SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
An absurd and completely unrealistic expectation, no matter what the regulation may say.
F-16 midair with small plane in SC
- Thread starter sweeps
- Start date
An absurd and completely unrealistic expectation, no matter what the regulation may say.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Exactly plus when IFR ATC must provide separation. I don't know how the view is out the F-16 but the Cessna could have been completely hidden from the pilots view...
Going to be an interesting one to follow to see where the NTSB goes with it.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Yup. As already mentioned, the F16 could have been 300 kts. Controller already a said traffic 12 '0 clock head on. So you're counting on a closure rate of 400 kts and being able to see and avoid a Cessna against the backdrop of the local CHS area.
Good luck with that.
No different than you buying tickets on SWA for your travel needs......
he would be hand flying in the radar pattern in a tactical jet.
FM_Weasel
Well-Known Member
Separation between IFR and non participating VFR aircraft in Class C outer areas is limited to traffic advisories and safety alerts. There is no radar separation minima. In this case, a complete traffic alert was not issued so there could very well be some liability found on the part of the controller. The transmission had a lot of the right sort of parts, but not all of them, and they may have ultimately caused the collision instead of preventing it. The level of detail observable at the radar scope's zoom level may have been a factor in this. A safer option would have been to climb the F16 or issue no instructions at all, if it couldn't be determined that a turn in either direction would definitely increase separation. An even safer option, in this uninformed third-party's opinion, would be to not have the F16 so low in that area in the first place. You play a dangerous game when descending jets to your MVA in close proximity to non-towered airports. There's precious little time to identify a conflict and fix it.
In this situation, I think ATC identified the situation and acted to correct it in a very reasonable amount of time. It was just insufficient and/or erroneous.
Military Training Routes do not need to be at or above the MVA. However, your assessment that the F16 was definitely below the MVA at 1,500ft is presumptuous. 1,500ft could very well be the MVA in the area in which the F16 was operating.
Last edited:
milleR
Well-Known Member
That sounds like a very high workload.
Edit: am I misusing the term "tactical" in this case? As a FLAP I have no idea what would be the differentiator.
FM_Weasel
Well-Known Member
Here's CHS's MVA chart. Without geo reference, it can be difficult to determine where exactly these areas are. However, the charts are usually centered on the radar antenna for the approach control, and using Google Maps I can see that CHS has the antenna on the airfield at the southern end. So it's easy to see that the airport is mostly surrounded by a 1,500ft MVA and then the dominant MVA in the entire area is 1,600ft.
They are an F-16 pilot....
They are an F-16 pilot....
Not really a high workload. No different than a radar pattern in another single pilot aircraft. Your term is correct. Tactical jet, vice a heavy jet like an airliner
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
MikeD said:
I also give money to the NRA, whose non-gun politics make me cringe. But they serve a purpose that no one else can serve, so sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
MikeD said:That must mean there are good parts of SWA then?
Yes. The AirTran parts.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
What autopilot?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Hacker15e said:
Man, that sucks.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
No higher than any other single-pilot aircraft flying radar vectors.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Man, that sucks.
The F-15E had a simple altitude hold, and could be coupled to the INS waypoints. Outside of that, there were no FGS/autoflight style modes, and no ability to intercept/fly approaches, no database for any FMS-style SIDs/STARs, etc.
The second crewmember was nice
milleR
Well-Known Member
That's kind of what I'm getting at. This sounds like a lot of work compared to what I have flying single pilot in my 36 year old turboprop.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Naah. The standard baseline for AF pilots was streaking around solo in the T-38 in the high 30s at .9Mach, with no autopilot whatsoever, nothing even resembling a glass panel, and only a TACAN and ILS. Try an hour at FL390, constantly making one click of the trim up.....and one click down......and one up.....etc...to get it to stay level. Plus, watching the Mach meter like a hawk to ensure you weren't going to slide back into the coffin corner, with throttles directly connected via cable to manual-fuel-controls.
Throw in a "widowmaker" high ILS into Roswell, and now we're really cookin!
Even that isn't a high workload, so having an altitude hold was a-ma-zing in the Eagle.