F16 vs Cessna 150 collision

[EdFred]

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.

If someone can't figure out what "if you don't see the traffic turn 180" means then maybe they should be doing something they can understand, like asking if someone wants fries with that.

 

[Henning]

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.

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I said it's irrelevant to the Major's screw up, killing of 2 people, and costing the taxpayer an airframe. I doubt he gets a second chance to repeat that mistake, but who knows...

 

[vintage cessna]

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I said it's irrelevant to the Major's screw up, killing of 2 people, and costing the taxpayer an airframe. I doubt he gets a second chance to repeat that mistake, but who knows...

It is not irrelevant. I give up, waste of time.

 

[Henning]

It is not irrelevant. I give up, waste of time.

Is it a factor? Yep, Did the major fail to both follow the instruction of ATC in a timely manor, or evaluate the situation correctly on his own? Yep. Major failed big time on this, excuses aren't accepted.

 

[docmirror]

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.

Well, he wasn't vigilant enough now was he? A collision happened. And I said, and still do say that his actions were casual even seemed lackadaisical.

At the risk of pointing this out again, I grew up in SoCal, and have had plenty of close calls. ATC says '12 oclock 2 miles' and I'm doing something, either turn, climb, dive. And I'm also scanning like heck(same as the F16) for traffic, but I'm sure not staying on that heading in VMC. Next, ATC asks if he has the traffic, and when ATC says 'immediately' I'd be on knife edge(or close too) before he was done talking, yank hard.

While 'immediately' may not be in the P/C dictionary(I think it is), it's common usage, and intent is clear in this context of the third call on same traffic.

If we postulate that 240Kts, then 4NM per minute, and 2NM in 30 sec, adding the latency of the scope sweep, he should have been made immediate correction at the first call of '12 oclock 2 miles'.

 

[vintage cessna]

Is it a factor? Yep, Did the major fail to both follow the instruction of ATC in a timely manor, or evaluate the situation correctly on his own? Yep. Major failed big time on this, excuses aren't accepted.

What does that instruction mean? See the traffic this instant, in a few seconds? If he had seen the traffic he would have already said so. I don't even know why the controller said it not only once but twice.

There is not a lot of time to screw around here with crap like that. This is a time when the training that has been drilled into you takes hold.

You want a bonafide instruction?

"Turn left fly heading 180"

 

[vintage cessna]

Well, he wasn't vigilant enough now was he? A collision happened. And I said, and still do say that his actions were casual even seemed lackadaisical.

At the risk of pointing this out again, I grew up in SoCal, and have had plenty of close calls. ATC says '12 oclock 2 miles' and I'm doing something, either turn, climb, dive. And I'm also scanning like heck(same as the F16) for traffic, but I'm sure not staying on that heading in VMC. Next, ATC asks if he has the traffic, and when ATC says 'immediately' I'd be on knife edge(or close too) before he was done talking, yank hard.

While 'immediately' may not be in the P/C dictionary(I think it is), it's common usage, and intent is clear in this context of the third call on same traffic.

If we postulate that 240Kts, then 4NM per minute, and 2NM in 30 sec, adding the latency of the scope sweep, he should have been made immediate correction at the first call of '12 oclock 2 miles'.

You know, it is great everyone can say what they would have done differently than the Major and avoided the collision.

That F16 was IFR and under ATC control. I've been trying to explain how the "system" could have avoided this and that it wasn't a pilot error. Since collisions like this are rare , I have to conclude that the vast majority of controllers are doing it correctly.

But nobody wants to hear it.

 

[docmirror]

You know, it is great everyone can say what they would have done differently than the Major and avoided the collision.

That F16 was IFR and under ATC control. I've been trying to explain how the "system" could have avoided this and that it wasn't a pilot error. Since collisions like this are rare , I have to conclude that the vast majority of controllers are doing it correctly.

But nobody wants to hear it.

No, not what they would have done: What I HAVE done in similar circumstance. Of course, flying a much slower plane, in a much heavier density enviro.

So, I think the correct phrase is 'no delay'. To me this is synonymous with 'immediately'.

 

[Henning]

What does that instruction mean? See the traffic this instant, in a few seconds? If he had seen the traffic he would have already said so. I don't even know why the controller said it not only once but twice.

There is not a lot of time to screw around here with crap like that. This is a time when the training that has been drilled into you takes hold.

You want a bonafide instruction?

"Turn left fly heading 180"

The instruction should have been ignored and the missed approach option implemented. That is what it means to be PIC. Take in all the information and make your own best decision. He failed.

 

[vintage cessna]

No, not what they would have done: What I HAVE done in similar circumstance. Of course, flying a much slower plane, in a much heavier density enviro.

So, I think the correct phrase is 'no delay'. To me this is synonymous with 'immediately'.

Pilots do not know what the correct phraseology is for every given situation. Controllers do, at least they are suppose to.

When a controller uses the correct phraseology as given by the 7110.65, there will be no doubt as to what the instruction means or requires on your part.

 

[vintage cessna]

The instruction should have been ignored and the missed approach option implemented. That is what it means to be PIC. Take in all the information and make your own best decision. He failed.

Make up your mind. You said he failed when he ignored the first instruction.

What missed approach procedure? Why do you keep insisting he was on approach.? The report indicates he wasn't on any segment of an instrument approach.

 

[Kritchlow]

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.

Right... My guess is the missed approach airspace isn't formally his until he is cleared for the approach.

 

[Jaybird180]

If we postulate that 240Kts, then 4NM per minute, and 2NM in 30 sec, adding the latency of the scope sweep, he should have been made immediate correction at the first call of '12 oclock 2 miles'.

I'm working similar math assuming 250kts as stated in the thread and I come up with 28 seconds at 2 miles. The postulate that he changed course to avoid something at 12'oclock just doesn't match with the fact that he still collided with it.

 

[vintage cessna]

I'm working similar math assuming 250kts as stated in the thread and I come up with 28 seconds at 2 miles. The postulate that he changed course to avoid something at 12'oclock just doesn't match with the fact that he still collided with it.

That is becuase of inherent system innacurasies on the position of the targets.

Admittedly , I'm an arm chair quarterback, but I wouldn't have attempted a vector given the proximity and closure. You are liable to make it worse. Altitude is the best solution.

 

[Everskyward]

Pilots do not know what the correct phraseology is for every given situation. Controllers do, at least they are suppose to.



When a controller uses the correct phraseology as given by the 7110.65, there will be no doubt as to what the instruction means or requires on your part.

If your position is that pilots don't know correct phraseology then it doesn't matter exactly what the controller said as long as he said it in plain English and it was understood. If the F-16 pilot was an English- speaker I don't see how the instruction was unclear. On the other hand, I think there is a good possibility that no one is really to blame. There are limitations to see and avoid.

 

[kkoran]

No, not what they would have done: What I HAVE done in similar circumstance. Of course, flying a much slower plane, in a much heavier density enviro.

So, I think the correct phrase is 'no delay'. To me this is synonymous with 'immediately'.

"No delay" isn't in the P/CD, "immediately" is--"Used by ATC or pilots when such action compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation."

 

[Henning]

Make up your mind. You said he failed when he ignored the first instruction.

What missed approach procedure? Why do you keep insisting he was on approach.? The report indicates he wasn't on any segment of an instrument approach.

He didn't fail for ignoring the first instruction, he failed for failing to react properly and in a timely manner to the threat. He continued on the approach after having spent 8 seconds not acquiring traffic. Next call is from the controller stating an immediate action needed to be taken, and then failing to take the best corrective action to separate himself from the threat. Fail on top of fail, on top of fail. He owns 4 links of the 6 link accident chain.

 

[vintage cessna]

If your position is that pilots don't know correct phraseology then it doesn't matter exactly what the controller said as long as he said it in plain English and it was understood. If the F-16 pilot was an English- speaker I don't see how the instruction was unclear. On the other hand, I think there is a good possibility that no one is really to blame. There are limitations to see and avoid.

Here is what happened. First traffic call, 2 miles, opposite direction ( closing fast). No joy. Then the second and third calls with "if you don't see the traffic..."

Book solution and the way you are trained to do it : First traffic call, no joy. Second call ( they are even closer now )

TRAFFIC ALERT! SUGGEST YOU CLIMB 1000 FT IMMEDIATELY ( or turn if that is all that he can think of) Traffic 12 o'clock.....

Think it would have had the same result?

 

[Kritchlow]

Here is what happened. First traffic call, 2 miles, opposite direction ( closing fast). No joy. Then the second and third calls with "if you don't see the traffic..."

Book solution and the way you are trained to do it : First traffic call, no joy. Second call ( they are even closer now )

TRAFFIC ALERT! SUGGEST YOU CLIMB 1000 FT IMMEDIATELY ( or turn if that is all that he can think of) Traffic 12 o'clock.....

Think it would have had the same result?

Are you a controller? If they are issuing an altitude to an IFR plane, I don't think it would be "suggested". As always, I could be wrong.

 

[Everskyward]

Here is what happened. First traffic call, 2 miles, opposite direction ( closing fast). No joy. Then the second and third calls with "if you don't see the traffic..."



Book solution and the way you are trained to do it : First traffic call, no joy. Second call ( they are even closer now )



TRAFFIC ALERT! SUGGEST YOU CLIMB 1000 FT IMMEDIATELY ( or turn if that is all that he can think of) Traffic 12 o'clock.....



Think it would have had the same result?

Maybe, maybe not. But you are looking at things through the lens of hindsight. I've noticed that you like to second-guess controllers for some reason. It has happened in more than one thread. There have also been discussions about how thing aren't like they were in the good old days as far as disciplining controllers is concerned,.

 

[Velocity173]

If your position is that pilots don't know correct phraseology then it doesn't matter exactly what the controller said as long as he said it in plain English and it was understood. If the F-16 pilot was an English- speaker I don't see how the instruction was unclear. On the other hand, I think there is a good possibility that no one is really to blame. There are limitations to see and avoid.

Problem is, for the controller, NTSB will nit pick their phraseology with a fine tooth comb. I think the simple fact that they left "advise" out of the vector instruction is huge.

I really feel for this controller. They had what appeared to be a perfect head to head, turned the aircraft to avoid only to have them collide. I'd bet anything that a few seconds after issuing the turn, he looked down and realized it was a mistake. Horrible feeling.

 

[vintage cessna]

Are you a controller? If they are issuing an altitude to an IFR plane, I don't think it would be "suggested". As always, I could be wrong.

I used to be. I've explained in previous posts why the 7110.65 makes it a suggested course of action and not mandatory.

This was in Class E, an IFR and a VFR. Seperation in this case is a PIC responsibility with possible assistance from ATC. ATC is not in control or even talking to the VFR, so they have no clue what it might do. ATC would give as much assistance as possible but not mandate what the pilot would do.

When ATC issued a vector in this situation, they essentially took responsibility for seperation.

 

[vintage cessna]

Problem is, for the controller, NTSB will nit pick their phraseology with a fine tooth comb. I think the simple fact that they left "advise" out of the vector instruction is huge.

I really feel for this controller. They had what appeared to be a perfect head to head, turned the aircraft to avoid only to have them collide. I'd bet anything that a few seconds after issuing the turn, he looked down and realized it was a mistake. Horrible feeling.

I hear you. I feel terrible for him. But , it seems clear to me this wasn't a simple matter of omitting a word. We've discussed on other threads some controllers doing things they are not authorized to do, disregarding the "bible", so to speak.

If anything, discussing this is something Controllers and Pilots can both learn from.

 

[docmirror]

"No delay" isn't in the P/CD, "immediately" is--"Used by ATC or pilots when such action compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation."

Thank you.

I was taking off out of Boeing field one day, and reported ready to depart, southbound. Tower came back instantly and said 'spamcan 123, cleared for takeoff no delay, aircraft behind you on final.'

As I swung around onto the pavement without ack the call, I saw a HUGE aluminum overcast coming at me with 47 lights on, and trailing gobs of engine exhaust from 8 or 10 or 14 engines. I pushed the throttle so hard forward I felt the heat rise off my engine.

 

[vintage cessna]

Maybe, maybe not. But you are looking at things through the lens of hindsight. I've noticed that you like to second-guess controllers for some reason. It has happened in more than one thread. There have also been discussions about how thing aren't like they were in the good old days as far as disciplining controllers is concerned,.

This is not hindsight. This is telling you what the rules are for handling this situation. And controllers are trained to handle situations in accordance with the rules.

From time to time they don't handle the situation the way they were taught and trained. That is why we are discussing this in the first place.

You can make excuses for the performace, I'm just trying to shed some light on it from the ATC side. You don't have any problem judging a pilot's performace, why not a controller's?

Like I said earlier, no one seems to want to hear it.

 

[Everskyward]

This is not hindsight. This is telling you what the rules are for handling this situation. And controllers are trained to handle situations in accordance with the rules.



From time to time they don't handle the situation the way they were taught and trained. That is why we are discussing this in the first place.



You can make excuses for the performace, I'm just trying to shed some light on it from the ATC side. You don't have any problem judging a pilot's performace, why not a controller's?



Like I said earlier, no one seems to want to hear it.

I'm not blaming either pilot here., or the controller. You seem to think a difference in phraseology would have been the deciding factor. I'm not so sure.

 

[docmirror]

Like I said earlier, no one seems to want to hear it.

Hearing it(or more accurately seeing it written) <> Agreeing with your conclusions. This is not Delphi, and you are not the Oracle. (he was disbelieved anyway)

 

[Witmo]

He can go missed at any time and climb to the designated altitude. That is what I would have done.

My understanding is that the F-16 was on vectors to the FAC. How do you go missed when you're not on an established segment of the approach? He could have done a lot of things exercising his emergency authority, but he would have needed to know that what he would do wouldn't make things worse and I think he trusted the controller more because the controller had them both on radar.

 

[Henning]

My understanding is that the F-16 was on vectors to the FAC. How do you go missed when you're not on an established segment of the approach? He could have done a lot of things exercising his emergency authority, but he would have needed to know that what he would do wouldn't make things worse and I think he trusted the controller more because the controller had them both on radar.

He had the airspace to at least 6000' above him.

 

[vintage cessna]

I'm not blaming either pilot here., or the controller. You seem to think a difference in phraseology would have been the deciding factor. I'm not so sure.

Not just phraseology but procedure. I'm almost certain , that if that second call or maybe even the third call, would have been a proper TRAFFIC ALERT, we wouldn't be talking about this.

If the book had been followed, and even if the pilot decided to do nothing (which is doubtful, given a proper TRAFFIC ALERT conveys extreme urgency), guess what?

They don't hit.

 

[Henning]

It's part of the PIC's job to identify when the controller is wrong.

 

[vintage cessna]

I'm not blaming either pilot here., or the controller. You seem to think a difference in phraseology would have been the deciding factor. I'm not so sure.

Then I will never convince you are some other people. So, no further point in commenting.

 

[Everskyward]

Not just phraseology but procedure. I'm almost certain , that if that second call or maybe even the third call, would have been a proper TRAFFIC ALERT, we wouldn't be talking about this.



If the book had been followed, and even if the pilot decided to do nothing (which is doubtful, given a proper TRAFFIC ALERT conveys extreme urgency), guess what?



They don't hit.

There are a lot of ifs which could have happened and they wouldn't have hit. But I don't get your logic when you state "even if the pilot had decided to do nothing..." If he had decided to do nothing, or the same thing, the outcome would have been the same regardless of what the controller said.

 

[Lindberg]

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.

Does 91.113 apply in this situation? Does the F16 pilot have to comply?

 

[vintage cessna]

There are a lot of ifs which could have happened and they wouldn't have hit. But I don't get your logic when you state "even if the pilot had decided to do nothing..." If he had decided to do nothing, or the same thing, the outcome would have been the same regardless of what the controller said.

Have you read and understood the prelim NTSB report? It is clear that turning the F16 to the left moved him towards the C150 instead of away. If the F16 had stayed on his present heading , both airplanes would have passed each other on their left sides.

I did engage in some hindsight earlier. I stated I would have never ( I hope) attempted a vector given the circumstances, but used altitude.

I used to drill into trainees head "when in doubt, altitude will bail you out." I did that becuase trainees would get fixated on lateral seperation only ,to the detriment of verticale seperation when it was more appropriate.

 

[Henning]

Does 91.113 apply in this situation? Does the F16 pilot have to comply?

PIC never 'has to' comply with anything except the rules of physics. They are always and unquestioningly the final authority with regards to the safe outcome of their flight. While ATC is a credible source of information, it is not infallible and it is incumbent on the PIC to maintain such situational awareness that they can recognize a mistake on the part of ATC.

 

[dmspilot]

Problem is, for the controller, NTSB will nit pick their phraseology with a fine tooth comb. I think the simple fact that they left "advise" out of the vector instruction is huge.

I actually don't think the NTSB will care about that. They look at the big picture, they don't split hairs like the FAA would.

 

[Everskyward]

Have you read and understood the prelim NTSB report? It is clear that turning the F16 to the left moved him towards the C150 instead of away. If the F16 had stayed on his present heading , both airplanes would have passed each other on their left sides.



I did engage in some hindsight earlier. I stated I would have never ( I hope) attempted a vector given the circumstances, but used altitude.



I used to drill into trainees head "when in doubt, altitude will bail you out." I did that becuase trainees would get fixated on lateral seperation only ,to the detriment of verticale seperation when it was more appropriate.

Since he wasn't talking to the 150 he didn't know what it was doing. He made a best guess as far as I can tell. **** happens sometimes but people tend to want to assign blame.

We had a controller turn us into a biplane doing aerobatics not too long ago. He might have thought the target was going to remain on its original heading but it reversed course pretty fast. We got a TCAS alert plus we saw it, but it was not the controllers fault that he didn't know what it was doing.

 

[vintage cessna]

Hearing it(or more accurately seeing it written) <> Agreeing with your conclusions. This is not Delphi, and you are not the Oracle. (he was disbelieved anyway)

Well, I say here is what the controller did, and then compare that to what the rules say he should have done.

This comparison is for an IFR flight under ATC control.

The basic response is : So what? Still the pilots fault. He should have blah blah blah...

All he is guilty of is following ATC instructions.

I just don't get it.

 

[vintage cessna]

Since he wasn't talking to the 150 he didn't know what it was doing. He made a best guess as far as I can tell. **** happens sometimes but people tend to want to assign blame.

We had a controller turn us into a biplane doing aerobatics not too long ago. He might have thought the target was going to remain on its original heading but it reversed course pretty fast. We got a TCAS alert plus we saw it, but it was not the controllers fault that he didn't know what it was doing.

Hey, you are on to something. Maybe that is why the 7110.65 tells the controller not to turn his best guess into a mandatory instruction?