F-16 midair with small plane in SC

I never really saw the issue at the time -- I was naive - but back when I was doing training out of CRG in Jacksonville, I would routinely see most of the Navy's inventory (P-3s, S-3s, SH-60s, T-45s) crossing through our practice area at commonly-used VFR altitudes, on their way to or from NAS Jax . This is not to say that anyone was doing anything wrong, but in hindsight, putting the practice area between NIP and the offshore warning areas probably wasn't the best idea on the part of the flight schools.

Out of curiosity -- and not in any way to throw stones or start a debate over the mandate -- would an ADS-B In receiver pick up anything from a military aircraft like this?
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity -- and not in any way to throw stones or start a debate over the mandate -- would an ADS-B In receiver pick up anything from a military aircraft like this?

Only if the intruder aircraft had ADS-B out capability (and it was turned on). I'd guess the transport category aircraft will get them eventually to comply with some of the airspace restrictions, but who knows if the fast movers will, and if so, when.
 
They're not staring at the radar anyway. They're flying see and avoid.....looking outside....like everyone else. Or like everyone else is supposed to. No TCAS of any kind in tactical jets unfortunately. At least not last I knew. Heavies got TCAS after the Africa C-141 midair.

Last I heard A-10's were getting TCAS. Don't know if it ever happened though.

Only if the intruder aircraft had ADS-B out capability (and it was turned on). I'd guess the transport category aircraft will get them eventually to comply with some of the airspace restrictions, but who knows if the fast movers will, and if so, when.

Airlines have begun installing ADS-B tech in the airlines. Some are already using. The ADS-B may be a better way to get more SA into the Tactical planes that TCAS boxes.
 
but who knows if the fast movers will, and if so, when.

Fighters aren't even RVSM capable yet, and as said earlier the vast majority don't have TCAS. Heck, many of them didn't even have VHF radios up until the post-9/11 world mandated that they be capable of intercepting and communicating with civil aircraft.

So, I wouldn't expect to see ADS-B on them....maybe ever.
 
According to the latest reports there were two aboard the Cessna 150. Neither survived.
 
As someone who flies (flew... ) both fast movers and GA aircraft, these accidents are both sad and angering. Every time I've seen it discussed, the fighter guys want to point the finger at the FLAPs (F'n Little Airplane Pilots), and GA pilots want to point the finger at the frickin hair-on-fire Top Guns.

In reality, it is both of our faults, and neither of our faults.

In general, military pilots have a gross ignorance about civilian flying. Most of them just don't have that much experience flying outside of the little sliver of military flying, and thus they don't understand the limitations of GA pilot SA, of GA aircraft capabilities, and GA pilot knowledge/understanding of military operations. They also tend to think, "'Merica, comin' thru, get outta my way." They misunderstand the relationship between the rules they fly under (USAF/USN rules that are negotiated with the FAA, but not the same as flying under FAA rules) compared to the CFRs that civil aviation is flying under. Hell, some of them don't even actually understand the military rules themselves.

GA pilots, too, know little about military aviation, and have some wildly inaccurate thoughts about the capabilities and operations of military fighters. I hear a lot of, "oh, they can see me because they're highly trained and have expensive toys, so they will get out of my way" opinions. There's also a little bit of "you-are-a-chicken-and-I-am-a-chickenhawk" bravado attitude, with folks blasting through MOAs and across MTRs yelling, "I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE!".

So, the reality is, we ALL bear the responsibility to see and avoid, as well as use all the tools available to us to aid in clearing our flight paths and avoiding hitting other objects. SInce both aircraft types occupy the same place in the "BGAAR" right-of-way hierarchy, we all have to yield to one another.

At the same time, it is incredibly difficult for the two aircraft types to detect one another. The GA pilot is faced with having to visually find an aircraft that is specifically painted to make it hard to see. The fighter pilot is moving through the sky at a speed which makes it difficult to pick out a slow mover from other ground/background clutter. TCAS has a tough time keeping up with dynamically moving airplanes (some of which aren't even squawking when in a multi-aircraft formation. Fighter radars have a tough time picking up slow movers with a small RCS.

We all share the same airspace, and it is up to all of us to stay vigilant, stay aware, and do whatever it takes to avoid hitting other objects with our aerospace vehicles. Instead of seeking to pin blame on the other, we should instead focus on our own personal skills and vigilance.
 
Sounds like it's time for all military aircraft to get TCAS II.

The list of approved, but un-funded, avionics and weapon systems upgrades for the F-15E was about 100 items deep the last time I saw it more than 5 years ago.

As these are aircraft designed for their combat capability, and whose entire purpose as public-use/military-operated aircraft is for combat airpower, it is no surprise that avionics with no military purpose are not included on that list.

That being said, some aircraft that have had major avionics overhauls/upgrades as part of normal service life extension programs have been able to add selectively-transmitting Mode S to their systems (the T-38C and U-2S are two that I know of; not sure about the A-10C).
 
Did the collision happen in a MOA as defined on a VFR sectional chart?

Not a MOA, but an instrument route MTR.

Poached this map from over at ProPilotWorld:

F-16%20C-150.jpg
 
The list of approved, but un-funded, avionics and weapon systems upgrades for the F-15E was about 100 items deep the last time I saw it more than 5 years ago.

As these are aircraft designed for their combat capability, and whose entire purpose as public-use/military-operated aircraft is for combat airpower, it is no surprise that avionics with no military purpose are not included on that list.

That being said, some aircraft that have had major avionics overhauls/upgrades as part of normal service life extension programs have been able to add selectively-transmitting Mode S to their systems (the T-38C and U-2S are two that I know of; not sure about the A-10C).

A-10 was allocated and funded for new engines........in 1999.

Never were installed.
 
Depending on the jet, I was doing either 340 or 540 KIAS on those routes, and accelerating to that, to cross the entry point on heading and at that speed.

One of the things I fought with my unit Stan/Eval about in both the F-15E and the AT-38 was the legality of accelerating outside of the MTR structure so as to hit the entry point on-speed and on-altitude. Even worse, prior to MTR entry, we were doing G-awareness exercises (90-90 instead of 180-180 GXs), which required us to push it up to well in excess of our 300-below-10K waiver.

The source of the disagreement had to do with the wording of the speed waiver. I forget what it said exactly, but the effect was that the FAA authorized the speed to be waivered to whatever the "minimum safe technical order airspeed at low altitude" was. The Stan/Eval shop's answer was that the F-15E tactics manual mandated a minimum airspeed of 350 when operating low level, and thus speeding up to do the G-X and speeding up to enter the MTR was covered by this. That explanation so completely seemed like speeding -- both literally and figuratively -- to me.

I'm guessing that's still the policy currently, but I kept my formations at 300 until being physically inside the confines of the MTR, even if it screwed up the planned timing for our training, because that's what I was comfortable with defending in court if it ever came to that. The Stan/Eval guys likewise felt like they could comfortably stand up in court and point to tech order published minimum speeds that allowed their take on things.
 
One of the things I fought with my unit Stan/Eval about in both the F-15E and the AT-38 was the legality of accelerating outside of the MTR structure so as to hit the entry point on-speed and on-altitude. Even worse, prior to MTR entry, we were doing G-awareness exercises (90-90 instead of 180-180 GXs), which required us to push it up to well in excess of our 300-below-10K waiver.

The source of the disagreement had to do with the wording of the speed waiver. I forget what it said exactly, but the effect was that the FAA authorized the speed to be waivered to whatever the "minimum safe technical order airspeed at low altitude" was. The Stan/Eval shop's answer was that the F-15E tactics manual mandated a minimum airspeed of 350 when operating low level, and thus speeding up to do the G-X and speeding up to enter the MTR was covered by this. That explanation so completely seemed like speeding -- both literally and figuratively -- to me.

I'm guessing that's still the policy currently, but I kept my formations at 300 until being physically inside the confines of the MTR, even if it screwed up the planned timing for our training, because that's what I was comfortable with defending in court if it ever came to that. The Stan/Eval guys likewise felt like they could comfortably stand up in court and point to tech order published minimum speeds that allowed their take on things.

I think either technique is correct, as the wording is sufficiently vague as to allow interpertation either way. Luckily for us, being out where I was, all our MTRs are (were) pretty much in the middle of nowhere, and only skirt areas that may have congestion, although that is beginning to change and has been changing with expanding towns/cities/residential areas.
 
I can't imagine trying doing 540 KIAS low level and having to spot / dodge GA traffic.

9 miles/min. And that's within the structure of the MTR. However an MTR is general airspace, with anyone having a right to in/around/near; so yeah, it can be a challenge.

Military Training Routes are usually never in "military-only areas" such as Restricted Areas, etc. As military pilots, we train like we fight; and if that means a 450 knot low-level ingress to a target, then that's what we do. There's a reason that MTRs in the USA are depicted on Sectional Aeronautical Charts and the US AP-1/B chart; that's so civilian pilots can plan around them, and either avoid them, or be able to be VERY heads-up if they must fly near them. When I say "must fly near them", I'm referring to some MTRs which come within (due to terrain) some small private, uncontrolled airstrips, such as those near ranches, etc. In these instances, civilians need to go in/out of these fields, and knowing the status of a particular MTR near you is important.

However, it's perfectly legal for anyone to fly through/in MOAs and along MTRs, but that's not the question. As you know, in VMC, it's everyone's responsibility to see and avoid.

But here's a good example of the problem: In the A-10, I had no radar for my low-levels, my only separation ability comes from the Mk.1 eyeball. Keep in mind, though, that I have a multitude of cockpit tasks going on while tooling along at 300 AGL/360 KIAS. First, eyeing terrain to make sure I'm doing my job of pilotage correctly (ie- matching terrain features with what's on my map to make sure I'm going the right way), avoiding hitting the ground/power lines/near rocks/far rocks, keeping track of my timing per leg [if I'm going for a specific TOT, or Time Over Target], keeping track of my other aircraft in my formation, ensuring my weapons panel is set correctly [such as setup change from air-air to air-ground], going over and over in my mind what the attack plan is [formation, role, weapon, timing, attack axis], and being ready to flex to a different plan if the first one gets screwed up [such as unplanned threats pop-up], and maintaining overall SA over the operation; all while moving at 300 AGL/360 KIAS; and all this in addition to trying to see and avoid. Truth be told, we really expect (hope) that civilian pilots won't be in our path because they HAVE done the necessary pre-planning for their flights. Even in radar equipped fighters, the pilot isn't sitting with his head in his scope while tooling along at low level, so he may not notice civilian hits on his scope. In addition, some radars are even programmed to negate hits below certain airspeeds, in order to reduce the scope clutter. Also, at the speeds mentioned, I'm moving @6 miles/minute (A-10), or 8-9 miles/minute (other fighters); a Cessna 152 would probably be visibly detectable for only a couple of seconds before I flashed past it. Point? Everyone practice the best see-and-avoid they can; but also civilian pilots should be aware of where Military Training Routes are and, preferably, avoid them. Military pilots should know what their route structure is, and remain within it.

One of the problems too is all FSS will have is a scheduled entry and exit time for the route in question. The aircraft using the route make a one time call entering and a one time call exiting on 255.4, which is the general UHF FSS freq. FSS may or may not catch the call, so even if a route is scheduled to be active, there's no real way to confirm if it truly is, and even so, there's no real way to know where the aircraft are on the route, unless you have UHF capability. Many routes have restrictions placed into them for "remain above XXX AGL for noise sensitive area between point B and C".....things like that. But they are low-level training routes, so common-sense speaking, it's unlikely they'll be that high, AGL-wise. Still, it never hurts to avoid them laterally if at all possible; or if crossing them or near them, just keeping a little more of an eye out.

For the calls entering/exiting, most guys don't even know which FSS services the area in question, so the general call on 255.4 goes something like this: "Any radio, any radio, Grip 21 flight of 2 entering VR-244 point Bravo for the next 20 minutes". So, unless someone happens to:

1. Have UHF
2. Have been listening and caught the call
3. Know where the VR or IR route in question is located, &
4. Know where the individual entry/exit points are located....

...then the call won't be of much help.

On the altitudes, a good thing to know is the numbering system for MTRs, both VR and IR. If the MTR has a 3-digit number, ie- VR-244, IR-168, that means that there are segments along that route that have portions above 1500 AGL. If the MTR is 4-digit, ie- VR 1288, IR-1403; that means that there are no segments on that route that are above 1500 AGL.

Where I am, PHX and TUS airspace (among others) is getting more and more crowded, that's part of the reason for the closure of Williams AFB. And I fully understand that airspace is getting smaller and smaller; hell, most of the state of Arizona is Special Use Airspace of some sort, just look at the PHX sectional. Hopefully, even as this happens, GA and military can still co-exist without conflict.
 
Last edited:
GA pilots, too, know little about military aviation, and have some wildly inaccurate thoughts about the capabilities and operations of military fighters. I hear a lot of, "oh, they can see me because they're highly trained and have expensive toys, so they will get out of my way" opinions.

Thanks for all the interesting info. I think that this part is especially true about GA. Even when I heard about the accident this morning, I wondered about how the fighter didn't see the guy well beyond visual range. It's interesting to know that they're trying to do the same things we are in terms of seeing and avoiding, but at a much higher speed.

At least in my experience, there hasn't been much in the way of dialogue between GA and the military in order to enhance everyone's SA. I attended a talk a few years ago given by a then-C-5 pilot (now C-17, presumably) about where their aircraft tended to operate and the best way to avoid getting too close. But this was because their base -- Martinsburg, WV -- was just to the north of the practice area used by the local flight schools. I think that more events like this would help both sides better understand what the other is normally doing.
 
Thanks for all the interesting info. I think that this part is especially true about GA. Even when I heard about the accident this morning, I wondered about how the fighter didn't see the guy well beyond visual range. It's interesting to know that they're trying to do the same things we are in terms of seeing and avoiding, but at a much higher speed..

Hell, I'm even guilty of failing to see and avoid, in VMC, in airspace with light to heavy civil traffic, and we were lucky nothing ever happened. Want to know unsafe? But a risk we accepted in the USAF?

In the highly-automated partial-glass F-117A, the Sensor Display system for Nav/Attack is one SA-sucking piece of equipment. When training stateside, I'd regularly be on autopilot during the 5 to 10 minute final attack runs, and being single-pilot, I'd have to have my head buried in the display to search for, identify, and refine my target for the bomb run, including tracking the weapon to the target. All during this time the F-117A is hurtling along at .90M-.96M and changing altitudes on it's own in an altitude block with no Mk1 eyeballs scanning anything outside on a VMC day/night for traffic, etc, totally dependant on ARTCC radar for separation.

Granted, most of the time I was in Class A, but not always.....many times I was below FL180, on an IFR flightplan and under radar, but still VMC, with the requisite legal see and avoid responsibilities just like everyone else. A mission/training necessity, but I consider myself (and all of us) extremely lucky not to have had a near-miss at least, much less an actual midair, during all the times I did those missions in 3 yrs of flying the thing. It would've been so easy to hit a civil aircraft which was in cruise, completely legal to be where it was, and not remotely expecting a fighter jet with its pilot not paying attention to anything outside the cockpit; come hurtling out of nowhere and smashing into them. Especially during the times when our simulated targets were located in Terminal Areas, such as ABQ, ELP, PHX, or TUS. And whose fault would it have at least partially been, if not fully, once these details were learned in the investigation? Mine.
 
Not a MOA, but an instrument route MTR.

Poached this map from over at ProPilotWorld:

F-16%20C-150.jpg



Can someone refresh my memory, what are the private pilot rules operating on or near an IR military ariway? IIRC that's an instrument airway for military folks, so around this, what are the rules for GA pilots?

Is there a min altitude for military aircraft on an IR airway? What was it in this case?
 
Back
Top