F-16 midair with small plane in SC

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

CC, I've already explained this over and over. It's called multitasking. Referencing instruments is not flying solely by instruments. That is why you can't log it. Make sense?

Then what's the point if flying a practice instrument approach if you are only referencing instruments and are heads up for traffic? That's not realistic practice for when you are in the soup - there's no peaking then.
Flying a practice instrument approach. Either you're entirely heads down doing the actual approach, or you are looking out at intervals which which makes it partly a visual approach.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Good grief, why do you care so much if someone wants to practice an instrument approach without being able to log it?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Good grief, why do you care so much if someone wants to practice an instrument approach without being able to log it?

If it was my father and brother, my lawyer would care to get any details and any evidence that shows any sign of negligence on the part of the military.

 

[Hacker15e]

Then what's the point if flying a practice instrument approach if you are only referencing instruments and are heads up for traffic? That's not realistic practice for when you are in the soup - there's no peaking then.

Seriously, "why" is a terrible question to ask in this case. The reasons for this happening are just beyond the scope of the conversation, and have to do with how military pilots are required to perform certain tasks for currency, as well as that units have requirements to fly a certain number of missions and hours per fiscal year. Those requirements drive individual practices that may not make sense on the micro scale but fit into a macro picture.

Regardless, USAF fighter guys have a semi-annual training requirement to fly sorties dedicated to practicing instrument procedures, and that often happens in VMC. They have to fill a square in the training plan, and they don't have the option of waiting until a better day to do it.

 

[Hacker15e]

If it was my father and brother, my lawyer would care to get any details and any evidence that shows any sign of negligence on the part of the military.

If you think that referencing cockpit instruments to fly/navigate precludes the ability to see and avoid, I think I know where the negligence is, and it isn't where you think.

 

[RDoug]

Ugh! Why would you want to sit next to your WSO and have to fly formation x-cockpit? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't even think you can do a loop in that bomber.

Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. I lust after the F-111F, which I used to work as a tower controller at RAF Lakenheath. It's also the only aircraft I ever got to "pilot" in a simulator.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

If it was my father and brother, my lawyer would care to get any details and any evidence that shows any sign of negligence on the part of the military.

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.

 

[MikeD]

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.

Rightly or wrongly, the reason is that to the military, those things are not primary mission equipment. In that, the aircraft isn't looked at as an airplane firstly, it's a weapon system that happens to fly. So the priority $$$ go towards that end. Whereas aircraft like transports such as C-141/C-5, their mission is airplane related in terms of getting to/from places, hence their "weapons" are their advanced avionics. Its why you see transports with the latest and greatest, yet you see fighter jets that are out-technologied avionics wise by many GA aircraft out there.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Rightly or wrongly

Wrongly. If you want your weapons platforms to occupy our airspace, you need to do so safely.

 

[MikeD]

Wrongly. If you want your weapons platforms to occupy our airspace, you need to do so safely.

Agree overall. Am just telling you how it's looked at. Where priorities fall in that respect. Most fighters aren't even RVSM capable. Navy tactical jets aren't even civilian ILS capable; just TACAN and their only precision approach capability being PAR.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Seriously, "why" is a terrible question to ask in this case. The reasons for this happening are just beyond the scope of the conversation, and have to do with how military pilots are required to perform certain tasks for currency, as well as that units have requirements to fly a certain number of missions and hours per fiscal year. Those requirements drive individual practices that may not make sense on the micro scale but fit into a macro picture.

Regardless, USAF fighter guys have a semi-annual training requirement to fly sorties dedicated to practicing instrument procedures, and that often happens in VMC. They have to fill a square in the training plan, and they don't have the option of waiting until a better day to do it.

Do it in a MOA. Create one if it's that busy an area. There's no excuse for this.

If you think that referencing cockpit instruments to fly/navigate precludes the ability to see and avoid, I think I know where the negligence is, and it isn't where you think.

When I fly VFR, sure. But when I'm actively under a hood for the purpose of practicing an instrument approach (back in the days when I was doing this in the GA world), I had a safety pilot (a CFI) with me to watch out for VFR traffic. If this F16 pilot is busy looking down at ? localizer coming in? VDEV? etc. it doesn't really give time to find a Cessna 152 nearby. Whereas on a visual approach one is already heads up anyway, visually acquiring the runway, and then visually clearing the space around one to proceed and land visually. And if you are heads up on an instrument approach, then how's that an instrument approach? That's a visual approach backed up by instruments.

Wrongly. If you want your weapons platforms to occupy our airspace, you need to do so safely.

Bingo

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Agree overall. Am just telling you how it's looked at. Where priorities fall in that respect. Most fighters aren't even RVSM capable. Navy tactical jets aren't even civilian ILS capable; just TACAN and their only precision approach capability being PAR.

Thank you for at least concurring.

Don't even get me started on the 2008 San Diego Hornet into a house. Ugh.

 

[MikeD]

Do it in a MOA. Create one if it's that busy an area. There's no excuse for this.

How would that change anything? Anyone can fly through a MOA. Wouldn't change a thing.

Although with some high density mil training areas, you may find an Alert Area created.

When I fly VFR, sure. But when I'm actively under a hood for the purpose of practicing an instrument approach (back in the days when I was doing this in the GA world), I had a safety pilot (a CFI) with me to watch out for VFR traffic. If this F16 pilot is busy looking down at ? localizer coming in? VDEV? etc. it doesn't really give time to find a Cessna 152 nearby. Whereas on a visual approach one is already heads up anyway, visually acquiring the runway, and then visually clearing the space around one to proceed and land visually. And if you are heads up on an instrument approach, then how's that an instrument approach? That's a visual approach backed up by instruments.

It's commonly known as a composite cross check. Counts for an instrument approach when flying a procedure. If you want to be under the hood and only fly in reference to instruments...and thus count it as instrument time, then comes the requirement for a safety pilot or safety non-pilot, or a chase plane.

 

[MikeD]

Don't even get me started on the 2008 San Diego Hornet into a house. Ugh.

What does that have to do with anything in terms of systems the plane has?

That one was more on leadership, with the student pilot being pushed by the squadron to take a sick plane home rather than recover to the immediate field that was eventually bypassed. Nearest suitable when an emergency, is a concept reinforced here.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

How would that change anything? Anyone can fly through a MOA. Wouldn't change a thing.

Although with some high density mil training areas, you may find an Alert Area created.

<------------- Not this guy (when I was doing GA). Unless I rang up ATC and they confirmed it wasn't active, no thanks!

It's commonly known as a composite cross check. Counts for an instrument approach when flying a procedure. If you want to be under the hood and only fly in reference to instruments...and thus count it as instrument time, then comes the requirement for a safety pilot or safety non-pilot, or a chase plane.

I like the second idea better. That could have been the extra set of eyes that prevents a midair.

 

[scoobs]

So in the case of a single seat jet the safety pilot would be the wingman?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

What does that have to do with anything in terms of systems the plane has?

That one was more on leadership, with the student pilot being pushed by the squadron to take a sick plane home rather than recover to the immediate field that was eventually bypassed. Nearest suitable when an emergency, is a concept reinforced here.

Pilot error was also cited IIRC several things that were missed or done incorrectly. Eg, engine failure checklist completion to entirety. The single biggest thing was him lengthening his approach to Miramar by making a 270-degree left turn after bypassing North Island, instead of the quicker shorter 90-degree right turn. The time and distance saved would most likely resulted in a successful landing considering the moment in time the other engine quit.

 

[MikeD]

So in the case of a single seat jet the safety pilot would be the wingman?

Yup.

<------------- Not this guy (when I was doing GA). Unless I rang up ATC and they confirmed it wasn't active, no thanks!
.

Hey, at least you'd check. Many guys don't. But there's also no requirement to, so nothing illegal about that either. It's just good due diligence.

 

[MikeD]

Pilot error was also cited IIRC several things that were missed or done incorrectly. Eg, engine failure checklist completion to entirety. The single biggest thing was him lengthening his approach to Miramar by making a 270-degree left turn after bypassing North Island, instead of the quicker shorter 90-degree right turn. The time and distance saved would most likely resulted in a successful landing considering the moment in time the other engine quit.

Remember though, that guy was a student in the Hornet and likely already task saturated, just trying to solve the emergency and complete checklists. Not unheard of to take a delay turn in order to. I don't fault that. These missions are highly supervised, and in this case, guys on the ground were pretty much driving that guy's jet.

Had he been directed to follow plan and just land at NZY, we wouldn't be discussing this.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Agree overall. Am just telling you how it's looked at. Where priorities fall in that respect. Most fighters aren't even RVSM capable. Navy tactical jets aren't even civilian ILS capable; just TACAN and their only precision approach capability being PAR.

The Growler, like the Prowler, will be getting ILS.