F16 vs Cessna 150 collision

EvilEagle said:
Agreed. It brings it out in me when people make statements they pose as facts when they don't really know that it's a fact. For instance:



It could have picked it up, but it's not a guarantee. You don't know that, if the Cessna was going slow enough it wouldn't be on the radar. What if his radar was locked onto other potential traffic at the time? Not going to see it then. What if his radar wasn't working that great or at all? Unfortunately we rarely fly jets in training that have all systems working like they are supposed to. (too expensive for the taxpayer)

Guys on this and other boards are quick to say "well, the 16 had a radar so it's his fault" Most people saying that have no idea the capabilities and limitations of fighter radar, none of them were in the cockpit at the time so they have no idea if the radar picked him up or not.
Click to expand...

However with the radar being such an important part of the weapons targeting and delivery systems in the Viper, how can you effectively train without it working properly?
 
Jaybird180 said:
However with the radar being such an important part of the weapons targeting and delivery systems in the Viper, how can you effectively train without it working properly?
Click to expand...
Depends on what particular mission/event you are training for.

In other words, if you aren't training for a particular mission that requires it, then it can be deferred.
 
Jaybird180 said:
However with the radar being such an important part of the weapons targeting and delivery systems in the Viper, how can you effectively train without it working properly?
Click to expand...

It could be "working properly" and still not see the Cessna. If the speed threshold was set high to avoid seeing highway-speed cars, it could miss a maneuvering 150. It also could have been set to scan altitudes that the Cessna was not at.

It could be working perfectly and still miss the Cessna.
 
Silvaire said:
Yup there's a definite "schism" because he works for "us" and you don't.

My point is if you want to criticize him or the hierarchy under which he is governed then pick up a mirror.
Click to expand...

Why? I didn't create the hierarchy. I'm against it. The rules should be the rules for everyone. Not specials rules for some because they wear a uniform - whether it be military or police.
 
EdFred said:
Why? I didn't create the hierarchy. I'm against it. The rules should be the rules for everyone. Not specials rules for some because they wear a uniform - whether it be military or police.
Click to expand...
as much as I agree with the principal of good for geese and gander, I have to disagree in this case. Some rules are non-negotiable and others are.
 
Jaybird180 said:
However with the radar being such an important part of the weapons targeting and delivery systems in the Viper, how can you effectively train without it working properly?
Click to expand...
Because not every mission, training or otherwise, requires a functional radar and to take a jet off the schedule for *all* missions because the radar is down can severely limit your capability.

Nauga,
and his up gripes
 
EvilEagle said:
So you were there? Interesting. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Were you the pilot of either aircraft? Interesting :mad2:

Maybe the C150 with two guys aboard were 'going ballistic'? (go get em Mav!)

Maybe they were doing a Kamikaze dive on an unsuspecting Piper?

Maybe they were putting along at 90, going for a burger.

I choose #3.

Can you think of any flight regime in a C150, in summer, with two guys on board that would cause the jet not to be able to maneuver away?
 
I read the USA Today piece on this today. They concluded by stating that both aircraft had transponders, but the 150 had not filed a flight plan.

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
 
A lot of pointless nonsense in this thread. Here's how it boils down as I see it-

Who cares what an F-16 pilot can or can't see on his radar? Who cares that they get to operate as they see fit and aren't confined to our operating regulations? In short who cares about whatever the military does? We can't do anything about that.

What matters is, what can most of us do that are the same as this Cessna 150 driver in this scenario? Things that we know about collision avoidance-


  • ATC and flight following may, or may not be of any help. It can't hurt, but it is a pretty poor safety net. Would flight following have helped the 150 guys? Maybe, but I doubt it. Don't count on ATC.
  • "See and avoid" is a terrible anti collision avoidance system. It fails all the time. Reliance on the "Mark I Eyeball" as your only means of collision avoidance a terrible idea. See and avoid is just part of the duties of flying, not a complete collision avoidance strategy.
  • Time and time again, the "Big Sky" theory fails. Just because you are out of the airport traffic environment, doesn't mean that you can relax and forget all about traffic.
What is needed for us bug smasher pilots is more tech in our planes, but how to do that with limited budget of the typical C-150 owner? This is where the FAA can help IMO. The two types of tech that can help us GA guys is lighting and traffic alerting systems, both of which the current state of technology have great solutions for, but remain cost prohibitive for most. Why?

Certification and liability. There has got to be a way to get around this kind of bureaucratic nonsense and fast track systems like LED lights and strobes as well as ADS-B and TCAS systems. Had the 150 been lit up like a flashing Xmas tree and had they collision avoidance systems on board, there may well have been a chance for both pilots to become aware of the danger in those precious few seconds and perhaps do something about it.

Of course there are those that fly antique airplanes with no electrical power and so be it. They take the same risks as their grandads did. The rest of us may actually have a chance of seeing that old tail dragger with ADS-B. My understanding is, they can be detected on ATC's radar and therefor the info could be relayed to my cockpit. I would also likely know of this F-16 coming too. Combined with TAS system, you now have awareness of all the planes ATC sees as well as many they don't.

Added technology is really all that can help in a situation like this. The F-16s are out there. The NORDO planes are out there. The UAVs are out there. We have to fly defensively and looking out the window is only a partial and kind of weak defense. I hope that maybe this accident might inspire others to instead of looking for blame and possibly more regs with restrictions on civilian flight, to rather put pressure on the FAA to do what it can to facilitate the adoption of these systems by more of us and also to consider adopting the tech we have even if it does cost a fortune.

The only good things about this accident are IMO-

  • It once again raises the conversation about collision avoidance.
  • The F-16 pilot got out OK.
  • The guys in the C-150 actually did die doing what they loved for a change. They likely never knew what hit them. Happily headed to the hamburger and BANG! Lights out. In the scheme of things, not a bad way to go if your number's up.
 
Dav8or said:
The only good things about this accident are IMO-

  • It once again raises the conversation about collision avoidance.
Click to expand...
Considering the NTSB is already on record as saying the FAA's "See and Avoid" policy is inadequate, I would not be surprised if they try to use this accident to pressure the FAA to make ADS-B traffic more available to the masses.
 
Dav8or said:
The two types of tech that can help us GA guys is lighting and traffic alerting systems, both of which the current state of technology have great solutions for, but remain cost prohibitive for most. Why?

Certification and liability. There has got to be a way to get around this kind of bureaucratic nonsense and fast track systems like LED lights and strobes as well as ADS-B and TCAS systems.
Click to expand...

I'm all for minimizing 'crat nonsense. Sadly, the FAA just decided to doubled down on it. We've got a guy right here in this forum standing up to fellow pilots and asking them 'what has the FAA done to YOU personally?'. I tend to take it personally if I died because; I can't go buy a BRS for my plane due to certification. I can't light my plane the way I want due to regs. I can't get traffic sent to me and remain anonymous(we hafta know WHO you are. WHERE you are just isn't good enough).

Nothing the FAA does is about safety for GA. In 20 years, you won't be able to fly a GA plane at all without some kind of prior permission. Maybe less if certain elements of the fascist brigade make more inroads. :(
 
Fearless Tower said:
Considering the NTSB is already on record as saying the FAA's "See and Avoid" policy is inadequate, I would not be surprised if they try to use this accident to pressure the FAA to make ADS-B traffic more available to the masses.
Click to expand...

The easy solution is just to broadcast the ADS-B traffic info from every ground station to anybody with a receiver. I have no idea why they are not doing that other than to pressure pilots to spend money to update.

Then all you'd need is a little antenna box bluetoothed to your iPad and boom, you see a fairly complete traffic picture. It doesn't cost anybody much money, increases safety, and the incentive for pilots who want to enter the footprints of Class B & C airports after 2020 is still there.

What am I missing?
 
bullwinkle said:
The easy solution is just to broadcast the ADS-B traffic info from every ground station to anybody with a receiver. I have no idea why they are not doing that other than to pressure pilots to spend money to update.

Then all you'd need is a little antenna box bluetoothed to your iPad and boom, you see a fairly complete traffic picture. It doesn't cost anybody much money, increases safety, and the incentive for pilots who want to enter the footprints of Class B & C airports after 2020 is still there.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Silly wabbit. Where's the FAA control, authority, bureaucracy in that system? ;)
 
Bill Jennings said:
The FAA hassling us so more of us get out of GA. That is the end game: no GA. Or at least, no private pilot type GA, corp jets will stay.
Click to expand...

I have been saying this for years, and its not just the FAA, it is DHS, and the other alphabet agencies. For whatever reason (probably control) they don't want us to have the freedom to fly on our own, and freely move about the country. They use "security threat" as the excuse. This is what ADS-B is about.
 
fight, fight, fight....

Sad situation all around. But if any of you think onboard radar, ADS-B, or any other gadget will 100% prevent any mid-air collisions, IMO your wrong. No way to ever be 100%. EVER. And the infinitesimal increase in safety from spending $10,000-unlimited to equip all aircraft with some ADS-B, TCAS stuff will drive 90% of us out of the sky.

So I accept that risk. Every flight could end in an aluminum shower. Or a forced landing into trees or residential neighborhood.

You minimize the risk with FF, IFR, listening to local CTAF as you fly by, making reports, etc.

In the end you hope all that e-eyes, your eyes and the big sky come thru. If you don't get that your fooling yourself, IMO.
 
bullwinkle said:
The easy solution is just to broadcast the ADS-B traffic info from every ground station to anybody with a receiver. I have no idea why they are not doing that other than to pressure pilots to spend money to update.

Then all you'd need is a little antenna box bluetoothed to your iPad and boom, you see a fairly complete traffic picture. It doesn't cost anybody much money, increases safety, and the incentive for pilots who want to enter the footprints of Class B & C airports after 2020 is still there.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

That if they gave away the ADSB for free they think nobody will do ADSB-out.

IMHO, their thinking is a crock because within the next 5 years, everyone is going to have to do something. Except for little airplanes like C-150s which fly out of non-towered fields and never go to towered airports.
 
EvilEagle said:
If they are flying low level at those speeds, they are not on instruments (*unless doing TFR ops, which is not the standard) - they are navigating primarily visually with instrument backups. They are also running a radar, flying formation, making required radio calls, assessing jet status, doing fuel checks and clearing for traffic. All at 9 miles a minute - it's not an exact science and certainly isn't easy.
Click to expand...

Hey, it was an F-16! He can't fly that fast and get out of the pattern before flameout. He was probably going a mere 6 or 7 miles a minute.
 
Anthony said:
I have been saying this for years, and its not just the FAA, it is DHS, and the other alphabet agencies. For whatever reason (probably control) they don't want us to have the freedom to fly on our own, and freely move about the country. They use "security threat" as the excuse. This is what ADS-B is about.
Click to expand...

Really? They sure like to be sneaky about it then. Think of all those experimentals that have been built in the last 20 years and are flying with real people and passengers on board.
 
bnt83 said:
Really? They sure like to be sneaky about it then. Think of all those experimentals that have been built in the last 20 years and are flying with real people and passengers on board.
Click to expand...

Yes, really.

When your private small airport gets a phone call from the DHS/CBP after you land asking - who was that? What is the N number? How many people on board? Do you know where they live? etc.

It will take about 10 seconds for someone at the FAA to flip a switch, and all those EXP planes in progress are grounded, and all the ones built get grounded at the next cond insp.

Such is the nature of a 'permission' based authority system. ADS-B is another ginormous clank of the chain. Too bad some can't see it -- yet.
 
docmirror said:
Yes, really.

When your private small airport gets a phone call from the DHS/CBP after you land asking - who was that? What is the N number? How many people on board? Do you know where they live? etc.

It will take about 10 seconds for someone at the FAA to flip a switch, and all those EXP planes in progress are grounded, and all the ones built get grounded at the next cond insp.

Such is the nature of a 'permission' based authority system. ADS-B is another ginormous clank of the chain. Too bad some can't see it -- yet.
Click to expand...

I was a pilot when 9/11 happened, they don't need ADS-B to stop the show. Who was rounding up guns during Katrina?

Just grab a beer on the way home from work and watch re-run sports broadcasts and hate on opposing teams like a good drone.
 
bnt83 said:
I was a pilot when 9/11 happened, they don't need ADS-B to stop the show. Who was rounding up guns during Katrina?

Just grab a beer on the way home from work and watch re-run sports broadcasts and hate on opposing teams like a good drone.
Click to expand...

Sorry, It's not clear what point you're trying to get across with the prev two posts. Can you clarify your position a bit?
 
docmirror said:
Were you the pilot of either aircraft? Interesting :mad2:

Maybe the C150 with two guys aboard were 'going ballistic'? (go get em Mav!)

Maybe they were doing a Kamikaze dive on an unsuspecting Piper?

Maybe they were putting along at 90, going for a burger.

I choose #3.

Can you think of any flight regime in a C150, in summer, with two guys on board that would cause the jet not to be able to maneuver away?
Click to expand...

Spin practice?

Cloud chasing? (IFR clearance guy goes through a cloud and boom, impact)

Slow flight (making him invisible to radar and very likely to eyeball with the same relative movement as the ground)

The point is that neither of us knows, so you can't say "they were just putting along" - maybe they were, maybe they weren't. You are quick to blame a professional aviator for doing something wrong and are convinced the new pilot was clearly in the right just because he was in a GA aircraft. Clearly you are jaded against the military - fine with me, you aren't the first or the last.

Sometimes accidents happen.

Sometimes even professionals make mistakes.

Sometimes new pilots make mistakes.

Of those three I'd say the first and third happen more often.
 
EvilEagle said:
You are quick to blame a professional aviator for doing something wrong and are convinced the new pilot was clearly in the right just because he was in a GA aircraft.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where I said that?
 
Doggtyred said:
How do you know the C150 wasn't observing proper cloud clearance?
Click to expand...

I don't. But even if he was, that wouldn't guarantee a line-of-sight between the two aircraft if a low cloud bank is in the way. And assuming such a scenario, after the F-16 exits the cloud, he may have 1000' to avoid the collision, assuming (rather improbably) that his eyes are instantly focused in the right direction as he exits the cloud.
But my point was simply that there is no way of knowing for certain which pilot is at fault in a see-and-avoid situation when one aircraft is IFR and possibly IMC.
 
nauga said:
Because not every mission, training or otherwise, requires a functional radar and to take a jet off the schedule for *all* missions because the radar is down can severely limit your capability.

Nauga,
and his up gripes
Click to expand...

What can an F-16 do without a functioning radar (and attendant weapons systems)?

I can think of the following:
Transportation from A to B
Mark-1 aiming of the gunsight
Can IR weapons be pointed without it - notsure :dunno:
Methinks RA weapons are no good. :dunno:

So you got transportation and guns. As a taxpayer, I want my money back.
 
Jaybird180 said:
What can an F-16 do without a functioning radar (and attendant weapons systems)?

I can think of the following:
Transportation from A to B
Mark-1 aiming of the gunsight
Can IR weapons be pointed without it - notsure :dunno:
Methinks RA weapons are no good. :dunno:

So you got transportation and guns. As a taxpayer, I want my money back.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think the airplane should only ever leave the ground if the intent is to release ordnance, or are you simply trolling?
 
Jaybird180 said:
What can an F-16 do without a functioning radar (and attendant weapons systems)?

I can think of the following:
Transportation from A to B
Mark-1 aiming of the gunsight
Can IR weapons be pointed without it - notsure :dunno:
Methinks RA weapons are no good. :dunno:

So you got transportation and guns. As a taxpayer, I want my money back.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the F-16 pilot was watching his radar at that point in the flight? I'd guess he was looking out the windscreen when he wasn't heads-down reconfiguring the aircraft, navigating, running a checklist, or messing with the comm gear.
 
Jaybird180 said:
What can an F-16 do without a functioning radar (and attendant weapons systems)?

I can think of the following:
Transportation from A to B
Mark-1 aiming of the gunsight
Can IR weapons be pointed without it - notsure :dunno:
Methinks RA weapons are no good. :dunno:

So you got transportation and guns. As a taxpayer, I want my money back.
Click to expand...

Story said the pilot was on a solo instrument training flight. I'd be willing to bet that radar being operational isn't required for that flight. It's mission equipment, not basic instrument / navigation equipment.

Can't speak for the F-16 but as Evil alluded to, the are plenty of systems on military aircraft that don't get maintained 100 % of the time. That's the difference between a fully mission capable aircraft and a partial mission capable aircraft. Even in theater where you have almost an unlimited budget, plenty of times I've gone out to the aircraft and found the radar warning reciever inop, IR jammer inop, Mode 4 inop. GPS inop. HUD inop. That's when the PIC has to determine, what mission equipment can I get away with being inop and still complete the mission?

We could argue that taxpayers dollars should always provide a full up mission capable aircraft, but that would be completely unrealistic. Despite the ridiculously high cost we pay for these aircraft, their complex nature will always have a certain level of unreliability.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
We could argue that taxpayers dollars should always provide a full up mission capable aircraft, but that would be completely unrealistic. Dispite the ridiculously high cost we pay for these aircraft, their complex nature will always have a certain level of unreliability.
Click to expand...

We gotta pay Lockmart for the Joint Strike Fighter somehow!
 
Fearless Tower said:
We gotta pay Lockmart for the Joint Strike Fighter somehow!
Click to expand...

Hey, those guys deserve every penny they get! :D What I find hilarious is that LM is already warning the DOD we need to start working on a 6th generation fighter. Sheez, you all just produced an aircraft that some say is inferior to current fighters but hey, let's go and start work on the replacement for the F-35.:dunno:
 
Jaybird180 said:
As a taxpayer, I want my money back.
Click to expand...

Remember that servicemembers pay the same taxes (federal at least), and WE ALL pay for a lot of very skilled young men and women who want nothing more than for everything on those jets to work. Unfortunately, sometimes things are old, or break, or both, and it takes a little while to figure out what is wrong. A malfunctioning radar is not uncommon, though we have a lot of folks who bust their butts throughout the night to make it right for the next day's schedule.
 
Velocity173 said:
Hey, those guys deserve every penny they get! :D What I find hilarious is that LM is already warning the DOD we need to start working on a 6th generation fighter. Sheez, you all just produced an aircraft that some say is inferior to current fighters but hey, let's go and start work on the replacement for the F-35.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Given the time it takes to bring a fighter from concept to deployment, it would be stupid not to begin the process.
 
Bob Noel said:
Given the time it takes to bring a fighter from concept to deployment, it would be stupid not to begin the process.
Click to expand...

I agree but as slow as these defense contractors are producing aircraft these days, by the time they get it in service, everyone else has caught up.

P-51 120 days from drawing board to first flight. F-15 first flight in 1972 and operational in 1976. X-35 first flight in 2000 and just now entering service????
 
Velocity173 said:
I agree but as slow as these defense contractors are producing aircraft these days, by the time they get it in service, everyone else has caught up.

P-51 120 days from drawing board to first flight. F-15 first flight in 1972 and operational in 1976. X-35 first flight in 2000 and just now entering service????
Click to expand...

To be fair, there's a few more parts and stuff in the X-35 than the P-51.

And I agree that the cycles are much longer than they need to be. There's a certain unity of purpose in war time that seems to escape us during peace time.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top