F-16 midair with small plane in SC

I don't want to hamstring anything. You're the one creating all of these straw men. I just want TCAS II in your airplanes, and you lost your mind at the suggestion that the military be required to comply with such common sense requirements.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I don't want to hamstring anything. You're the one creating all of these straw men. I just want TCAS II in your airplanes, and you lost your mind at the suggestion that the military be required to comply with such common sense requirements.
Click to expand...

Bulł,

You want us to spend money on what you see as important when it's the FAA that decides what compliance level we are required to meet.

Your beef is with them.


And any time anyone brings up why it either isn't feasible or the juice not worth the squeeze you retreat to "well if it were your family..." And "it's our airspace."

You have no idea how or why military aircraft operate in the manner that they do or what capabilities they have yet your on here arguing with those of us that do (many as mentioned are/were civil aviation guys and see it from both sides). It's the same garbage "if it saves one life" attitude from any group with a cause. Open up your check book because from our side we don't have enough money for the upgrades we need, the ones that save actual lives like data link, better self defense systems, more money for fuel to train these guys for game day. You want TCAS in every military plane, pay the bill. And while your at it lets start user fees to expand the air traffic control system to provide more service... After all if it saves one life....
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Unbelievable. The military spends a trillion dollars on a worthless airplane, and you cry poor. There no need to continue talking with you about this.
Click to expand...

Then why are you still here spouting stupidity and insisting you know what's best.

Only one of us has any actual experience operating military aircraft to say and know from experience on how our money is being directed. Your not that guy. You can keep throwing up red herring crap like "well why do you need ____" but the fact of the matter is you don't know why and never will because your clueless as to how we do things or what our situation is.

The difference between me and you is apparently if somebody in your position said "the airlines need this new upgrade because x, y, z," I wouldn't be stupid enough to argue I knew better.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Unbelievable. The military spends a trillion dollars on a worthless airplane, and you cry poor. There no need to continue talking with you about this.
Click to expand...

You're out of your lane. The budgets for adding additional equipment to aircraft that already meet mission requirements has *zero* to do with the F-35 acquisitions budget.
 
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...

Agreed, and I think you would be very hard pressed to find someone in this business who actually thinks that. I certainly have never met or known of anyone who feels that way.

As for this ongoing argument about TCAS, is it your opinion that I would not want TCAS? Even if your most pessimistic stereotype (as bolded above) were true, which it of course is not, wouldn't I probably at least have some self serving concern for my own life? You do realize that the majority of midairs are fatal, even in aircraft equipped with ejection seats, right? Yeah, you have a fighting chance if it doesn't hit the cockpit, but I know personally one guy who was snuffed from the world that way, and know of many many other similar scenarios. Could the civilian aircraft have not hit the F-16 in the canopy? Wouldn't TCAS have also been in the military pilot's best interest in that case too? So a really long way of saying that, yeah, I'd actually really like TCAS, and I'd also really like an ILS, and I'd really like a lot of other things. Unfortunately I don't run our acquisition programs, and the folks who do, have different priorities for that funding......the tax dollars both you and I pay to fund this military. I'm not in disagreement that it is a good idea.
 
///AMG said:
Agreed, and I think you would be very hard pressed to find someone in this business who actually thinks that. I certainly have never met or known of anyone who feels that way. As for this ongoing argument about TCAS, is it your opinion that I would not want TCAS? Even if your most pessimistic stereotype (as bolded above) were true, which it of course is not, wouldn't I probably at least have some self serving concern for my own life? You do realize that the majority of midairs are fatal, even in aircraft equipped with ejection seats, right? Yeah, you have a fighting chance if it doesn't hit the cockpit, but I know personally one guy who was snuffed from the world that way, and know of many many other similar scenarios. Could the civilian aircraft have not hit the F-16 in the canopy? Wouldn't TCAS have also been in the military pilot's best interest in that case too? So a really long way of saying that, yeah, I'd actually really like TCAS, and I'd also really like an ILS, and I'd really like a lot of other things. Unfortunately I don't run our acquisition programs, and the folks who do, have different priorities for that funding......the tax dollars both you and I pay to fund this military. I'm not in disagreement that it is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Excellent! You seem pretty reasonable, unlike the other guy above. I understand that it's not your fault, and I'm certainly not blaming any military pilot. I'm blaming the bureaucracy.
 
According to this article, the 150 left from MKS. There is no requirement for the 150 to have a mode c transponder at all at that airport. They say he could've been headed to MYR where it would've been needed but he wouldn't have to have it on until he got near the airspace. Crash site is even outside the CHS class C. So the military could equip every jet with TCAS and it still might not have prevented this. Some one in this thread has mentioned this, right?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reports-f-16-midair-plane-crash-private-plane-n388046
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Excellent! You seem pretty reasonable, unlike the other guy above. I understand that it's not your fault, and I'm certainly not blaming any military pilot. I'm blaming the bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

In two pages you've called everything we operate "Death Machines," accused anybody who says it's not feasible callous to the loss of civilian life, and said the military should operate in federal airspace under your rules because based on no experience because that's what is important. And you've done this and passed judgement and blame in a crash still to be investigate all while not demanding the same rules for the more common VFR traffic....


Yeah real rational, for a raving lunatic.
 
Last edited:
I'll just pop my head in to the editorial frame here for a second and say, simply, that absolutely losing your poop because TWO people got dead because a military airplane hit them (speaking in no way here of fault, procurement, or the price of eggs in China) is laughably shortsighted. Ridiculous, even. You turn any large group of people loose in airplanes that go like stink, and eventually they're going to hit something. Probably a lot of things. Now, if you meant to be more nuanced and simply criticize the DD's procurement system, sure, fine, I'm with you. But, like, in the broader sense, I guess I'm not seeing the cause for IMMEDIATE OUTRAGE. Particularly from someone who, if memory serves, was falling all over himself the explain how it wasn't the fault of the Air France crew that they, you know, stalled the airplane and killed everyone. I don't know very much about flying FYTER JEETZ, and neither do you. But I do find it rather amusing that your immediate, fact-free finding for military pilots flying a giant engine strapped to two tiny little wings who ran in to Farmer Joe, wihtout an accident report is "THEY IZ REKLASS!" whereas your Official Findings for three dudes dozing for dollars in the front of an Airbus who forgot how to fly is "THEY WAS FRAMED, IT'S TEH MAN'S FAULT!", WITH an accident report which does everything short of saying "uh, we have no idea how they could screw this up".
 
Your reading comprehension is usually much better, Borris. I haven't called any pilot reckless. You and the angry military guy above are reading what you want me to be saying rather than what I'm actually saying. My beef is with the military bureaucracy making a decision to not equip its airplanes with TCAS, because as far as they're concerned, according to the very people in this thread who are arguing, the only think that matters is how efficient those airplanes are at killing people and blowing stuff up. My position would be the same whether anyone had died or not: no jet should be operating in any airspace at all without TCAS.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
the only think that matters is how efficient those airplanes are at killing people and blowing stuff up. My position would be the same whether anyone had died or not: no jet should be operating in any airspace at all without TCAS.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean, they're military aircraft. As far as I can discern, their purpose is to kill people and blow stuff up. So it seems legitimate to me that those are the sort of metrics by which they're judged. What else should they be required to carry? A giant neon sign that says "BABYKILLER"?

My beef, here, isn't that you don't like what we do with our martial might...I don't like it very much, either, for the most part. It's that you jump immediately to blaming whatever target you find distasteful without a shred of evidence or even information. All we know is that two planes swapped paint and one of them crashed. But you're already finding Villains and Blame. It seems a bit, eh, premature. Or even, conceivably...eh, prejudiced?
 
Again, had no airplanes crashed at all, my position would be the same. The crash just brought to light something that I never previously realized: that multi-million dollar military aircraft don't have TCAS. I find that absolutely alarming.
 
RDoug said:
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.
Click to expand...

Next time be more clear. You mentioned the draft so I said Vietnam which was the last time people were forced to fight.

I like our military. My heart goes out to all soldiers finding themselves in corners of the world.

We are a volunteer military force, with elements of selective service registration. I cannot be forced into the military right now. That isn't a bad thing. What it means is that those want to join and serve can serve and those that don't want to don't have to. It is a choice to sign up, you are not forced.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Your reading comprehension is usually much better, Borris. I haven't called any pilot reckless. You and the angry military guy above are reading what you want me to be saying rather than what I'm actually saying. My beef is with the military bureaucracy making a decision to not equip its airplanes with TCAS, because as far as they're concerned, according to the very people in this thread who are arguing, the only think that matters is how efficient those airplanes are at killing people and blowing stuff up. My position would be the same whether anyone had died or not: no jet should be operating in any airspace at all without TCAS.
Click to expand...

No it's not just about how we kill people, it's about what does us the most good.

If I've got 20 million to spend on fleet wide safety upgrades it won't be on TCAS, it will be on a brown out visibility system or fully coupled flight control system for hands of landing in those systems. Running into airplanes isn't what is killing our pilots and crashing our planes.

And the fast jet fixed wing guys will tell you the same thing. They have a list of safety items and other make it better wish list toys just as we do in helos that will go far better at making our operations safer.

You're dead set that we operating without TCAS are a far greater risk because despite not reading any of our safety investigations. So basically despite any evidence you've passed judgement because that's your opinion. Don't be surprised when those of us that work in that world tell you to shut up and color.
 
knot4u said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well it should be utilized and properly so. There was no single cause factor for the Brazilian crash and nor for the Uberlingen midair. Each one had multiple holes in the cheese that all lined up perfectly and the accident chain ensued. If any of the links could have been broken, the accident could have been prevented.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Again, had no airplanes crashed at all, my position would be the same. The crash just brought to light something that I never previously realized: that multi-million dollar military aircraft don't have TCAS. I find that absolutely alarming.
Click to expand...
Say next time it's a C-5 with TCAS that hits a 172. A 172 that's not squawking and isn't required to. Then what? Then where does your rage go? Some times accidents happen. Some times people get killed and it's no ones fault. It's an accident.

We routinely fly into middle of no where Class G airports in our Lear. The hairs always stand up on the back of my neck because I know there is no requirement for any one to talk let alone squawk. Our TCAS is practically useless in those situations. I can have my head on a swivel and still miss the plane that kills us. It's a risk we take.
 
PositionAndHold said:
Say next time it's a C-5 with TCAS that hits a 172. A 172 that's not squawking and isn't required to. Then what?
Click to expand...

I've been pretty clear that I already have plenty of rage for the FAA in not requiring greater safety equipment for GA. The idea that someone can fly in any airspace at all without a radio or Mode C transponder is absurd.w
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top