F16 vs Cessna 150 collision
- Thread starter DaveA
- Start date
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Sluggo63: Thanks for pointing out that while GA is first to be blamed in the media, the military is first to be blamed in GA.
I didn't realize we had so many experts on the board that have extensive knowledge of air to air radar, fighter tactics/procedures and in-depth knowledge of what was going on inside the cockpit of that F-16. Wow, I'm impressed!
Stay classy POA... stay classy...
We all could certainly use some knowledgeable and inside info on the military side of this. Sad that we can't get that from someone here, someone with the background, someone who has non-classified info and experience.
Sad.
EvilEagle
Pattern Altitude
There are a few guys like that around here. I might be able to get you in touch with one of them...
hankrausch
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 332
- Display Name
Display name:
GoodbyePOA
After reading through the posts, I am realizing there is quite a lot I do not know concerning MOAs, VRs, IRs etc--I get those email updates periodically from the FAA regarding Wings points training but have never seen this topic--does anyone know of an online tutorial or a reference to brush up on this? Many thanks in advance.
bnt83
Final Approach
There are a few guys like that around here. I might be able to get you in touch with one of them...
AF Aerospace Physiologist that has been called to accident investigations and produced a report about as long as the US tax code outlining the human factors of the accident?
I know one. I text him about everyday.
35 AoA
Pattern Altitude
What are your questions?
gitmo234
Line Up and Wait
This may have been pointed out already, but did anyone notice how a big chunk of the debris landed in a trailer park....of course
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Yea and it's also "our" Air Force and that was "our" guy flying the Viper.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
You are NEVER safe in a Trailer Park!
tmyers
En-Route
Sluggo63: Thanks for pointing out that while GA is first to be blamed in the media, the military is first to be blamed in GA.
I didn't realize we had so many experts on the board that have extensive knowledge of air to air radar, fighter tactics/procedures and in-depth knowledge of what was going on inside the cockpit of that F-16. Wow, I'm impressed!
Stay classy POA... stay classy...
I remember about a year ago discussing flight ops within a MOA and my incorrect assumption that the F-16's that routinely fly near me could see me long before I see them.
I was wrong and both Evil and AOA pointed out that their respective aircraft didn't really have the instrumentation to give them much of a heads up on aircraft that might wander into their way. I would also like to point out that they did so in a professional manner without trying to make me look like an idiot.
Do we have cowboys and gals in the military, yep, but they are in the minority, and I think the Airman involved yesterday deserves to be given the benefit of doubt until the facts are presented.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
There are a few guys like that around here. I might be able to get you in touch with one of them...
I personally don't need it which is why my post said 'we'(POA collectively).
Mostly what we get so far are snide-isms and a semi-superior attitude, of the 'you have no clue' variety which isn't very tactically helpful.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
FTFY - all of them deserve that
tmyers
En-Route
Agreed!!!
creweite
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 126
- Display Name
Display name:
Creweite
One thing we can be sure about, it was not the 150 that ran into the Viper. And to me that indicates that the Viper pilot did not have a good visual scan going, essential when in airspace with other slower traffic.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
MOA, Military Operating Airspace, joint use, ATC will keep IFR traffic out of MOA. VFR traffic may transit, not recommended without communication with controlling agency. Military is conducting training, may have high density (volume) of aircraft, fast moving.
VR, visual navigation training route, may go down to ground level and will have a ceiling level, may or may not be in contact with ATC. Must be VMC to stay in the route. Only centerline is depicted on VFR charts, may be up to 4nm either side of centerline. Fast moving well above 250knts dependent on aircraft.
IR, instrument navigation route, may go down to ground level and will have a stated IFR safe altitude, normally 1500 to 2500ft AGL or higher in rugged terrain. Military aircraft will fly the route in VMC or IMC conditions. Some aircraft are capable of IMC terrain following and may be as low as 400-500ft AGL in IMC at 540ktas, speed dependent on aircraft. Only centerline is depicted on charts, may be up to 4nm or more either side of centerline.
Details on VR and IR route structure is available in Flight Information Planning (FLIP) General Planning (GP) AP1B document.
Last edited:
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Dang, those are some serious speeds.
And VFR cloud clearances are designed for <250 KIAS below 10,000, so one of those IR operators can pop out of a cloud and you'll have very little time to react. 540 KTAS is 9 miles per minute. With 1/3 mile lateral cloud clearance in Class E, that gives you two seconds to avoid. Good luck.
And VFR cloud clearances are designed for <250 KIAS below 10,000, so one of those IR operators can pop out of a cloud and you'll have very little time to react. 540 KTAS is 9 miles per minute. With 1/3 mile lateral cloud clearance in Class E, that gives you two seconds to avoid. Good luck.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I think that can be or possibly is careless and reckless.
§91.117 Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
There's our rules, and the higher class citizen rules it seems.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
Yes, it is authorized by the administrator. But only within the confines of the route structure. If forced to exit the route, then revert to standard approved speeds which for the B-1B was 360KIAS below 10K MSL while climbing. Bleeding off the 540ktas to 360 while at military power, we would be below 10k MSL for a few seconds.
DaveA
Pre-takeoff checklist
Press conference: Dennis Diaz NTSB investigator is emphatic that they are lead in this investigation. Victims were supposedly in N3601V, a 150M based at KMKS, and the son, aged 30, was flying, father, 68, was passenger (his body was recovered- still looking for 30 y/o pilot). Most of the 150 is suspected to be in the Cooper River.
Both had operating transponders according to Diaz, and he says that they have high quality data from radar. He says they will examine types of transponders/radar/type data/operational aspects in the investigation.
Witness says he saw the jet dump fuel or tanks- now everyone is asking hazmat/fuel/environmental questions, and the EPA is on site.
He states the F16 continued on for a few miles after impact before it went down.
Both had operating transponders according to Diaz, and he says that they have high quality data from radar. He says they will examine types of transponders/radar/type data/operational aspects in the investigation.
Witness says he saw the jet dump fuel or tanks- now everyone is asking hazmat/fuel/environmental questions, and the EPA is on site.
He states the F16 continued on for a few miles after impact before it went down.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
Yes, that is why it is recommended you know where the IR routes are and that you cross them at a right angle. I always wished that the top altitude for the route would be published on GA VFR and IFR charts, but it is not. It is a rule of thumb to plan 2500ft AGL above the highest local obstruction in mountainous terrain.
Yes, at 9 nm/min things happen very quickly, and yes, have seen traffic with time to avoid, climb / dive. But we don't know what we didn't see.
No. I think my spelling & grammar are...
+1
bullwinkle
Pattern Altitude
I don't think it's a case of "higher class citizens", it's a case of operational necessity. How do you expect F-16 pilots to train for their missions, which never drop *below* 250 knots, except to land? At some point we have to let them go faster than that in areas designated for that purpose.
in this case there is NO EVIDENCE that the F-16 was going faster than 250 knots outside of an area approved for that purpose.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
What is the difference if they are on instruments when flying at terrain +10k vs flying at terrain +500?
I also agree on the in designated areas. Like R-areas.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Oh Come Onnnnnnnnn.
I've been flying for about one human generation. If you look back at a sectional from 1985, and today the military has expanded it's reach into the NAS by leaps and bounds. MTRs, IRs, MOA, R space, ADIZ, the amount of airspace taken and partially shared by the military can't even be accurately calculated.
This is getting ridiculous trying to get from PHX to LAX or SAN. Maybe you want to go down the coast from Norfolk? What complete BS.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
If I ever got below 250kias, I best be ready to deploy flaps and slats.
300-250kias on the radar downwind, 240 for flaps/slats, 200-180 gear, normal approach at normal landing weight, 150-135 dependent on weight.
A light weight no flap approach was 210kias minimum.
tmyers
En-Route
What were you flying Bill?
BillTIZ
Final Approach
ADIZ is not "military airspace" , it's a defense identification zone, cross the line, we best know who you are.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
B-1B, "Bone", or more properly, "Lancer"
Prior to that, B-52G, when Buffs still went low level.
Last B-1 flight, 1998, retired 2003.
Last edited:
bullwinkle
Pattern Altitude
Um, I was not justifying any airspace...I was saying they need to be able to train to the capabilities of the airplane, and that means flights well above 250 knots.
Where in my statement did I say *anything* about current military airspace boundaries and whether it's appropriate?
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Wow. You caught me. ADIZ is an intercept area. Well, I guess that makes it ok. Are you telling me the Navy never uses the ADIZ areas for training? Are you saying that a GA plane can just cruise on out there, anytime they want and not be a target?
Get real. It's just as much military airspace as an R space, just not designated that way, and you know it.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
Most off shore military areas on both sides of the ADIZ are warning areas, and yes I expect the Navy to fly there, as have I when playing their war games. Where else would you expect carrier ops to train?
GA can fly out to the ADIZ, but if you expect to come back I hope you filed your plan with ADIZ penetration location and time and expect to clear customs inbound. Oh don't forget your eApis filing too.
GA can fly out to the ADIZ, but if you expect to come back I hope you filed your plan with ADIZ penetration location and time and expect to clear customs inbound. Oh don't forget your eApis filing too.
And inside of the ADIZ. The ADIZ is a Zone, not a line. They are WARNING zones only because the FAA can't establish RESTRICTED areas where they don't have sole jurisdiction (international waters, etc...).
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
The front downward visibility on an F16 isn't great, and the upward visibility from a C150 isn't great. It's entirely plausible that neither saw each other even though both have an obligation to see and avoid, especially if the Cessna were climbing and the F16 was descending (or at a point on the power curve where he was nose-high).
It's not like we haven't had midairs between GA planes under such circumstances. I seem to remember something lately where one plane landed on top of another.
I'd rather wait for the investigation before drawing conclusions. I do hope the recommendations do not further reduce GA's freedoms.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
If the F-16 center punched the 150, wouldn't they be required to be at the exact same altitude? Upward vis from the 150 would be of no consequence.
high speed entry from the side would go unnoticed by the 150's pilot until impact.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Um, I was not justifying any airspace...I was saying they need to be able to train to the capabilities of the airplane, and that means flights well above 250 knots.
Where in my statement did I say *anything* about current military airspace boundaries and whether it's appropriate?
Yeah - ok. I explained it once, that's enough. Walk it back.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Same altitude at that exact moment. Doesn't mean the F16 didn't descend into the 150, or the 150 climb into the F16 path, just that the flight paths intersected. At the rates of speed a difference of a second or two might well have prevented the collision.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
PHX to LAX or SAN is simple. You'll get airways and not Direct, but it's not like you are getting sent out to BFE in the process.
East Coast from Norfolk, I get Direct 9 times out of 10.
bullwinkle
Pattern Altitude
I think you're off your meds.
I don't have anything to walk back. I said they need *someplace* to practice.