NTSB F-16 & Cessna 150 midair preliminary report

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

hey I'm not the one suggesting the controller should have said go right instead of left. But I'll admit its a fair point.


The MMQ I was talking about was myself, not you. Sorry that it was not clear. Agree, call the traffic. If no visual, change course. Just a terrible tragedy that the change suggested, and the rate at which the change was made managed to drive the two together, instead of further apart.

From the way I read it, if the F-16 pilot had done nothing, there would be nothing to report, as he had changed course by nearly 45 degrees (260 to roughly 215) before the collision occurred.

Steve Leonard

I wonder, with the F-16's climbing ability, why the pilot didn't change
altitude. I know... Monday morning quarter backing, instrument
approach, and all that, but nobody would be dead and two aircraft
wouldn't have been lost. Only one practice approach...

Why, I remember back in the old days... Seriously, as a student pilot
departing San Antonio, we penetrated the clouds during a "quick climb"
and the controller called traffic 12 o'clock and (I don't recall how
many) miles. I immediately asked for a vector and the controller
replied, "He's too close - it wouldn't matter"!!! The instructor in the
back seat grabbed the stick, shouted, "I got it" and pulled about 5 g,
we broke out of the top of the clouds, just missing the light twin
dodging the cloud tops and apparently not on an IFR flight plan. Ya
gotta do what ya gotta do... I wish I'd thought of the quick pull-up at
the time, but I learned from it.

On 7/20/2015 10:28 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
hey I'm not the one suggesting the controller should have said go right instead of left. But I'll admit its a fair point.

The MMQ I was talking about was myself, not you. Sorry that it was not clear. Agree, call the traffic. If no visual, change course. Just a terrible tragedy that the change suggested, and the rate at which the change was made managed to drive the two together, instead of further apart.

From the way I read it, if the F-16 pilot had done nothing, there would be nothing to report, as he had changed course by nearly 45 degrees (260 to roughly 215) before the collision occurred.

Steve Leonard

--
Dan Marotta

Even in a glider, if you are too close to maneuver left or right, a quick pull up, or a dive, is the fastest way to prevent a midair.

Ramy

Yup... Only a week ago, I did a quick unload and bottom rudder to avoid
a conflict in a thermal.

On 7/21/2015 10:08 AM, Ramy wrote:
Even in a glider, if you are too close to maneuver left or right, a quick pull up, or a dive, is the fastest way to prevent a midair.

Ramy

--
Dan Marotta

Originally Posted by Steve Leonard[_2_]

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

hey I'm not the one suggesting the controller should have said go right instead of left. But I'll admit its a fair point.


Agree, call the traffic. If no visual, change course. Just a terrible tragedy that the change suggested, and the rate at which the change was made managed to drive the two together, instead of further apart.

From the way I read it, if the F-16 pilot had done nothing, there would be nothing to report, as he had changed course by nearly 45 degrees (260 to roughly 215) before the collision occurred.

Steve Leonard

I am puzzled as to why the F-16 didn't turn south the first time... Clear call from controller: if traffic not in sight, turn left to 180. That doesn't mean keep looking. I also think, contrary to others, that showed good awareness and concern by ATC. The second follow up call more so. The Viper driver seemed lackadaisical to me, and seemed to think he had time to keep looking... Not what you are supposed to do.

On some other questions, or comments: I would not read too much into the altitude accuracy of Mode C in this case. Couple of reasons. Mode C reports to the nearest 100 ft altitude--so an aircraft at 1449 ft is at 1400 feet for Mode C. Second, the Mode C altitude is updated only when the ATC radar sweeps through the aircraft position the each time. As the C-150 was climbing, he could have been closer to 1600 by the time the next sweep comes around. Heading info can only really be updated sweep to sweep as well, so an aircraft taking off and then planning on heading to MB will have been more dynamic than the occasional radar updates, so take the 110 C-150 heading with a big grain of salt.

The F-16 by the same account was at 1500 feet, though his clearance was to 1600. 100 feet off however is acceptable IFR standards, but not the way we tend to fly. But by Mode C reporting standards he could have been 1450 to 1549 feet high.

I find major problems with the F-16's actions and responses. Not respecting the first turn call was bad. You either see them or you do not. To me, this was clear ATC command under IFR control, I do not see him therefore I have to turn. If I turn under IFR procedures in an F-16, I roll into a 30 degree bank and until I roll out heading 180. This turn was executed late, even delayed after the second call to turn (but this seems more like an educated assumption on my part). So by the time the F-16 began his turn, he might have been better off not turning. Probably had he turned at the first command, no issues either. But in the end game, this is too dynamic a situation for ATC radar to get right at their update rate, hence their procedures--the first call was right--if you do not see him, turn--that much was clear to the controller for an aircraft that just took off and was climbing into the F-16's environment. The second call was late (in ATC requirements, but he was apparently betting that since the F-16 didn't turn, that he was visual with the traffic).

Not a great outcome...

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 12:35:47 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yup...* Only a week ago, I did a quick unload and bottom rudder to
avoid a conflict in a thermal.

Dan Marotta

Not saying right or wrong in your case (wasn't there, didn't see it....), but, "for others", keep in mind there "may" be a glider just under your belly!!
While you may have missed one "issue", you may have created another "issue"......

Stated from a comp pilot/CFIG...... just think before acting.... I know time is short at times, but try.

Please?

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 1:43:02 PM UTC-5, Squeaky wrote:
'Steve Leonard[_2_ Wrote:
;906668']On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5,
wrote:--
Too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking.-

hey I'm not the one suggesting the controller should have said go right
instead of left. But I'll admit its a fair point.
-

Agree, call the traffic. If no visual, change course. Just a terrible
tragedy that the change suggested, and the rate at which the change was
made managed to drive the two together, instead of further apart.

From the way I read it, if the F-16 pilot had done nothing, there would
be nothing to report, as he had changed course by nearly 45 degrees (260
to roughly 215) before the collision occurred.

Steve Leonard

I am puzzled as to why the F-16 didn't turn south the first time...
Clear call from controller: if traffic not in sight, turn left to 180.
That doesn't mean keep looking. I also think, contrary to others, that
showed good awareness and concern by ATC. The second follow up call
more so. The Viper driver seemed lackadaisical to me, and seemed to
think he had time to keep looking... Not what you are supposed to do.

On some other questions, or comments: I would not read too much into
the altitude accuracy of Mode C in this case. Couple of reasons. Mode C
reports to the nearest 100 ft altitude--so an aircraft at 1449 ft is at
1400 feet for Mode C. Second, the Mode C altitude is updated only when
the ATC radar sweeps through the aircraft position the each time. As
the C-150 was climbing, he could have been closer to 1600 by the time
the next sweep comes around. Heading info can only really be updated
sweep to sweep as well, so an aircraft taking off and then planning on
heading to MB will have been more dynamic than the occasional radar
updates, so take the 110 C-150 heading with a big grain of salt.

The F-16 by the same account was at 1500 feet, though his clearance was
to 1600. 100 feet off however is acceptable IFR standards, but not the
way we tend to fly. But by Mode C reporting standards he could have
been 1450 to 1549 feet high.

I find major problems with the F-16's actions and responses. Not
respecting the first turn call was bad. You either see them or you do
not. To me, this was clear ATC command under IFR control, I do not see
him therefore I have to turn. If I turn under IFR procedures in an
F-16, I roll into a 30 degree bank and until I roll out heading 180.
This turn was executed late, even delayed after the second call to turn
(but this seems more like an educated assumption on my part). So by the
time the F-16 began his turn, he might have been better off not turning.
Probably had he turned at the first command, no issues either. But in
the end game, this is too dynamic a situation for ATC radar to get right
at their update rate, hence their procedures--the first call was
right--if you do not see him, turn--that much was clear to the
controller for an aircraft that just took off and was climbing into the
F-16's environment. The second call was late (in ATC requirements, but
he was apparently betting that since the F-16 didn't turn, that he was
visual with the traffic).

Not a great outcome...




--
Squeaky

Completely agree, Squeaky. While the directed left turn may not have been the best, it was a direction that was not followed. The direction was given again, and there is implication of yet another delay. Very poor form on the part of the pilot.

Steve Leonard

A very good point but, in this case, I was aware of my surroundings.
The G-103 was the only glider other than my own in the immediate area.
He had a better thermal than I did, so I moved over to join from below.
He increased his turn rate just as I was entering, putting us on
possibly conflicting paths. To dodge him I could have: rolled out
slightly and gone under him to the outside of his turn, but that would
have been too close and he would not have seen me; increased my bank
angle and pulled inside his turn, but that would expose my belly and I
would have lost sight of him and, quite frankly, would have been rude;
put the nose down and seek lift elsewhere. Doing the last maneuver I
never lost sight of him until I was speeding away. That sounds like a
lot to consider in a short time but maintaining situational awareness
makes this less of an issue than it might sound like.



On 7/21/2015 5:04 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 12:35:47 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yup... Only a week ago, I did a quick unload and bottom rudder to
avoid a conflict in a thermal.

Dan Marotta

Not saying right or wrong in your case (wasn't there, didn't see it....), but, "for others", keep in mind there "may" be a glider just under your belly!!
While you may have missed one "issue", you may have created another "issue".....

Stated from a comp pilot/CFIG...... just think before acting.... I know time is short at times, but try.

Please?


--
Dan Marotta

regarding altitude differences, 91.217 requires that the altimeter report pressure altitude correctly within 125 feet. So two aircraft, one reporting FL050 but 125ft high at 5,125 MSL and another reporting FL053, but 125ft low at 5,175 MSL will pass very close to each other, especially if one of them might be an ASH-30 in a level turn.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.217

On 7/22/2015 1:03 PM, Bob Pasker wrote:
regarding altitude differences, 91.217 requires that the altimeter report pressure
altitude correctly within 125 feet. So two aircraft, one reporting
FL050 but 125ft
high at 5,125 MSL and another reporting FL053, but 125ft low at 5,175
MSL will pass
very close to each other, especially if one of them might be an ASH-30
in a level turn.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.217


I believe the typical situation is much worse than that. 91.217 only
seems to require that the equipment meet that standard on the day it was
calibrated, and then 95% probability of meeting that standard is
accepted. After that, the equipment goes out to meet the real world
and all bets are off until the next calibration!

Also, remember that a transponder only reports altitude in 100 foot
increments, so 5,125 MSL might report the same as 5,199 MSL.