All
← Back to Squawk list
Report details final seconds before deadly F-16, Cessna crash
F-16 pilot "warned" of traffic ahead before deadly collision with Cessna aircraft. (www.usatoday.com) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Wow, where to begin....? So much wrong about this. First off, my heart goes out to the family of the civilian pilot and his Father, and to Major Aaron Johnson who will live with this the rest of his life. I couldn't agree more with linbb in that a left turn to 180 when the controller advised MAY have prevented this. Depending on the speed of the F16 at the time and the ability to turn in a radius that would have taken him out of the collision course. However remaining at the same altitude instead of making an immediate climb with course change MAY have taken any chance of collision out of the equation or at least lowered the probability of collision. So easy to arm chair this one and none of us would want to be in either shoe. So tragic. I also agree with Scott that it appears the F16 was operating IFR single pilot in VFR conditions. If it had been actual IFR and IMC the likelihood of running into a slow mover us having this discussion for that matter would be near zero. I too am curious about collision avoidance in the F16, No TCAS or equivalent?
Seems that if the pilot had done what was recommended there would have been no crash. Bad deal if you cannot see it and are closing turn is usually what is done not continue.
George, love reading your posts. My thoughts keep coming back to the altitude that was reported by all parties. A 1000 foot separation was adequate. The F-16 was on a TACAN approach, in contact with CHS and in radar contact. What more do you want? The Cessna was VFR, cruising at any altitude under the floor and not talking to anybody. These mosquitoes are a problem. In this day and age, you must be in contact with the local ATC and advise. If you think you can just take off from a non towered airport and fly wherever you want......this is what happens. Too bad for the Cessna folks. I hope the families of both aircraft have a strong relationship.
Peter, I have reread the Preliminary NTSB several times and I'm honestly having a hard time understanding the 1,000' vertical separation you have referred to several times. The F-16 was apparently stable at 1,500' (assigned 1600') and a stable course of 215º: The Cessna 150 took off fully or near fully loaded from MKS (elevation 73') and apparently immediately assumed a maximum climb of just under 400 fps on a stable course of 110º. The last time that there was 1,000' of vertical separation between the two aircraft was a little over a minute after the Cessna 150 took off and about two minutes prior to the collision. The aircraft were converging vertically CONTINUOUSLY for the entire just over 3 minutes between take off and collision. At ~37 seconds before the collision, the Cessna 150's reported altitude was 1200', just 300' lower than the F-16. At ~6 seconds prior to collision, the Cessna 150's reported altitude was 1,400', just 100' below the F-16, with1/2 mile separation. I don't know the radar reporting delay, if any, but these are best case numbers. Well, 6 seconds at ~400 fps closing speed, that's about 1/2 mile'; we all know the result.
I believe that you may have misread the report. The only reference I find in the Preliminary NTSB Report to 1,000' separation is LATERAL. I quote from the report, "At 1100:54, the radar reported altitude of the F-16 remained at 1,500 feet and no valid altitude information was returned for the radar target associated with the Cessna. At that point the targets were laterally separated by about 1,000 feet." Within several seconds, the collision occurred. What am I missing? Is there a reference to 1,000' vertical separation I am missing somewhere.
Now, for the "mosquito" thing: To me, the IFR fast movers and heavy iron (or for that matter, any IFR) are a problem if they and ATC aren't playing well with each other or the VFR traffic. It's called positive aircraft separation and it's the legal responsibility of the ATC and the IFR pilot. I fly a fully FAA certified Cessna 182, just like the fully FAA certified Cessna 150 that got run over in this collision. They were flying fully legally in conformance with the FAR's and responsibly in appropriate airspace( apparently, at this point) . Give the 3X faster F-16's near right angle crossing traffic above the Cessna, I'm confident that investigation analysis will show that it would have been very difficult for the Cessna 150 pilot to see the F-16, who would have been above and to the left, starting at about the Cessna 150's 9:30 and staying above or just in front of the leading edge of his high left wing as convergence brought the F-16 to 9:00 at impact. Yes, that's what ATC flight following is great for., but it is not alway available; I have been refused (occasionally) from there, from Savannah Approach, from Beauford Approach, from Augusta Approach (during the Masters), and (frequently) from Atlanta Approach. It's only available at ATC's discretion and sometimes they're just too busy. I'm not going to fight that fight; I use it when it's available because I don't want someone else's (in this case, apparently two someone else's) major screw ups to kill me. But the FAR's don't require it, ATC is not resourced to flight follow all VFR flights, and we all (VFR AND IFR) better be competent to fly safely without all VFR traffic having and using it. The heavy iron and fast movers had better be able to deal with VFR traffic, with or without ATC flight following, as required by the FAR's, or be prepared to deal with the legal consequences, which, in this case, may be quite severe. And, no, this isn't what happens when you take off from a non-towered field and fly wherever you want to. Check it out, the last military/civilian collision was 10 years ago. This is what happens when two highly trained and certified individuals involved in IFR operation utterly fail to discharge their responsibilities properly. Too bad for the ATC controller and the F-16 pilot. Someone may be wearing orange.
It's an old (not very funny right now) joke. What do a pilot and an ATC controller have in common:
If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies.
If the ATC controller screws up, the pilot dies.
I don't particularly want to be that pilot.
I believe that you may have misread the report. The only reference I find in the Preliminary NTSB Report to 1,000' separation is LATERAL. I quote from the report, "At 1100:54, the radar reported altitude of the F-16 remained at 1,500 feet and no valid altitude information was returned for the radar target associated with the Cessna. At that point the targets were laterally separated by about 1,000 feet." Within several seconds, the collision occurred. What am I missing? Is there a reference to 1,000' vertical separation I am missing somewhere.
Now, for the "mosquito" thing: To me, the IFR fast movers and heavy iron (or for that matter, any IFR) are a problem if they and ATC aren't playing well with each other or the VFR traffic. It's called positive aircraft separation and it's the legal responsibility of the ATC and the IFR pilot. I fly a fully FAA certified Cessna 182, just like the fully FAA certified Cessna 150 that got run over in this collision. They were flying fully legally in conformance with the FAR's and responsibly in appropriate airspace( apparently, at this point) . Give the 3X faster F-16's near right angle crossing traffic above the Cessna, I'm confident that investigation analysis will show that it would have been very difficult for the Cessna 150 pilot to see the F-16, who would have been above and to the left, starting at about the Cessna 150's 9:30 and staying above or just in front of the leading edge of his high left wing as convergence brought the F-16 to 9:00 at impact. Yes, that's what ATC flight following is great for., but it is not alway available; I have been refused (occasionally) from there, from Savannah Approach, from Beauford Approach, from Augusta Approach (during the Masters), and (frequently) from Atlanta Approach. It's only available at ATC's discretion and sometimes they're just too busy. I'm not going to fight that fight; I use it when it's available because I don't want someone else's (in this case, apparently two someone else's) major screw ups to kill me. But the FAR's don't require it, ATC is not resourced to flight follow all VFR flights, and we all (VFR AND IFR) better be competent to fly safely without all VFR traffic having and using it. The heavy iron and fast movers had better be able to deal with VFR traffic, with or without ATC flight following, as required by the FAR's, or be prepared to deal with the legal consequences, which, in this case, may be quite severe. And, no, this isn't what happens when you take off from a non-towered field and fly wherever you want to. Check it out, the last military/civilian collision was 10 years ago. This is what happens when two highly trained and certified individuals involved in IFR operation utterly fail to discharge their responsibilities properly. Too bad for the ATC controller and the F-16 pilot. Someone may be wearing orange.
It's an old (not very funny right now) joke. What do a pilot and an ATC controller have in common:
If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies.
If the ATC controller screws up, the pilot dies.
I don't particularly want to be that pilot.
George, I am not going to argue the mosquito thing either, BUT, right or wrong, the F16 was in class C Airspace and the Cessna driver got in it. No trouble here with VFR; just wrong place at wrong time. Just like a 4 lane hiway and somebody jumps the median and we have a head on. They not supposed to, but it happens for various reasons. That is why we all time supposed to be looking.
I'll play devil's advocate here. If the F-16 was not in a turn to 180, what would have happened? Did the controller instruct a turn right into the Cessna? What about the 1000 foot vertical separation? If the F-16 was still at 1500 feet, as last reported, why did he run into a Cessna that was supposed to still be at 1400 feet?