rickair7777

It would be ridiculous for a fighter to start yanking and banking while on IFR ops unless directed unequivocally to do so. Not in the AIM.

Adlerdriver

No he wasn't. Did you read the pilot interview transcript? He was looking outside with his eyes when he got the traffic call. Prior to that, he was going through the normal scan using eyes and on-board sensors. PRIOR to getting the 2-mile traffic call, he noted a radar contact on his nose for 20 miles. That's like noting a speed limit sign as you scan the road. The information is there and doesn't require that you have to look at the sign again to re-confirm you saw it. There's also no information that I can see to indicate he previously locked up the traffic at 20 miles. There would be no reason to do that. Range, azimuth and rough altitude information are all available without actually locking the target. At 20 miles, that's all the information needed and it would be extremely poor technique to tie up your radar by locking it to that one target when it's hardly a factor at that range.

He was doing almost exactly what we are trained to do in a short range situation. I say "almost" because he should have put his radar into an auto-acquisition mode F-16 guys call "slewable". It scans a set azimuth and altitude pattern and will lock the first thing it finds within 10 miles of the aircraft. So, you throw that out using HOTAS controls requiring zero heads down time while you scan with your eyes just as he was doing. The radar was not a distraction in this scenario. He was just verifying that the 20 mile traffic he previously noted was not somehow being communicated as this closer pop-up contact.

As someone else said, the radar is just another tool. It's not the primary method for see and avoid, but it's certainly better than not having one.

What do you see as the difference between an IMC single seat fighter on an IFR clearance getting vectored to an ILS and the same aircraft that just happens to be VMC on the same IFR clearance getting vectored to the same ILS?

The USAF isn't going to stop allowing their fighters to fly on IFR clearances and practice instrument proficiency.

PurpleToolBox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

There's also no information that I can see to indicate he previously locked up the traffic at 20 miles. There would be no reason to do that.

He was just verifying that the 20 mile traffic he previously noted was not somehow being communicated as this closer pop-up contact.

MP1 stated, "I went from a, they had me on 260 heading and then they called out, I locked up a contact at 20 miles and approach told me there was traffic at 1,200 feet, two miles, my 12 o’clock. I just queried back and said, “confirm two miles” because I had somebody at 20 miles."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

What do you see as the difference between an IMC single seat fighter on an IFR clearance getting vectored to an ILS and the same aircraft that just happens to be VMC on the same IFR clearance getting vectored to the same ILS?

Big difference. On an IFR flight plan in IMC, the pilot must tell the controller they're IMC and the controller should issue an avoidance vector or altitude change. On an IFR flight plan in VMC, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid.

He was told to turn left to 180 if he didn't have traffic in sight. He responded with "confirm 2 miles?" She then told him again with the phraseology "immediately" included. By his own admission he states that he then starts the turn.

Another interesting piece of information is that the F16 autopilot didn't maintain altitude during the turn. Due to high alpha, the F16 descended approximately 150'.

I'm afraid he turned a bit late and allowed the aircraft to descend.

cardiomd

Recreation video posted by NTSB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTFqxgcjtA

This. Obviously in IMC, also, there will (should) be no VFR traffic. In VMC if ATC warns two miles, even in my slow Cessna, I take rapid immediate action if not in sight. Has happened many times to me and all of us, usually see the other small plane shortly afterward. I think the fighter pilot was not used to operating in mixed-use civilian airspace by his reactions and responses and lack of perceived immediate urgency. 2 vs 20 miles is a huge difference and controller is not going to call that incorrectly.

Amazing how fast it all happened at 254 kts.

JohnBurke

Should and isn't are two very different things. I've certainly encountered VFR traffic while IMC, and one of the closest calls I've had in flight with another aircraft occurred while I was climbing VFR in a C-130 off a drop in smoke off a fire, and a Brasilia under IFR passed directly in front. The proximity was close enough that I was able to see that the captain was wearing Rayban Outdoorsman II sunglasses with the green lenses. I don't think he ever saw us.

You can't see the other aircraft and you take "rapid action?" At two miles? You're maneuvering to avoid or taking evasive action for traffic you can't see?

With TCAS, that's one thing. What you appear to be describing is something else entirely. How do you know that you're not creating a bigger conflict with the traffic, or other traffic?

cardiomd

I do agree with you. I've been given traffic alerts for VFR traffic while in IMC, and seen a small single come out of a cloud squawking 1200, doubtlessly on autopilot.

Yes - that is correct. I would be maneuvering to avoid or taking evasive action for traffic I can't see. The altitude and location of the conflicting traffic and location is given by the controller.

I'm not talking a high G performance turn in a single, but if a controller calls out traffic 12 o'clock 2 miles 1200', and I'm at 1500 feet descending, you can be damned sure I won't continue my descent into that path without seeing them. Under IFR in VMC we are still responsible to see and avoid and with the visual clearances (relative to larger instrument traffic separation criteria) "created" conflict to de-conflicting maneuvers such as delaying the descent and coming off glidepath would be minimal; we are talking VMC. I trained in extremely busy airspace, this kind of alertness is simply critical to survival and happens all the time. I don't think most pilots would do differently.

JohnBurke

The altitude and location of *some* traffic is given by the controller. You have no idea where any other traffic is. There's no point trying to block a punch you can't see, dodge a bullet you don't know is coming, or maneuvering to avoid traffic which isn't in conflict. If the controller tells you to turn left twenty degrees, or to maintain an altitude, that's one thing. Taking "evasive action" for traffic when you haven't acquired the traffic you're attempting to avoid, makes little sense, and may actually increase the threat to you and to others.

Flightcap

I think you guys are stuck in a battle of semantics. We can all agree that if a controller recommends a course of action and that the traffic has not been sighted, the safest thing to do is to follow the controller's suggestions, yes?

cardiomd

Are you serious?

Correct. Without going into false positive and false negative measures of radar, ADS-B/TIS, etc., if you are clearly warned of traffic, and do not see it, take reasonable action to avoid the traffic, especially when VMC / MVFR. All long-lived pilots do.

JohnBurke

Damn serious. Yes.

No, not all.

Then again, not all of us look for traffic with the radio, either.