F-16 midair with small plane in SC

A Life Aloft said:
I am not the one posting nonsense, rants and having a hissy here. You are the one who stated:

Again, you have no idea what happened or the hows and whys. You bring in non-related issues that the family of the pilots in the GA aircraft are experiencing. You have not looked at the stats for GA, Commercial and Military flights and loss of civilian life in the air and on the ground. You ignore what Military pilots have been trying to explain to you. Who is the emotional one again? Who is making all the assumptions? Who is attempting to be reasonable and rational and logical on here? Here's a hint, it's not you.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about stats at the moment here. Yes GA collisions are more likely to be between GA aircraft, but that is also a function of the fact there are more GA aircraft around. Where I live, the nearest air base is McGuire and that is still some ways away. Around my GA airports there are no F16s flying here. If there is a collision it will most likely be a GA. The last "big one" here was a the Hudson river midair between a tour helicopter and a Piper aircraft in 2009.

Non-related issues that the family of the pilots in the GA aircraft are feeling? Gee, there was a collision with an F16 and that pilot ejected safely. That family lost both a father and son. I'm not making assumptions at the moment in terms of fault because not enough is known. But it never looks good when a military aircraft is involved in the deaths of US citizens here.
 
A Life Aloft said:
No one has or is doing that. Certainly you are able to read and comprehend what you read, or are you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I read what you wrote, but it's contradictory. You claim that you don't dismiss their deaths, but you do in effect by continuing to point to statistics of rarity.

When civilian accidents take place, we immediately look for ways to prevent them in the future. When the military is involved, though, we see excuses about how rare it is and how the military should really only be concerned with how efficient their airplanes are at killing people and blowing things up.

The military is not immune to criticism, and I'm tired of people being branded as anti-military, or worse, anti-soldier, just because they have valid criticism of the military or believe that the military doesn't need to be as big as it is or involved in as many conflicts as it is.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, I read what you wrote, but it's contradictory. You claim that you don't dismiss their deaths, but you do in effect by continuing to point to statistics of rarity.

When civilian accidents take place, we immediately look for ways to prevent them in the future. When the military is involved, though, we see excuses about how rare it is and how the military should really only be concerned with how efficient their airplanes are at killing people and blowing things up.

The military is not immune to criticism, and I'm tired of people being branded as anti-military, or worse, anti-soldier, just because they have valid criticism of the military or believe that the military doesn't need to be as big as it is or involved in as many conflicts as it is.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about cis-gender?
 
knot4u,

here is the FAA SAFO (safety alert for operators) that clearly shows that they believed it was the foot on the footrest that accidentally set the tranpsonder into standby...

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...afety/safo/all_safos/media/2007/SAFO07005.pdf

Subject:
Embraer Legacy/EMB-135, -140, -145 — Be
Careful Where You Put Your Foot

Purpose:
This SAFO calls attention to the possibili
ty that a pilot of an Embraer Legacy,
EMB-135 or -145 (sometimes called EMB-140 in
marketing literature)
might inadvertently
change VHF radio frequencies or place the AT
C transponder into standby mode during flight.

Background:
During an investigation the FAA discovered that crewmembers who had the
simple habit of placing their shoe on the foot
rest just below the instrument panel could
inadvertently put the ATC transponder into stan
dby mode, or change radio frequencies without
the crew's awareness. Further, they found th
at pilots might not notice the corresponding
indication on the Pilot Flight Display due to the white colored letters, which are not as noticeable
as differently colored cau
tion or warning indications.
Switching a transponder with a f
unctioning traffic alert and collis
ion avoidance system (TCAS)
to standby mode renders the TCAS ineffective,
and is therefore one of the most serious
consequences of a pilot’s foot inadvertentl
y contacting the radio management unit. Two
airplanes equipped with TCAS woul
d fail to see each other if they
were on a collision course.
Pilots could presume TCAS was operating normally
if they failed to notice the subtle TCAS OFF
indication on the Pilot Flight Display.

Recommended Action:
Managers of part 142 training centers where pilot training on the
Embraer Legacy, EMB-135, and EMB-145 is conducted
should ensure that th
eir trainers caution
pilots of this latent hazard
and emphasize the importance of
being careful when using the
footrests provided. Similarly, di
rectors of safety, directors of
operations, trainers, and check
airmen for operators flying any of these Embraer
models should immediately make this hazard
known to their pilots and should make sure that
it is addressed in th
eir training programs,
especially during flight training, supervised
operating experience, and line checks.

Any questions regarding the conten
t of this SAFO should be dire
cted to the Air Transportation
Division, AFS-200, at (202) 267-8116.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
knot4u,

here is the FAA SAFO (safety alert for operators) that clearly shows that they believed it was the foot on the footrest that accidentally set the tranpsonder into standby...

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...afety/safo/all_safos/media/2007/SAFO07005.pdf

Subject:
Embraer Legacy/EMB-135, -140, -145 — Be
Careful Where You Put Your Foot

Purpose:
This SAFO calls attention to the possibili
ty that a pilot of an Embraer Legacy,
EMB-135 or -145 (sometimes called EMB-140 in
marketing literature)
might inadvertently
change VHF radio frequencies or place the AT
C transponder into standby mode during flight.

Background:
During an investigation the FAA discovered that crewmembers who had the
simple habit of placing their shoe on the foot
rest just below the instrument panel could
inadvertently put the ATC transponder into stan
dby mode, or change radio frequencies without
the crew's awareness. Further, they found th
at pilots might not notice the corresponding
indication on the Pilot Flight Display due to the white colored letters, which are not as noticeable
as differently colored cau
tion or warning indications.
Switching a transponder with a f
unctioning traffic alert and collis
ion avoidance system (TCAS)
to standby mode renders the TCAS ineffective,
and is therefore one of the most serious
consequences of a pilot’s foot inadvertentl
y contacting the radio management unit. Two
airplanes equipped with TCAS woul
d fail to see each other if they
were on a collision course.
Pilots could presume TCAS was operating normally
if they failed to notice the subtle TCAS OFF
indication on the Pilot Flight Display.

Recommended Action:
Managers of part 142 training centers where pilot training on the
Embraer Legacy, EMB-135, and EMB-145 is conducted
should ensure that th
eir trainers caution
pilots of this latent hazard
and emphasize the importance of
being careful when using the
footrests provided. Similarly, di
rectors of safety, directors of
operations, trainers, and check
airmen for operators flying any of these Embraer
models should immediately make this hazard
known to their pilots and should make sure that
it is addressed in th
eir training programs,
especially during flight training, supervised
operating experience, and line checks.

Any questions regarding the conten
t of this SAFO should be dire
cted to the Air Transportation
Division, AFS-200, at (202) 267-8116.
Click to expand...
That's fine, the airplane must have perfect, it was brand new. I've dealt with new aircraft deliveries, it is not sunshine and rainbows. Normally it takes awhile to get the bugs worked out after delivery. I anxiously await hearing your experiences regarding a brand new airplane.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, I read what you wrote, but it's contradictory. You claim that you don't dismiss their deaths, but you do in effect by continuing to point to statistics of rarity.

When civilian accidents take place, we immediately look for ways to prevent them in the future. When the military is involved, though, we see excuses about how rare it is and how the military should really only be concerned with how efficient their airplanes are at killing people and blowing things up.
Click to expand...
I never stated that the Military ignores their incidents/ accidents have I? Has any Military member stated that either? Pointing out the rarity of loss of civilian life on the ground or in the air in a Military incident, in no way demeans that loss of life. That is something you have concocted in your own mind and then try to lay that onto others to try and further your own agenda/beliefs and falsely interpret what others mean or intend. That simply is not the case or the truth. No one has or is making excuses for the Military either and if you had any clue how seriously they do take action, more training, more regs/rules and how they investigate these incidents, you would know differently and not just keep making assumptions.

They are very concerned with flight safety in civilian airspace as they should be. Your statement of "the military should really only be concerned with how efficient their airplanes are at killing people and blowing things up.", is ridiculous and untrue. Who exactly in the Military here has ever stated that and that they have no concern for the safety of their own or for our civilians?
 
Last edited:
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I really don't care about stats at the moment here.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't, because this would prove just how idiotic and ignorant that your posts really are. Keep ranting about what you have no clue of then. That's why it is impossible to even begin to try and bring any rationale into these threads. Many have tried, but it's just impossible. Carry on. I expect nothing more.
 
A Life Aloft said:
I never stated that the Military ignores their incidents/ accidents have I? Has any Military member stated that either? Pointing out the rarity of loss of civilian life on the ground or in the air in a Military incident, in no way demeans that loss of life. That is something you have concocted in your own mind and then try to lay that onto others to try and further your own agenda/beliefs and falsely interpret what others mean or intend. That simply is not the case or the truth. No one has or is making excuses for the Military either and if you had any clue how seriously they do take action, more training, more regs/rules and how they investigate these incidents, you would know differently and not just keep making assumptions.

They are very concerned with flight safety in civilian airspace as they should be. Your statement of "the military should really only be concerned with how efficient their airplanes are at killing people and blowing things up.", is ridiculous and untrue.
Click to expand...

I think you need to go back and read the thread. I wasn't the one who said that the military's concern is how efficient their killing machines are. A former member of the military was. I simply pointed out how wrong-headed and immoral that philosophy is if you're going to operate your military aircraft in civilian airspace.

You are far too emotional. You don't need to lose your mind just because someone criticizes the military. It is possible for someone to criticize the military while at the same time appreciating the military and the people who serve in it.
 
knot4u said:
That's fine, the airplane must have perfect, it was brand new. I've dealt with new aircraft deliveries, it is not sunshine and rainbows. Normally it takes awhile to get the bugs worked out after delivery. I anxiously await hearing your experiences regarding a brand new airplane.
Click to expand...

Flew a couple new Buses when they were delivered new here. I loved that new airplane smell and never had issues with them :)

Honest question, have you read the report? Or the CVR? After the collision, the PF (which became the FO) asks the CA "dude is TCAS on?" and the CA responds "yes it's off." Then just moments later the TCAS starts "working" again. Now we can play the new manufacturer error blame game if that helps, but the probable (and that's all it is, probable, because we'll never know for sure) was an inadvertant-slip from the foot rest that turned the transponder into standby mode. That's why the SAFO was issued in 2007 less than a year after the collision.
 
A Life Aloft said:
Of course you don't, because this would prove just how idiotic and ignorant that your posts really are. Keep ranting about what you have no clue of then. That's why it is impossible to even begin to try and bring any rationale into these threads. Many have tried, but it's just impossible. Carry on. I expect nothing more.
Click to expand...

So my comment is idiotic and ignorant because statistics show it doesn't happen much. That sounds like the gist of what you are saying.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Flew a couple new Buses when they were delivered new here. I loved that new airplane smell and never had issues with them :)

Honest question, have you read the report? Or the CVR? After the collision, the PF (which became the FO) asks the CA "dude is TCAS on?" and the CA responds "yes it's off." Then just moments later the TCAS starts "working" again. Now we can play the new manufacturer error blame game if that helps, but the probable (and that's all it is, probable, because we'll never know for sure) was an inadvertant-slip from the foot rest that turned the transponder into standby mode. That's why the SAFO was issued in 2007 less than a year after the collision.
Click to expand...
From what I've read regarding your posts it matters not if the aircraft involved had the required equipment but the crew didn't utilize it?
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
RDoug when he was talking about having an all-volunteer force versus not. And his draft comment. I just went back in history when this was the case.
Click to expand...

No, R. Doug was not referring to Vietnam. He was referring to the all-volunteer service. Vietnam was not the only war fought with conscripted military members. It was, in fact, the last war fought that way out of many.

Do not put words in my mouth, especially when you have your foot in yours.
 
Last edited:
ATN_Pilot said:
I think you need to go back and read the thread. I wasn't the one who said that the military's concern is how efficient their killing machines are. A former member of the military was. I simply pointed out how wrong-headed and immoral that philosophy is if you're going to operate your military aircraft in civilian airspace.

You are far too emotional. You don't need to lose your mind just because someone criticizes the military. It is possible for someone to criticize the military while at the same time appreciating the military and the people who serve in it.
Click to expand...

Your calling people emotional when your entire argument against looking at the cost/payoff of putting TCAS in tactical aircraft is, "you wouldn't be yards yadda your friends or loved ones in that plane that crashed..."

For one, it's not civilian airspace, it's federal airspace. Just like they aren't civilian roads, they are state or federal or county etc.

Second, these are tactical aircraft, their first purpose in life is that role. So despite your anger at the military for not spending billions of dollars outfitting airplanes with equipment that serves no tactical function the military is spending it's money on exactly what is needed and does address unforeseen upgrades as able. VHF radios being loaded in our aircraft being a great example. But we can't add anything to a jet cheap and easy as you might seem to think. It requires levels of testing and feasibility engineering on the level of millions to billions of dollars to put in purpose built upgrades. Retrofits take years and billions and as many have said the payoff isn't worth it despite your belief that we should put VFR airspace flight above tactical necessity.
 
Lawman said:
For one, it's not civilian airspace, it's federal airspace. Just like they aren't civilian roads, they are state or federal or county etc.
Click to expand...

It's all civilian, because it all belongs to the people. You seem to forget that. You're here to protect us, not to view us as collateral damage when we get in the way of your death machines.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It's all civilian, because it all belongs to the people. You seem to forget that. You're here to protect us, not to view us as collateral damage when we get in the way of your death machines.
Click to expand...
Except it doesn't "belong to the people."

Build a tower over 500 feet on your own property and don't put lights on it an see how long that air above you belongs to the people. Fly a drone above your house outside a secure facility or airport, it's your property after all. All that federal land doesn't belong to the people either, it is not merely "kept in trust" it belongs to the federal government. As my grandfather is so fond of putting you don't truly own anything you just pay rent. Despite your personal assertions there is no inherent right to air travel or presence in the air space, just like there is no inherent right to drive. The government licenses it, the government oversees it's use an partitioning, and the government has the final say to tell you to get out of it. We do the same thing with water. Why is this a shock to people.

An I find it hysterical you keep referring to our equipment as death machines when the vast majority of our aircraft have no offensive capability.

Also I find some of the statements here about ejections being an unfair advantage as to why military planes shouldn't have right of way completely despicable. For one, ejections are by no means a get out of jail free card. For another most of us (myself included) don't have them. And our helicopters auto like bricks compared to civilian helos.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You would make a great totalitarian.
Click to expand...

By referencing the *safety* need for putting aviation lights on 500ft towers? I fly in that airspace and depend on those lights for my own survival, thank you. I thought you were safety first.

Also, please explain "death machine". Last I checked, we weren't armed in any way shape or form, and spend 100% more time saving lives than taking them. And that requires flying low-levels at night, with no lights on while using NVG's. There's a risk of hitting someone when we do that, especially the GA guy with no transponder.

You can't require the most advanced military in the world to remain so while completely hamstringing the way we train. We're also completely devoted to not losing one of our own, nor causing harm to anyone else. Take off the tin foil hat- we're not mindless killing drones that worship George W and hope for a 100% white Christian world. We're regular guys and gals who work hard at being the absolute best we can be at our jobs with the tools we're given.

Everyone step back for a minute and consider this- most of the mil aviators here are also civilian aviators as well. We have perspective from *both* sides. You do not. Why are you throwing stones at something you don't understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top