F16 vs Cessna 150 collision

Tiger843 said:
Went to the FAA/Controllers/Pilots meeting here in CHS. These were the take-always:

1. They wouldn't discuss the accident as it's an open investigation. That pink elephant sat in the room for over an hour until a pilot raised the question.

2. Dropping any inbound traffic (F16 never mentioned) to 1600' well in advance to the approach is a controller preference. Some like to do that.

3. Call us on the radio, we want to hear from you if you're VFR.

4. If you call us, we may be too busy to respond.

5. Our charts and plates are wrong. Two of their freq got cancelled But changes weren't updated on charts and plates. Some controllers listen to old freq, some don't.

6. They're not in line for NEXGEN (where THEY get Ads-B on their scopes) until some indeterminate date in 2016...

7. As pilots we can select our own risk profile. They prefer VFR to check in and climb to 2500' if transiting but that's our call... Again, it's all about pilot pref and controller pref.
Click to expand...

I would have asked only one question at the meeting. Have the controllers recently received refresher training on 2-1-2 and 2-1-6 of the 7110.65. If the answer was yes, I would have left the meeting satisfied.

Not sure what your item 5 is. There is only 2 frequencies published on the sectional for CHS app. Are you saying those frequencies are not necessarily monitored by CHS app ?
 
Tiger843 said:
Went to the FAA/Controllers/Pilots meeting here in CHS. These were the take-always:

1. They wouldn't discuss the accident as it's an open investigation. That pink elephant sat in the room for over an hour until a pilot raised the question.

2. Dropping any inbound traffic (F16 never mentioned) to 1600' well in advance to the approach is a controller preference. Some like to do that.

3. Call us on the radio, we want to hear from you if you're VFR.

4. If you call us, we may be too busy to respond.

5. Our charts and plates are wrong. Two of their freq got cancelled But changes weren't updated on charts and plates. Some controllers listen to old freq, some don't.

6. They're not in line for NEXGEN (where THEY get Ads-B on their scopes) until some indeterminate date in 2016...

7. As pilots we can select our own risk profile. They prefer VFR to check in and climb to 2500' if transiting but that's our call... Again, it's all about pilot pref and controller pref.
Click to expand...

Re item 5. Freq 135.8 was changed to a different freq and a NOTAM issued. The change was made in between publishing cycles. The correct frequency should be published in the next AFD and next sectional chart issued.
 
Henning said:
Ouch, I think the F-16 pilot gets burned on the slow to respond to traffic alert.
Click to expand...

When a controller says "IMMEDIATELY" it doesn't mean "think about doing it if you can't find the traffic in a while."
 
flyingron said:
When a controller says "IMMEDIATELY" it doesn't mean "think about doing it if you can't find the traffic in a while."
Click to expand...

When the controller used the word immediately, the F16 turned immediately. Fifteen seconds later the F16 had altered course 45 degrees. Probably about a 40 degree bank .

Immediately doesn't mean put it up on its' wing.
 
flyingron said:
When a controller says "IMMEDIATELY" it doesn't mean "think about doing it if you can't find the traffic in a while."
Click to expand...

1. Turn left heading 180 if you don't have that traffic in sight.
2. If you don't have that traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately.

You've said what the second call doesn't mean. What doesn't the first call mean?
 
vintage cessna said:
When the controller used the word immediately, the F16 turned immediately. Fifteen seconds later the F16 had altered course 45 degrees. Probably about a 40 degree bank .

Immediately doesn't mean put it up on its' wing.
Click to expand...

"Immediately" means turn as quickly as is safe. It certainly means that to me. I've had that call while IFR and I tell you something, I didn't do a standard rate turn to comply. I banked more than 45 degrees and that was in my silly little plane.

So I'd expect an F16 pilot who gets told to turn immediately due to a traffic conflict, to get his arse moving and do a probably 70 degree bank/6 G turn to get out of the way.
 
narchee said:
"Immediately" means turn as quickly as is safe. It certainly means that to me. I've had that call while IFR and I tell you something, I didn't do a standard rate turn to comply. I banked more than 45 degrees and that was in my silly little plane.

So I'd expect an F16 pilot who gets told to turn immediately due to a traffic conflict, to get his arse moving and do a probably 70 degree bank/6 G turn to get out of the way.
Click to expand...

At 250kts his G-load won't be accessible to that level, but your point stands. 45 degrees of turn in 18 seconds is not even standard rate at 250kts , he could have whipped that thing around to 60degrees of bank and attained close to double standard rate. In 18 seconds he would have been more than 100 off original heading, a hell of lot better than a paltry 45 degree diagonal he ended up attaining.

From my read of the NTSB account, I believe he was caught in a "counting mississippis" complacent state gingerly turning the jet and looking for a traffic he was never gonna pick up with his eyeballs in time to matter. He left money on the table I'm afraid, and it bit him. Practice TACAN approach in VMC for credit isn't worth playing big sky theory, and I fly an even more gas-limited fast mover than the Viper mind you, so I'm sensitive to the limited opportunities these folks have to knock out beans, due to the twisted capital prioritization of the Chair Force these days. Sad deal all around. We're all human, it just sucks when the other guy doesn't have an ACES II to come have a chat with you at the debrief....

I sincerely believe the fighter community at-large could benefit from a TAS/TCAS suite for CONUS ops. That's nothing proper EMCON procedures couldn't account for during combat ops.

Condolences to the family.
 
The 16 had traffic called out at approximately his altitude, converging, less than 30 seconds from collision. He didn't have it in sight 16 seconds later (less than 14 seconds from collision) and he had to be told to turn? I don't fly fighters or IFR, but that seems pretty messed up to me.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I sincerely believe the fighter community at-large could benefit from a TAS/TCAS suite for CONUS ops. That's nothing proper EMCON procedures couldn't account for during combat ops.

Condolences to the family.
Click to expand...

Touche Mr. T38. Not that ADS-B would have helped in this particular situation, but take a look at this from a different perspective, the NEXGEN perspective...who doesn't need to be ADS-B compliant come 2020? Most likely that C150 in said Class E airspace, and definitely not that exempt F16. It would help all of us if Uncle Sam doesn't exempt themselves from the rules they impose on all others. Although, the Viper does have a very "rudimentary 4th gen" system that works in limited capacity to show targets of interest based on other sources; it probably wasn't showing that guy squawking 1200. & the Viper is no where close to being ADS-B compliant. Heck, I bet you if you asked an F16 pilot about ADS-B, the vast majority would be dumbfounded. It would "cost too much money" for them to upgrade the GPS and transponder. Well, we all have to do it, why not them? Regardless, it'll be interesting to read what Uncle Sam's findings are.

Condolences to the family.
 
Lindberg said:
The 16 had traffic called out at approximately his altitude, converging, less than 30 seconds from collision. He didn't have it in sight 16 seconds later (less than 14 seconds from collision) and he had to be told to turn? I don't fly fighters or IFR, but that seems pretty messed up to me.
Click to expand...

If the -16 had ignored the controller' s order to turn, they never would have collided. The controller turned him into the Cessna.
 
Witmo said:
If the -16 had ignored the controller' s order to turn, they never would have collided. The controller turned him into the Cessna.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking as well since I'm pretty sure I've read that the F16 t-boned the Cessna... after initiating the rurn
 
Well, maybe I'm being just a bit too literal minded, but the controller was trying to keep the jet away from the Cessna by issuing first an advisory, and then an instruction.

We can play 'what if' a thousand different ways, but it sounds like these posts are implying that the controller set the F16 into the Cessna on purpose? And further - that the F16 had the option of not turning as instructed(barring declaration of an emergency)?

I consider that the controller acted in good faith, and he presumed that the F16 would adhere to the see and avoid rules in VMC. When that proved ineffective, he took remedial action and emphasized it with 'immediately', which as I've said would have me yanking and banking as soon as I heard it.

It's kind of sad the 20-20 hindsight heaped on the ATC guy who was surely trying to do his best to get the F16 away from the Cessna. At least, that's my take. If there was some kind of nefarious intent here - then let it be written plainly.
 
docmirror said:
We can play 'what if' a thousand different ways, but it sounds like these posts are implying that the controller set the F16 into the Cessna on purpose? And further - that the F16 had the option of not turning as instructed(barring declaration of an emergency)?

QUOTE]

I don't think anybody thinks the controller purposefully turned the jet into the Cessna... :nono:
Click to expand...
 
Yeah I don't see anyone posting anything that suggests the controller did it on purpose either. The controller simply made the mistake of turning the aircraft into the C150 by accident.

I also agree that the controller was operating in good faith as well but that doesn't absolve them from fault either. A collision occurred, people died, now comes the unfortunate task of appointing blame and then trying to find a way to prevent this in the future. Outside of equipping everyone with ADS-B in and out, I don't see that happening.
 
Witmo said:
If the -16 had ignored the controller' s order to turn, they never would have collided. The controller turned him into the Cessna.
Click to expand...

Or they might have collided sooner. Or later. The Cessna was converging from the right, the instruction was to turn left. Depending on the turn radius, that might have taken him off a collision course. For sure a climb would have. But the Rule of Gross Tonnage aside, didn't the Cessna have right of way over the fighter? And wasn't it the fighters responsibility to avoid a conflict? Unless the controller gave inaccurate information, I don't see how he shares responsibility.
 
The F16 is faster than a 150, if he made the turn with more urgency even if on the same course they wouldn't collided. In hindsight maybe a climb would work better but I've never heard a controller ever asking a plane to change altitudes to avoid a collision



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lindberg said:
Or they might have collided sooner. Or later. The Cessna was converging from the right, the instruction was to turn left. Depending on the turn radius, that might have taken him off a collision course. For sure a climb would have. But the Rule of Gross Tonnage aside, didn't the Cessna have right of way over the fighter? And wasn't it the fighters responsibility to avoid a conflict? Unless the controller gave inaccurate information, I don't see how he shares responsibility.
Click to expand...

No one deliberately screwed up. I commented in response to the posts criticizing the -16 pilot for not instantly racking his jet up into a 6 g turn. Why would the Cessna have had right of way? Both aircraft were to the left of each other. With the difference in speed between them, there's no way they would have collided if the controller hadn't turned the fighter south. If he had turned faster he would have passed in front of the Cessna, if he had turned slower he would have passed behind the Cessna. If he hadn't turned at all, they would have passed off to the left of each other going in opposite directions. Both aircraft were responsible for see and avoid. Radar limitations make close in collision avoidance recommendations problematical.
 
Safe to say if either pilot had done ANYthing differently there would not have been a collision.
 
Witmo said:
No one deliberately screwed up. I commented in response to the posts criticizing the -16 pilot for not instantly racking his jet up into a 6 g turn. Why would the Cessna have had right of way? Both aircraft were to the left of each other. With the difference in speed between them, there's no way they would have collided if the controller hadn't turned the fighter south. If he had turned faster he would have passed in front of the Cessna, if he had turned slower he would have passed behind the Cessna. If he hadn't turned at all, they would have passed off to the left of each other going in opposite directions. Both aircraft were responsible for see and avoid. Radar limitations make close in collision avoidance recommendations problematical.
Click to expand...

Are you saying this was an equipment limitation or failure and not human error?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Are you saying this was an equipment limitation or failure and not human error?
Click to expand...

I'll let the NTSB investigation run its course. I'm not about to blame anyone without seeing all the evidence. It just seems to me, there are some here quick to blame the F-16 pilot because he was fortunate enough to survive.
 
Witmo said:
Why would the Cessna have had right of way? Both aircraft were to the left of each other.
Click to expand...

The prelim says the Cessna was heading "generally southeast," so around 135*. The F-16 was heading 260*. If that's accurate, they were 125* off and Cessna was on the right. That's also consistent with the traffic call out of 2 o'clock, 2 miles. I don't know what the controller saw, or why he thought a turn to the south was the right thing to do. I'm sure it will all be explained in the final report....
 
Witmo said:
I'll let the NTSB investigation run its course. I'm not about to blame anyone without seeing all the evidence. It just seems to me, there are some here quick to blame the F-16 pilot because he was fortunate enough to survive.
Click to expand...

People are blaming the F-16 pilot because he received three traffic advisories, yet still managed to run nose-first into the Cessna from its left rear quarter. Hard to dodge something coming from that direction that's been painted to be hard to see . . .

Had he turned or climbed or did anything but keep pounding along after the first or even second traffic call, there'd be a lot fewer fingers pointing at him. But he ignored the first two, and after the "Immediate" call out he took his sweet time then began a leisurely turn.

What the $&#% was he doing instead of looking out the window and maneuvering as directed? That's what I'm hoping but not expecting to find out.
 
Witmo said:
No one deliberately screwed up. I commented in response to the posts criticizing the -16 pilot for not instantly racking his jet up into a 6 g turn. Why would the Cessna have had right of way? Both aircraft were to the left of each other. With the difference in speed between them, there's no way they would have collided if the controller hadn't turned the fighter south. If he had turned faster he would have passed in front of the Cessna, if he had turned slower he would have passed behind the Cessna. If he hadn't turned at all, they would have passed off to the left of each other going in opposite directions. Both aircraft were responsible for see and avoid. Radar limitations make close in collision avoidance recommendations problematical.
Click to expand...
False. The cessna was on the right and had the right of way. The F-16 plowed into the pilot's side of the C150.
 
Explain to me how the Cessna could have been to the right of the -16 when the controller turned the -16 left to 180 and they collided after the -16 had completed most of the turn. Are you saying the Cessna had the right of way because more of his fuselage was to the right of the F-16's nose as they collided? I say again, the F-16 would not have hit the Cessna if the controller had not said for him to turn south if he didn't see the Cessna. Why did the controller descend the -16 to 1600 feet more than thirty miles from the airport? Under IFR clearances we're taught to comply with controller instructions unless we have visual with traffic that is a conflict. The -16 could not visually deconflict from an aircraft he didn't see so he obeyed a controller' s direction which turned him into the Cessna. Yeah, looks like a clear case against the -16 pilot, not.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it's easiest to get a piece of paper and pencil and draw the cardinals out then put the planes in motion. Cessna heading ~110 @90kts. 20deg S of east. F-16 on 260 @ ~300kts, just shy of due west. From cockpit of F-16, Cessna would be traversing from right to left given those initial tracks. Obviously, as they converged, at some point the Cessna crossed in front of the F-16, because we know the F-16 turned left for avoidance, and then the two met. So, initially on the first and second call up by ATC, the Cessna was to the right. Once the 'immediately' call, the plane may have indeed been directly ahead, or partially to the left by that time. Surely at some point in time just prior to the impact the Cessna was in fact to the left of the F-16, because the left arc of the F-16 resulted in the impact. For all we know, the Cessna may have been on a near perfect intercept course directly ahead of the jet, but at some point the Cessna was to the right of the F-16.
 
My airfield is 16 nm from San Antonio International and almost directly below the FAC for KSAT' s ILS. The lowest I've ever seen airliners over my airfield is 2000 agl and more often they're 4000 agl. Why was the -16 down to 1600 so far away from the airport? Below 3000 agl, VFR traffic can be at any altitude. If he had been at 4000 feet, a proper hemispheric IFR altitude, it would have been an easy intercept of the approach and at least some procedural protection from VFR traffic. I'm curious as to what the investigation comes up with but it's too early to be slamming anyone.
 
ATC assigned 1600' for the intercept of the GS for the practice appr requested.
 
teejayevans said:
The F16 is faster than a 150, if he made the turn with more urgency even if on the same course they wouldn't collided. In hindsight maybe a climb would work better but I've never heard a controller ever asking a plane to change altitudes to avoid a collision



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Never heard a controller say "climb and maintain", "descend and maintain"?
 
docmirror said:
Sometimes it's easiest to get a piece of paper and pencil and draw the cardinals out then put the planes in motion. Cessna heading ~110 @90kts. 20deg S of east. F-16 on 260 @ ~300kts, just shy of due west. From cockpit of F-16, Cessna would be traversing from right to left given those initial tracks. Obviously, as they converged, at some point the Cessna crossed in front of the F-16, because we know the F-16 turned left for avoidance, and then the two met. So, initially on the first and second call up by ATC, the Cessna was to the right. Once the 'immediately' call, the plane may have indeed been directly ahead, or partially to the left by that time. Surely at some point in time just prior to the impact the Cessna was in fact to the left of the F-16, because the left arc of the F-16 resulted in the impact. For all we know, the Cessna may have been on a near perfect intercept course directly ahead of the jet, but at some point the Cessna was to the right of the F-16.
Click to expand...

The whole point is, the two aircraft are too close in proximity and closing too rapidly to even guess the relative positions.

Ever get a traffic call at 12 o'clock and the traffic was not at 12 o'clock? I refer you back to my previous post in which I reference "Safety Alerts " from the 7110.65. There is good reason why that rule leaves the course of action to the pilot .
 
Hank S said:
People are blaming the F-16 pilot because he received three traffic advisories, yet still managed to run nose-first into the Cessna from its left rear quarter. Hard to dodge something coming from that direction that's been painted to be hard to see . . .

Had he turned or climbed or did anything but keep pounding along after the first or even second traffic call, there'd be a lot fewer fingers pointing at him. But he ignored the first two, and after the "Immediate" call out he took his sweet time then began a leisurely turn.

What the $&#% was he doing instead of looking out the window and maneuvering as directed? That's what I'm hoping but not expecting to find out.
Click to expand...

Perhaps since he didn't see the traffic at 12 o'clock he feared that he might turn into the C150?

Given the rules, should the controller have directed him to do anything?
 
Bubble canopy. Look up, see clear sky. Pull stick, push throttle.
 
This is how that whole transaction should've played out. A safety alert should've been given, preferably at that 2 mile mark. "Mace 11, traffic alert twelve o'clock 2 miles opposite direction one thousand two hundred indicated, advise you climb to two thousand immediately." All of that with a stern voice to inflict the urgency of the situation.

By issuing that safety alert, the controller would've put the course of action on the pilot. By not sticking to standard phraseology, the controller issued a command that the aircraft was required to follow. In this case, it was the wrong choice for the conditions. Head to head at 2 miles on an ASR is maybe 1/2 inch away. It's hard to tell if one or the other is offset one way or the other. The controller was trying to make a split second decision and it just didn't work. I feel for him/her.
 
FastEddieB said:
I hear that all the time.
Click to expand...


I've only got about 125 hrs of x-country time, but I've only heard "Maintain altitude for crossing traffic..." Or unable to a climb/descend request because of traffic. Or to climb/descend to overtake traffic on airway.
But never to a impending collision especially when using the word immediately
 
Velocity173 said:
This is how that whole transaction should've played out. A safety alert should've been given, preferably at that 2 mile mark. "Mace 11, traffic alert twelve o'clock 2 miles opposite direction one thousand two hundred indicated, advise you climb to two thousand immediately." All of that with a stern voice to inflict the urgency of the situation.

By issuing that safety alert, the controller would've put the course of action on the pilot. By not sticking to standard phraseology, the controller issued a command that the aircraft was required to follow. In this case, it was the wrong choice for the conditions. Head to head at 2 miles on an ASR is maybe 1/2 inch away. It's hard to tell if one or the other is offset one way or the other. The controller was trying to make a split second decision and it just didn't work. I feel for him/her.
Click to expand...

I feel for the controller too. But I would also like to know if his choice of action was due to inadequate training , a lack of quality control, or a facility culture.

I also feel for the F16 pilot, he was forced into an action that perhaps , based on his judgement and experience, he didn't want to do.

We have a pilot community here attributing all sorts of negative thoughts in the F16 pilots mind, none of which probably belong there.
 
teejayevans said:
I've only got about 125 hrs of x-country time, but I've only heard "Maintain altitude for crossing traffic..." Or unable to a climb/descend request because of traffic. Or to climb/descend to overtake traffic on airway.
But never to a impending collision especially when using the word immediately
Click to expand...

Because, in the heat of the moment, when watching two targets merging on a flat two dimensional surface, the first thought is too prevent the targets from merging, and forgetting about altitude, the third dimension.
 
vintage cessna said:
Perhaps since he didn't see the traffic at 12 o'clock he feared that he might turn into the C150?

Given the rules, should the controller have directed him to do anything?
Click to expand...
Even if the controller had merely "suggested" rather than "directed" the course of action, I'm following it unless I've got the airplane in sight or a TCAS RA. If I don't have it in sight, the controller has a much better picture of where the traffic is and what it's doing than I do. I don't think the verbiage had anything to do with this. This is a combination of the F16 not taking appropriate action when initially told to turn, and the controller not giving appropriate guidance.
 
FastEddieB said:
I hear that all the time.
Click to expand...
Yes, in fact it's preferred. That's why RAs give vertical guidance instead of lateral guidance. With mode C, vertical guidance is much more precise. With ADS-B, and reporting of WAAS GPS positions, that will change. The new TCAS devices coming out can now give both vertical and horizontal RAs if they are receiving WAAS positioning for both planes. If they aren't, they revert to vertical guidance only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top