F-16 midair with small plane in SC

ATN_Pilot said:
I think you're making a faulty assumption that shooting a practice approach in VMC means that they aren't looking outside.

Not that I'm defending the military. Their negligence in not installing a $50k TCAS unit in airplanes that are armed to the teeth with millions of dollars worth of weapons technology is downright reprehensible.
Click to expand...

I can't speak intelligently about the F-16 sensor capabilities or limitations. As far as the F-15E goes, we have a pretty good link that can shed some SA into who's who in the ATC environment, particularly with more than one radar down range sweeping. We can also interrogate a variety of different modes. AF aircraft typically always operate on IFR flight plans as well, rarely do they go VFR unless the mission dictates it (such as low levels, etc). Low levels are of particular concern. I can't really go into detail, but needless to say if a Cessna 150 was in slow flight he would be a little more difficult to dig out on the radar. Flying out of SJ, we were able to see about 95% of traffic around us from various means with much better fidelity than TCAS II. Just think of having a container around the traffic you locked up within your helmet FOV...much easier to get the tally.

Also, TCAS only really works if the traffic is actually squawking. We always squawk mode C and S.
 
TCAS II doesn't just put traffic on a display. It actively tells you what to do when a target is a collision risk. So if you fail to see the traffic that you claim should be so easy to see (but yet wasn't in this case), then TCAS would start screaming "CLIMB, CLIMB, CLIMB."

Sorry, but I'm not interested in the military's excuses. Their negligence got two civilians killed in civilian airspace.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
TCAS II doesn't just put traffic on a display. It actively tells you what to do when a target is a collision risk. So if you fail to see the traffic that you claim should be so easy to see (but yet wasn't in this case), then TCAS would start screaming "CLIMB, CLIMB, CLIMB."

Sorry, but I'm not interested in the military's excuses. Their negligence got two civilians killed in civilian airspace.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what TCAS II does. You don't understand what systems the jet has, so you can't speak intelligently about how TCAS would be the best fit and magically prevent an accident like this.

If you're assigning negligence based off cursory data, you're completely off base. Unless there's something you know that no one else knows???
 
MikeD said:
Is that known yet?
Click to expand...

Fact: two civilians are dead. Fact: they were hit by a military aircraft in civilian airspace. Fact: military fighters do not have TCAS II. Fact: TCAS II provides guidance to prevent collisions when you don't see traffic yourself.

So, yes.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Fact: two civilians are dead. Fact: they were hit by a military aircraft in civilian airspace. Fact: military fighters do not have TCAS II. Fact: TCAS II provides guidance to prevent collisions when you don't see traffic yourself.

So, yes.
Click to expand...

That's a highly irresponsible statement to make there at this early stage. We don't even know who hit who yet. And with midairs in VMC, it's rare to have only one aircraft at fault. See and avoid is the responsibility of all aircraft.

I'm assuming you somehow know that the Cessna 150 did have TCAS II?
 
MikeD said:
That's a highly irresponsible statement to make there at this early stage. We don't even know who hit who yet. And with midairs in VMC, it's rare to have only one aircraft at fault. See and avoid is the responsibility of all aircraft.

I'm assuming you somehow know that the Cessna 150 did have TCAS II?
Click to expand...

TCAS isn't available for light GA aircraft. TIS is, but I'm not aware of any approved system with TCAS II resolution advisory capabilities.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sorry, but I'm not interested in the military's excuses. Their negligence got two civilians killed in civilian airspace.
Click to expand...

The 150 didn't have TCAS- so is the owner culpable for not buying in your mind?

Also, that's "federal" airspace. It's not your toy that you let us play with.

For having airline experience, you're being awfully accusatory so early after a crash.
 
NewYorkophile said:
The 150 didn't have TCAS- so is the owner culpable for not buying in your mind?
Click to expand...

See above. TCAS II is neither available nor practical if it was available for light GA use. The government has no such excuse for their aircraft.

Also, that's "federal" airspace. It's not your toy that you let us play with.
Click to expand...

You understand that what's federal belongs to "the people," right?

For having airline experience, you're being awfully accusatory so early after a crash.
Click to expand...

I'm not accusing either pilot. I'd never do that until the facts are in. But it's established in this thread by people who fly this equipment that TCAS II is not installed in military fighters. I'd be pissed off about that even if there hadn't been a crash. It is woefully negligent.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
See above. TCAS II is neither available nor practical if it was available for light GA use. The government has no such excuse for their aircraft.



You understand that what's federal belongs to "the people," right?



I'm not accusing either pilot. I'd never do that until the facts are in. But it's established in this thread by people who fly this equipment that TCAS II is not installed in military fighters. I'd be pissed off about that even if there hadn't been a crash. It is woefully negligent.
Click to expand...
Adsb out would be a good compromise. Cheaper and less intrusive to install than tcas and would show the aircraft to anyone with adsb in (which with the ability to put a cheap in-out system in and display the information on a tablet will pretty soon be nearly everyone).
 
This whole discussion reminds me of the talk following the A-7 engine loss and crash from the D-M Runway 12 final into an occupied car at the University of Arizona. This happened back in '78, and I was working Ground when it happened. Totally unreasonable expectations were heaped upon the surviving pilot, who rode that Corsair II well below ejection safety limits desperately aiming the aircraft toward a vacant area. Alas, upon ejection, the A-7 swerved and stuck a car killing two university students. Nevertheless, that guy was a hero in my book, and he didn't deserve what followed:

So then everyone starts acting as if this were an everyday occurrence rather than a freak, rare accident. One local news anchor (Hank Something-or-Other) climbed atop his editorial pedestal and berated the pilot for not riding the aircraft all the way into the ground so as to keep innocents from being hit. A U of A professor with zero aviation background, or even knowledge, did a major "Study" telling us at D-M tower and the boys in Tucson RAPCON how we should only depart Runway 12 and recover Runway 30 regardless of wind or summertime thunderstorm activity. The newspaper editorial section . . . don't even get me started on that ill-informed mess of opinions masquerading as "fact".

An observation, if I may: The mere act of transporting a person from Point A to Point B is inherently dangerous, even if the mode of transport is by foot. It's simple physics. Mass x Velocity = Force, and Force — almost any Force — is potentially deadly.

It's not as if this type accident is a daily, or even annual, occurrence. If it were, it wouldn't even be the lead story. It leads simply because it is so rare an occurrence. And while it may sound crass, you don't overload already heavy combat aircraft and overburdened combat pilots for the occasional freak accident in VMC. You also don't add to already massive amounts of restricted airspace with the associated costs in fuel and time to civilian pilots and other users in order to protect against the rare, freak accident.

And then let us recall that most fighter cockpits don't have the luxury of a second crew member, and that the workload in the cockpit requires almost superhuman concentration and ability. Comparing that environment to, say, the environment of an Airbus is a bit like comparing the workload driving the family sedan down a sparsely populated highway to driving a Formula 1 Ferrari through the streets of Monte Carlo surrounded by several other vehicles also traveling in excess of 120 m.p.h.

It was an unfortunate fatal accident. I feel sorry for the families and friends of those who died. But it was an accident, a rare accident, and there is very little logical fix that is affordable on any cost-versus-benefit formula one cares to utilize. Any argument that can be proposed to the contrary could also be used to outlaw the family car . . . or handguns . . . or cruise ships (Costa Concordia, anyone?) or even, I dare say, the airliner.

I know that's going to raise some hackles, but I thought a bit of perspective was in order. I'll now go back to lurking.
 
When two civilian aircraft collided, the FAA quickly mandated collision avoidance technology. It didn't matter that it was a "rare" occurrence.

I'm tired of excuses for the military. Keep your killing machines out of our airspace, or comply with the same rules as the rest of professional aviation.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
When two civilian aircraft collided, the FAA quickly mandated collision avoidance technology. It didn't matter that it was a "rare" occurrence.

I'm tired of excuses for the military. Keep your killing machines out of our airspace, or comply with the same rules as the rest of professional aviation.
Click to expand...
Do you consider the military not a part of "our" airspace? Do you remember 9/11 when in the aftermath you weren't allowed to fly at all? But with your typical arrogance you feel that you and your Mooney own the skies, flying around without TCAS II and no user fees. Your tune has certainly changed since you retired.
 
@ATN_Pilot will argue endlessly for anything that benefits his wallet and when his circumstances change he'll drop those arguments and argue for the next thing he feels as if he's being unfairly forced to pay for. Since obtaining his own aircraft he hasn't said a word about user fees, He has posted about insurance costs. My opinion is @ATN_Pilot is a narcissist of epic proportions and cares not about anyones safety or financial situation except his own. Sad really.
 
knot4u said:
@ATN_Pilot will argue endlessly for anything that benefits his wallet and when his circumstances change he'll drop those arguments and argue for the next thing he feels as if he's being unfairly forced to pay for. Since obtaining his own aircraft he hasn't said a word about user fees, He has posted about insurance costs. My opinion is @ATN_Pilot is a narcissist of epic proportions and cares not about anyones safety or financial situation except his own. Sad really.
Click to expand...

Not that I don't enjoy a good ATN bash, but his wallet? He's in support of ADS-B for safety reasons even though it will set him back (and other GA pilots) thousands of dollars.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Not that I don't enjoy a good ATN bash, but his wallet? He's in support of ADS-B for safety reasons even though it will set him back (and other GA pilots) thousands of dollars.
Click to expand...
ADS-B is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money, and I'm glad that he's supporting it. Don't understand why he hasn't already installed it in his aircraft, perhaps he's waiting for the price to drop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top