The real question is why the controller chose to try a vector the F-16 at such close proximity in the first place. The fist traffic call at 3.25 miles with "CA CA" going off should have been a safety alert and not a normal traffic call. Not to mention, I would have liked to have seen a normal traffic call well before that. Actions I'm sure the NTSB will report, but nothing I'd consider gross negligence on the controller's part.
This is an important point. It's much more important to keep the radio tuned to the local airport when still in the area than it is to call for FF. I do the same thing. I keep on the local airport frequency until out of the area. I'm MUCH more likely to have a conflict with another flight in/out of the local airport than I am a military jet flying though the same airspace at 3 times my speed. Flying out of my home base, we often have to keep an eye out for the KC130 refueling tankers flying pattern laps at the local National Guard base. But ATC keeps them at least 3K' over our field, and they're HUGE compared to a F16. A little easier to see. It would be very disconcerting to see one of them overfly the field at 1600'. When I went to a See & Avoid seminar at KPSM, where they also have a National Guard base, they talked about some of the low level routes they used to do through the NH mountains. One route they used went right over a small GA airport at pattern altitude. That got changed after the pilots at that airfield complained.
There's nothing in any USAF regulation that would support doing a maximum performance turn at the behest of a controller. If we are on an IFR plan and we get a vector, we turn as if in the weather - usually with the AP on. If there is inflection in the controllers voice and if they say traffic alert, etc it's up to the pilot to decide how to expedite the turn. There's nothing ATC could say to me other than "there's a mountain off your nose for less than a mile, climb NOW!" that would make me max perform my jet in IMC or in/out of clouds. ATC doesn't have anyway to know what a "maximum performance turn" is - it varies greatly based on configuration, speed, fuel weight, etc. Any controller that thinks "turn south immediately" will get a max performance turn while in IMC/IFR flight plan is mistaken. As stated, that is normal operating speeds for fighter traffic. 250 is actually slow for us - by regulation we can't get below 230 until we fully configure in the Eagle.
I don't blame the Cessna pilot either, but I think there are some (understandable) misconceptions here about the reality of flying an instrument approach in a single seat fighter jet. Most have been highlighted, all I would say is that it is a somewhat different experience, and it can be a lot more task saturating depending on conditions/approach than the same in a more properly configured civilian multi piloted aircraft which was built to operate from pt A to pt B shooting precision approaches to mins. These things were designed to drop bombs and shoot missiles, everything else is just an afterthought……..an often poorly implemented one at that.
At Bagram the F-15Es used to come in to land hot. Wasn't until a couple years latter when I read a Flying article, I think the pilot said they were landing at 210 indicated. At 5,000 PA and temps in the summer, I can only imagine how high their touchdown speed was.
Understood, you guys gotta do what you gotta do, but transitioning thru an airport environment (i.e. w/i 5 miles of a field) at those speeds within 500' of TPA seems quite reckless. There's an article over at AOPA right now about this crash and it looks like they impacted exactly 3 miles from the MKS runway. I remember Bobby ( @Graueradler ) telling me about the issues he used to have with C130s when he managed RUE. They'd fly in herds right thru the TP IIRC. Caused havoc, and those are slow movers. Edit: I fully understand that it was the controller who put the F16 inside the airport environment. There were a lot of bad assumptions and decisions made by the controller who was at least 75% responsible for this tragedy IMO.
Who cares what these POA "experts" have to say. Treat it as entertainment value only. I just read through the NTSB report. Very interesting and sad. Like so many accidents it looks like it was the combination of several factors (including bad luck for example the wing strut obscuring the view of the 150 pilot until the last second).
Here's the US Air Force accident investigation. http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftAccidentReports/Documents/2016/070715_F-16_Cessna_SC.pdf
Similar to the NTSB report, they put most of the blame on the controller. Should've done a safety alert earlier with a climb vs a mandatory turn at the last minute. They mention the vector passed MKS as a contributing factor. While not the best place to take a 250 kt fighter, that sort of thing is going to happen. Just down the road at NBC, you've got two airports (HXD & ARW) located in close proximity to common approach paths into the air station. Aircraft pass those fields going 250-400 kts between 1500-3000 ft. The PAR at the air station for rwy 32 goes right over ARW at 1500 ft. There's risk involved in that but it's acceptable. Like MTRs (IR-18 & VR-1040) that go in close proximity to uncontrolled fields. You just got to be on the lookout for fast movers.
Seems to follow with the previous comments that the controller vectored the F-16 directly into the 150. Ouch.
As investigation reports go, that's about a career length's worth of effort for a single staff officer.
Of all people, I think mscard88 knows this. He is the master of opinions and entertainment on POA. Am I right or am I right, @mscard88 ?
"Government admits fault in fatal Cessna-fighter jet crash." http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/government-admits-fault-in-fatal-cessna-fighter-jet-crash/
Maybe I missed it but what happened to the F-16 pilots? Was he held partially responsible? It sounds like it was ATC all the way, but they did throw in that the aircraft should have used equipment on board to avoid the collision. I'm assuming they mean the F-16's radar, or IFF?
You'll likely never know. Unless the pilot was an O5 or above, or unit CO, you are unlikely to ever see the results of any punitive action.
Most likely nothing to the pilot. The NTSB partially blamed the "inherent limitations of the see and avoid concept," on both pilots. The F-16 was using radar in search mode but AF personnel have stated it would likely not pick up a small, slow moving target. It's not known if the pilot had its IFF detection equipment on but even if it were, the report states it doesn't provide a precise location. Don't think either technology would have benefited the F-16 pilot in this accident. The NTSB does say that an in the cockpit display (TCAS), could have helped the F-16 pilot avoid the collision. A late traffic call followed by a bad safety alert and the pilots failing in the see and avoid concept.
What leads you to believe that such equipment wasn't being used or, if it was, was being used improperly?
Yeah. She would not want me on a jury. I am afraid my bias against her would lead me to be unable to weigh the evidence impartially.
Awww Jeez...she needs to go away. Every time I see her on TV I cringe, wondering what stupidity is about to escape from her mouth.
If the F-16 radar is like that of other look-down-shoot-down radars then it may reject targets with less than ~80 knots of groundspeed.
