any criticism of the Major.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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...

Ok, I said it was my last post, but I can't help myself.

The PIC responsibility and authority was usurped. Two miles at opposite direction with a rapid closure rate, given the innacuracies of the system, a vector is a crap shoot. Going left obviously wasn't the way to go, even if he did it when some people think he should have.

Why do you think he was heads down and not looking? Perhaps the pilot thought he had a better chance to spot the traffic wings level. If an aircraft at 250 kits is in a standard rate of turn , what angle of bank is that. What happens to visibility?

He was probably doing everything he could to aquire the traffic.

You say the dynamics VMC operations will change? They were changed.
 
Last edited:
PIC responsibility for separation is never, ever usurped. Not in VMC, not in class D, or C, or B, or even in G or E. I don't think he was heads down, and I didn't say that. I said 'I don't WANT anyone heads down in VMC'.
 
vintage cessna said:
Ok, I said it was my last post, but I can't help myself.

The PIC responsibility and authority was usurped. Two miles at opposite direction with a rapid closure rate, given the innacuracies of the system, a vector is a crap shoot. Going left obviously wasn't the way to go, even if he did it when some people think he should have.

Why do you think he was heads down and not looking? Perhaps the pilot thought he had a better chance to spot the traffic wings level. If an aircraft at 250 kits is in a standard rate of turn , what angle of bank is that. What happens to visibility?

He was probably doing everything he could to aquire the traffic.

You say the dynamics VMC operations will change? They were changed.
Click to expand...


PIC Authority cannot be usurped either legally or physically. If you are in an F-16 and have the airspace above you to 6000' as yours, what is it that you can do better than nearly anybody else? Climb. He should have abandoned the approach and climbed regardless of what the controller said. The moment the controller said "immediate" he could have had another 1000' in moments. The controller is not flying the plane, and the PIC never abdicates command to someone that is not in the plane. PIC has to know when to tell the controller what he's doing and do it.
 
Henning said:
PIC Authority cannot be usurped either legally or physically. If you are in an F-16 and have the airspace above you to 6000' as yours, what is it that you can do better than nearly anybody else? Climb. He should have abandoned the approach and climbed regardless of what the controller said. The moment the controller said "immediate" he could have had another 1000' in moments. The controller is not flying the plane, and the PIC never abdicates command to someone that is not in the plane. PIC has to know when to tell the controller what he's doing and do it.
Click to expand...

The F-16 pilot was operating IFR and on a clearance. Sure, he could exercise emergency authority and deviate from the controller's instructions but he would have had to have a pretty clear understanding of the criticality of the situation. He apparently didn't know where the the traffic was, he didn't see it, so for all he knew, yanking and banking might very well have caused an accident rather than prevent one.
 
docmirror said:
PIC responsibility for separation is never, ever usurped. Not in VMC, not in class D, or C, or B, or even in G or E. I don't think he was heads down, and I didn't say that. I said 'I don't WANT anyone heads down in VMC'.
Click to expand...

But your postings at least imply that since there was a collision he wasn't vigilant enough. You even said he seemed lackadaisical .

When the controller said " if you don't see the traffic , turn left heading 180" and he didn't , he was actually exercising his authority, and he is criticized for that.

I think I've already explained the problem with the controller's phraseology.

When the controller subsequently adds "turn immediately" , to the non standard phraseology, I guess at that point he figured he better do it, and he did.
 
Witmo said:
The F-16 pilot was operating IFR and on a clearance. Sure, he could exercise emergency authority and deviate from the controller's instructions but he would have had to have a pretty clear understanding of the criticality of the situation. He apparently didn't know where the the traffic was, he didn't see it, so for all he knew, yanking and banking might very well have caused an accident rather than prevent one.
Click to expand...

He can go missed at any time and climb to the designated altitude. That is what I would have done.
 
Henning said:
PIC Authority cannot be usurped either legally or physically. If you are in an F-16 and have the airspace above you to 6000' as yours, what is it that you can do better than nearly anybody else? Climb. He should have abandoned the approach and climbed regardless of what the controller said. The moment the controller said "immediate" he could have had another 1000' in moments. The controller is not flying the plane, and the PIC never abdicates command to someone that is not in the plane. PIC has to know when to tell the controller what he's doing and do it.
Click to expand...

You wanted to hang the pilot becuase he did not comply with a dubious instruction for 8 seconds. So what is it, in this situation, does he do what ATC says or not?
 
Henning said:
He can go missed at any time and climb to the designated altitude. That is what I would have done.
Click to expand...

He wasn't on the approach. No where in the report does it say he was cleared for the approach either. He was on a heading of 260 and assigned 1,600 ft.
 
vintage cessna said:
But your postings at least imply that since there was a collision he wasn't vigilant enough. You even said he seemed lackadaisical .

When the controller said " if you don't see the traffic , turn left heading 180" and he didn't , he was actually exercising his authority, and he is criticized for that.

I think I've already explained the problem with the controller's phraseology.

When the controller subsequently adds "turn immediately" , to the non standard phraseology, I guess at that point he figured he better do it, and he did.
Click to expand...

The controller's phraseology was wrong is irrelevant though. He had the duty of maintaining his situational awareness. Opposite direction traffic is being pointed out at an altitude within the allowable margin of error for the equipment, 2 miles with a closing rate of around 350kts. He failed to make the correct decision with how to respond to the information. He should have immediately GTF out of there the best way possible, and that is to go missed and best climb to missed altitude. Even if the other guy climbs, he's not going to climb with him.
 
Henning said:
The controller's phraseology was wrong is irrelevant though. He had the duty of maintaining his situational awareness. Opposite direction traffic is being pointed out at an altitude within the allowable margin of error for the equipment, 2 miles with a closing rate of around 350kts. He failed to make the correct decision with how to respond to the information. He should have immediately GTF out of there the best way possible, and that is to go missed and best climb to missed altitude. Even if the other guy climbs, he's not going to climb with him.
Click to expand...

You are so wrong. The 7110.65 goes into great detail about what the proper phraseology is. That is so there is no misunderstanding on either side of the frequency what is meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top