I was a bit stunned by the apparent lackadaisical behavior on the part
of both the F-16 pilot and the controller. Advice to turn should be
acted on immediately in a conflict situation. From the writeup it
seemed that neither the pilot nor the controller showed any concern
about such a close encounter. Of course that could simply be that the
printed word can't convey stress or tone in a voice.

Also notable is the fact that, had the F-16 pilot /_not_/ turned when he
did or /_had_/ turned when instructed, the collision would likely not
have occurred.

Vaughn, I agree with you on the PCAS altitude. My last conflict was
noted as -300 ft and, when I spotted the aircraft, it was about 100 ft
above my altitude.

On 7/19/2015 8:52 AM, Vaughn wrote:
On 7/18/2015 8:40 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...15FA259A&rpt=p


To me, this is the crucial passage:
"At 1100:49, the radar target of the F-16 was located 1/2 nautical
mile northeast of the Cessna, at an indicated altitude of 1,500 feet,
and was on an approximate track of 215 degrees. At that time, the
Cessna reported an indicated altitude of 1,400 feet, and was
established on an approximate track of 110 degrees. At 1100:52 the
controller advised the F-16 pilot, "traffic passing below you 1,400
feet." "

I find transponder-reported altitudes to be pretty notoriously
inaccurate in general. So it seems to me that these two planes
indicating only 100 feet apart (but only reporting their altitudes in
100 feet increments) should have been considered at the SAME altitude.

With my PCAS, I consider +/- 400 to be the same altitude.

--
Dan Marotta