F-16 midair with small plane in SC

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.

Alarming? Would you have found it absolutely alarming twenty years ago when (I'm guessing) you and I both learned to fly and there was NO SUCH THING? The goalposts have wheels, here, don't they? And they always seem to roll over and make an in-zone for whatever thing you don't like.

By all means, continue with your OUTRAGE. I think maybe I'll wait for an accident report or, you know, at least ANY INFORMATION AT ALL before I start making uh helpful suggestions.
 
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.


Statistically speaking - since people like that so much here - midairs are less likely in the middle of nowhere Class G airports. They have time and time again happened near bigger/busier airports and even under ATC control.

Just as those saying don't be quick to judge the F16, don't be quick to judge the C150 had no transponder nor Mode C.
 
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
Well like it or not those are the rules. To flat out blame the F-16 pilot when we don't even know if the 150 had a transponder that was installed or on is ludicrous. You'd have a valid argument if all GA aircraft were required to be squawking and talking but thier not. So we don't have much of an argument to require the military to install TCAS.
 
Statistically speaking - since people like that so much here - midairs are less likely in the middle of nowhere Class G airports. They have time and time again happened near bigger/busier airports and even under ATC control.

Just as those saying don't be quick to judge the F16, don't be quick to judge the C150 had no transponder nor Mode C.
I'm not judging the 150. I'm making the argument that TCAS only works when the other aircraft is squawking. It's not some crazy magical solution. I am also saying I accept the risk of flying into VFR airports where it's not required equipment.

Statistically speaking every year we lose almost as many people to auto accidents as we did in ten years in Vietnam. It's a risk we are all obviously willing to take. Yet we are going to rage against the military for two deaths, deaths while tragic don't even come close to matching the highway death toll for the day.
 
PositionAndHold said:
Well like it or not those are the rules. To flat out blame the F-16 pilot when we don't even know if the 150 had a transponder that was installed or on is ludicrous. You'd have a valid argument if all GA aircraft were required to be squawking and talking but thier not. So we don't have much of an argument to require the military to install TCAS.

You're still not listening. Not only have I not blamed the pilot, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm NOT blaming the pilot.

A thoroughly useless conversation. You're more interested in debating the points that you wish I was making instead of the points that I'm actually making. I'm done.
 
I should be clear about this. It's entirely possible that the pointy-nose guy was hot-dogging and blundered in to a Nun and an orphan in a 150 who were just about to cure cancer. I have no idea. And you don't, either. What I find (extremely) objectionable is that your immediate, hammer-to-knee jerk reaction is to start in on this or that system which ought to save us all from ourselves. Without any information whatsoever. That doesn't seem, eh, you know, ever so slightly premature to you? Not a little bit? No? You might be a dick, and you might be right (or wrong), but you're usually rational.
 
You're still not listening. Not only have I not blamed the pilot, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm NOT blaming the pilot.

A thoroughly useless conversation. You're more interested in debating the points that you wish I was making instead of the points that I'm actually making. I'm done.
Technically you didn't blame the pilot you blamed the military. I was responding to the quote below. You know, the one where you called the military negligent. You assign negligence when you have no idea if TCAS could've remotely even prevented this crash. I was simply pointing out that the 150 had no requirement to be squawking or have a transponder. Some thing that is needed for TCAS to even work. Again if the GA had the requirement to always be squawking I'd agree with you. In this case your raging against the military to install some thing GA isn't even required to have.

TCAS II doesn't just put traffic on a display. It actively tells you what to do when a target is a collision risk. So if you fail to see the traffic that you claim should be so easy to see (but yet wasn't in this case), then TCAS would start screaming "CLIMB, CLIMB, CLIMB."

Sorry, but I'm not interested in the military's excuses. Their negligence got two civilians killed in civilian airspace.
 
ILS and TCAS would make tactical jets safer.

ILS, TCAS, helmets, and ejection seats might make 172's safer. While we are at it, let's require a type rating. Let's add a crew member.

Safety is about priorities, compromises, and choices. Individual incidents invite us to reevaluate our choices but we can't be caught adopting the "if it saves one life" argument.

In the case of military aircraft, we often agree that something is a good idea only to find out that it might compromise other priorities or be much more difficult or expensive than we could have imagined. It's not just about money, some things are just hard.

I have the skills, education, and experience to install a car stereo. I can pick up an awesome example at Best Buy for a couple hundred bucks. Hell, I'm sure I could pull off a safe installation in a 172.

What if I wanted to provide this same level of entertainment to Hornet drivers? Now, something that seemed pretty simple gets complicated and expensive. Is there room in the cockpit? No, make it smaller. Does it interfere with existing avionics? Shield it. What are its power requirements? More modifications. Does it function in the environmental range anticipated? Test, evaluate, and modify. Who is qualified to install it? Open bid for contractors. Who is going to maintain it? We need to incorporate it into mx training. How does it work? Need to edit NATOPS. How are we going to implement the upgrade? Wait for depot maintenance, wait for planes to come ashore, retrofit planes in the fleet? Will retrofits affect readiness?

Damn, too hard and too expensive. It might have seemed inviting at $200 but not so inviting at $50k. We have other priorities. Faced with limited resources, we need to be honest with the facts.
 
Last edited:
You're still not listening. Not only have I not blamed the pilot, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm NOT blaming the pilot.

A thoroughly useless conversation. You're more interested in debating the points that you wish I was making instead of the points that I'm actually making. I'm done.
You bloviate to a level that no one listens you arrogant blowhard.
 
Next time be more clear. You mentioned the draft so I said Vietnam which was the last time people were forced to fight.

I can't be any more clear than never having mentioned Vietnam anywhere in the entire post. And you were called on it by at least one other who read the post.

Nice try at deflection.
 
Hey, so anyway I figured we'd switch thing up a bit.

I knew the guy, Joe but I didn't know his dad (other occupant). Joe bought the C-150 a couple years ago (although I suspect his dad helped) and was building time in it hoping to go to the airlines someday. He and his father owned and managed 5 or 6 rental properties in the area, and he worked at DGS (Delta Global) for the free flight benefits and the love of being around big planes. He and I agreed the 737 was the best airplane of anything coming into CHS, except when that 757 would come in and do cleanup duty on a bad day. I showed him around a Delta 737 once and gave him a couple tours on the 200 back when I was flying them in and out. He was taller than me, smoother than me, more attractive than me, more hair than me (not tough), and had too many girlfriends, too many GPS's in the dash (if my memory is correct), and I told him as much in all categories- joking around. His responses were something like, "can't have too much of a good thing." He spent more time having fun than he probably should have, and probably drove faster than he needed to on every occasion- but he was still pretty young, and I imagine that would have wound down once maturity settled in.

Didn't know him real well, just in passing mostly, made him and his colleagues breakfast one morning on the electric skillet as a thank you for always taking care of the wife while she worked DGS. If I remember right, Southwestern style hashbrowns were his weakness, although he may have still been growing out of those teen years where everything tastes good and he was always hungry. He was nice to my wife and most of his coworkers (the ones that weren't jackalopes), he was a clown (good way), a good worker, and kept himself busy. He loved his folks, he loved the Charleston area, he had a lot of fun as much as he could, and he loved airplanes.

It's always too bad when this crap happens, but I was grateful to know him- if just a little.
 
Last edited:
What is the difference between a F16 flying a visual approach, practicing IFR procedures, and an airliner flying a visual approach, practicing IFR procedures ? Does the PF of the Airbus not scan his instruments too? Sans Heads up display?
.

The Airbus and airlines have more than one cockpit crewmember, The non-flying pilot typically makes all FMS entries and handles the heads down work while the PF flying flies the plane. The approaches in the airlines are briefed and loaded well before we get into high workload and traffic environment of the terminal environment. Use of the autopilot and auto-thrust system also systems also reduces workload in the cockpit. If you are shooting a visual approach the inside outside scan is similar to what we are all taught in private and instrument flights schools.


The argument would be that in the Bus there is a PNF whose sole responsibility is to look outside and clear for traffic.

Which, is funny, because if you go back and read threads we've had here about TCAS and see-and-avoid, apparently the inside of an airliner cockpit is just too busy for that.

lol, not even close. We are always looking for traffic and if we get a TCAS caution we are both trying to visually ID the target if possible and query ATC about the intruder. The PNF has more duties than just see and avoid...


Fact: two civilians are dead. Fact: they were hit by a military aircraft in civilian airspace. Fact: military fighters do not have TCAS II. Fact: TCAS II provides guidance to prevent collisions when you don't see traffic yourself.

So, yes.

TCAS II can help prevent collision if both planes have it. If only 1 plane has it, only one plane gets the RA and warning. If both planes have they both get the warning and the computers coordinate a warning. The problem with TCAS II it cannot see traffic that doesn't have a MODE C transponder turned on. I also find in comical that we are automatically blaming the F-16 pilot before all the facts. If see and avoid was perfect there would never be a midair ever. The fact is, in the best conditions, traffic can be hard to find.

Why not mandate all aircraft have TCAS II installed and lets just finish killing off GA :sarcasm:
 
lol, not even close. We are always looking for traffic and if we get a TCAS caution we are both trying to visually ID the target if possible and query ATC about the intruder. The PNF has more duties than just see and avoid...

I'm merely repeating something posted right here on JC a previous time we went around the merry-go-round about see-and-avoid...someone posted that, because of how busy it is on the flight deck of a 121 operation during critical phases of flight, it just wasn't possible to have someone looking out the window to clear for traffic.
 
I'm merely repeating something posted right here on JC a previous time we went around the merry-go-round about see-and-avoid...someone posted that, because of how busy it is on the flight deck of a 121 operation during critical phases of flight, it just wasn't possible to have someone looking out the window to clear for traffic.

My bad, sorry didn't mean to imply you said it. I can't believe anyone would post a 121 cockpit is that busy. It can get busy briefly at times but at no time should both pilots be heads down.
 
I can't be any more clear than never having mentioned Vietnam anywhere in the entire post. And you were called on it by at least one other who read the post.

Nice try at deflection.

You said draft and that was when everyone/people had a vested interest. What's the last war for the United States when the draft was enacted? Why are you stuck up on this one topic? Completely irrelevant to the thread topic.
 
Back
Top