註冊時間: | |
最後連線時間 | |
飛行執照 | Private |
語言 | English (USA) |
From the NTSB Preliminary Report, "At 1100:54 (about 1 second prior to impact - my comment), the radar reported altitude of the F-16 remained at 1,500 feet (BTW, the F-16 had an assigned altitude of 1600'. 100' deviation allowed - my comment) and no valid altitude information was returned for the radar target associated with the Cessna. At that point the targets were laterally separated by about 1,000 feet." Math: (1500' reported altitude of F-16) - (1400' reported altitude of Cessna 150 ~3 seconds prior to impact) = 100' vertical separation, not 1,000', which was reported as lateral. Also recall that ATC knew that the Cessna 150 had departed MKS and was climbing steadily on a stable course of 110º. It was indicated at 1200' at 37 seconds until impact. Math: 1,000 feet of climb in 2:37 minutes = 382 fpm climb. 1200' + 382 fpm x 37/60 minutes = 1436'. If that's not an IMMEDIATE POTENTIAL COLLISION, I've never heard of one. The controller should have IMMEDIATELY issued the order to
(Written on 2015年 07月 24日)(Permalink)
The NTSB preliminary report has been issued, according to AVweb's Russ Niles. The air traffic controller reported that he was in contact with the F-16 at 1500 feet altitude and that he told the F-16 pilot that he had crossing traffic 100 feet below him. Whoops! Why, in the name of God, would the controller not have the F-16 execute an immediate emergency climb of several hundred feet to allow more vertical separation when he saw the potential for conflict? I'm not sure where the ATC got the altitude of 1400 feet for the Cessna150, but very few of our pressure instruments, including the mode C transponder altitude sensor consistently have a margin of error of less than 100 feet. I sure as hell wouldn't want to bet my life on it! ATC has an absolute responsibility for traffic separation for IFR traffic. Lower speed traffic has the right away. Lower altitude traffic has the right away. Lower power traffic has the right away. Draw your own conclusions; I have already drawn mine.
(Written on 2015年 07月 20日)(Permalink)
Pete, according to George Perry, Senior VP of the AOPA's Air Safety Foundation, military pilots are required to file and fly IFR flight plans with ATC when operating normally in the national airspace (not in Restricted Areas). We can assume that should be true for the F-16 until proven otherwise. I'm pretty sure that flying practice IFR approaches would be considered operating normally. Now your advice that us bug smashers should always use ATC flight following when traveling cross country is pure gold. I always do and don't understand why other VFR pilots don't. I've only been surprised by nearby traffic a few times (head still on a swivel). My ATC "buds" and I discussed frankly at the time. However, your advice for VFR recreational fliers to file VFR flight plans on each flight is ludicrous. If I just apply it to cross countries, it will only help locate the wreckage and casualties IF I fail to get off a Mayday to the controller doing my flight following and the ELT fails to go off.
(Written on 2015年 07月 12日)(Permalink)
AvWebFlash reported that the commander of the 20th Fighter Squadron (or Wing) at Shaw AFB announced that the F-16 was under positive ATC control at the time of the collision. I'm not IFR certified, so I don't know if you are allowed to go head down. I assume that the pilot of a single place F-16 pilot would be allowed to if that's what's required on a real zero visibility IFR approach. Now we wait for vetted information to assign responsibility. I still don't see how much can accrue to the Cessna pilot.
(Written on 2015年 07月 11日)(Permalink)
No offense, but, fraction of a second?? I gotta throw the brown flag on that. Don't know the F-16's speed yet, but there appears to be consensus that he was almost certainly at or below 300 kts (506 fps). Back when I flew in Cessna singles with USAF fighter pilots, they were a dead lock on traffic in the frontal quadrant at five miles 100% of the time. That's about 51 seconds, just under a minute; that's eternity in collision space. Stevie Wonder can spot frontal crossing traffic at half a mile. That would be 5 seconds to impact; it would be an emergency, but still plenty of time to react and avoid (look at the second hand of your watch and, while counting "one thousand", "two thousand","three thousand","four thousand","five thousand" , imagine seeing and making a rapid avoidance maneuver - plenty of time). There is a high probability that the F-16 pilot was distracted. Spare us the "near impossible" reflex scenario; any pilot who can't see and avoid straight ahead broadside traffic at
(Written on 2015年 07月 10日)(Permalink)
What am I missing here? If the F-16 was practicing IFR approaches, then shouldn't he have been under ATC direct control for traffic separation, no? If he was between approaches, then shouldn't he have been flying VFR, no? See and avoid? What is ATC's responsibility here? We will need the FAA's flight track information, especially speed of the F-16 (as well as download of same from USAF) to figure this out, but at ~250 kts, available reaction times are more than half that of a normal GA aircraft encounter. That's a little more challenging than normal, but should be more than sufficient for a military fighter pilot highly trained to detect, see, close with, or avoid moving aerial objects (targets or otherwise). I highly respect my Air Force brethren and their difficult job, but this one doesn't smell even close to right. Let's get the facts right, but this basically appears to involve negligent manslaughter of two innocent civilians. Appears to be ATC or USAF responsibility: take your
(Written on 2015年 07月 10日)(Permalink)
Great tip. Haven't heard it before,but it's going into my bag of tricks. Thanks.
(Written on 2015年 05月 29日)(Permalink)
Generally, I arrange for for clean fuel cans if I'm going out beyond my round trip range or am present and closely observing the fueler BECAUSE I CAN. I'm a rank amateur in aviation l, but I've been around long enough and have enough hours to know that it's almost always the things that you don't check carefully that bite you on the ass (DUH!).
(Written on 2015年 05月 29日)(Permalink)
PERSONALLY, much better than when someone else besides the PIC (me) does it...
(Written on 2015年 05月 29日)(Permalink)
您的瀏覽器不支援. 升級您的瀏覽器 |