PurpleToolBox

The animated YouTube replay is not what the controller saw. Her information is represented differently. The delay in the pilot not turning is what caused the collision. And yes, the F-16 did descend with the autopilot on, about 300 feet.

Adlerdriver

I understand the limitation of the youtube recreation. The Doc made it sound as if the F-16 pilot was in an intentional descent commanded by ATC that he could have chosen to slow or stop in order to deconflict. If he descended in the left turn directed by ATC, that's a separate issue.

And no - his delay did not cause the mid-air. If he had remained on course and not turned at all, he would have passed behind the Cessna with almost a mile of clearance. If he turned the second ATC gave him the left turn to 180, he still would have passed dangerously close in front of the Cessna. A left turn was far more dangerous than just continuing straight. His delay was understandable considering the time compression and request for clarification. Regardless, saying the delay caused the collision might be technically correct looking at the physics, but the simple truth is that the collision never would have happened if ATC hadn't told him to turn left.

You can't hit a target that is on your nose 3 miles away with a 70-90 degree course difference unless you turn to point in front of it.

JohnBurke

BINGO!!!

We have a winner.

cardiomd

Incorrect, he was and did descend. His actions, and thus the outcome, reflect that he did not appreciate the situation in totality. I think some pilots are used to "owning the sandbox" so to speak, but mixed use crowded airspace demands a different mindset.

You are right. Although had he not turned at all, yes, he would also would have not collided. OTOH had he taken immediate logical steps to deconflict, a man and his son would be alive today. He gets to fly again, they don't.

If you are at 1600 MSL, and you have a target dead ahead reported 1200, don't descend into that path. If you are descending, arrest the descent, stay at 1600 or climb. The controller assumed the F16 would not descend, even saying "traffic passing below you 1400." Not sure what part is controversial or difficult to understand.

We operate in 3D space, immediate rapid action does not necessarily mean high-G left or right turns. It means not colliding with aircraft that you are given information about and have not visually located, and taking immediate steps to avoid this coordinated with ATC. Doctor or not, that is what all of us pilots need to do, particularly in crowded echo/golf in VMC.

Adlerdriver

He was level at 1600 MSL. That was his cleared altitude. He initiated the left turn to 180 on auto-pilot. Any descent that occurred was unintentional and very likely a result of his attention outside looking for the traffic and an auto-pilot override with the side-stick. Any chance the Cessna pilot climbed into the F-16 altitude?

Why don't you read the transcript of the AIB interview with the pilot before you decide to interpret what he did or did not appreciate.

Steps like what? Exactly.
He was on a vector at his assigned altitude. Take ATC out of the equation. No ATC, he continues heading 260. He most likely picks up a visual on the traffic moving to his left because a non-collision target moves on your windscreen (a collision course target stays stationary and is more difficult to see). The situation is a non-event.
ATC is a huge part of this situation.
The F-16 pilot is clearly aware of the threat if you bothered to read the interview. He looks for the traffic and complies with the ATC vector that ends up making the situation far worse.
Tell us all, exactly, what you would have done differently if you were flying that F-16 that day.

You don't seem to understand that any descent occurred AFTER he began the turn to 180 and was not an intentional descent. At fighter speeds, a single degree of pitch change can generate a significant descent or climb rate in seconds. Complying with the ATC turn, searching for the traffic and inattention to his autopilot status while overriding it with the stick were all factors.

3D? Gee, thanks . Immediate steps.....coordinated with ATC..... like not turning left onto a collision course with the traffic?

Doc - He followed ATC's direction. Is that not coordinating with ATC? Those directions got those two people killed.

Again - I know you've never flown a fighter and have absolutely no clue what that's like. But, if you're going to pass your myopic, GA judgement on this particular pilot then you should at least grace us all with the proper flight control, throttle, radar, radio, AAI, HUD, auto-pilot inputs that should have been used to avoid this situation. Tell us exactly what you would have done with those systems, what control inputs and choices you would have made if you were in that F-16.

Otterbox

Unfortunate situation. It's real easy to cast blame on both pilots and the controller for things that in most other situations would have been non issues but in combined were fatal. Swiss cheese model was in full effect in this situation.

Takeaways:
VFR flight following is un underutilized service.
TCAS is an amazing SA tool.
When pilots screw up, pilots die. When controllers screw up, pilots die.

JohnBurke

Don't forget to take emergency evasive action any time traffic is reported within two or three miles, especially if one doesn't know where the traffic is.

Doctors in Bonanzas and 210's...

B757

..JB, ever flown VFR in a jet ??..By the time you see your traffic it may already be too late..Just asking..

Fly safe !!

B757

PurpleToolBox

I CAN NOT EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH ...

Regardless of the type of flight plan, whether or not under control of a radar facility, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, terrain, or obstacles -- meteorological conditions permitting.

Let me repeat that for those who continue or who choose to not understand.

On an IFR flight plan, the IFR pilot is responsible for seeing and avoiding other traffic. It is not the ATC controller's job to separate IFR traffic from VFR traffic.

The ATC controller provides radar traffic information to radar identified aircraft operating outside control airspace, on a workload permitting basis.

The ATC controller issues Safety Alerts to aircraft under their control if aware the aircraft is at an altitude believed to place the aircraft in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft.

Federal Aviation Administration Order (FAAO) 7110.65 Air Traffic Control, Paragraph 2-1-6 Note 3 Safety Alerts: "Once the alert (traffic alert) is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken.

Paragraph 2-1-21, Traffic Advisories; "...issue traffic advisories to all aircraft (IFR and VFR) on your frequency when, in your judgement, their proximity may diminish to less than acceptable separation minima. Where no separation minima applies, such as for VFR aircraft outside of Class B/Class C airspace, or a TRSA, issue traffic advisories to those aircraft on your frequency when in your judgement their proximity warrants it. Provide this service as follows:
a. To radar identified aircraft:
1. azimuth from aircraft in terms of the 12-hour clock, or
2. when rapidly maneuvering aircraft prevent accurate issuance of traffic as in 1 above, specify the direction from an aircraft's position in terms of the eight cardinal compass points (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW). This method must be terminated at the pilot's request.
3. Distance from aircraft in miles.
4. Direction in which traffic is proceeding and/or relative movement of traffic
5. If known, type of aircraft or altitude
6. When requested by the pilot, issue radar vectors to assist in avoiding the traffic, provided the aircraft to be vectored is within your area of jurisdiction or coordination has been effected with the sector/facility in whose area the aircraft is operating.
7. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot
8. Inform the pilot of the following when traffic you have issued is not reported in sight:
(a). The traffic is no factor
(b). The traffic is no longer depicted on radar.

Additionally:

The FAA's Pilot-Contoller Glossary defines "additional services" as advisory information provided by ATC which includes, but is not limited to the following:

a. traffic advisories
b. vectors, when requested by the pilot, to assist aircraft receiving traffic advisories to avoid observed traffic
c. altitude deviation information of 300 feet or more from an assigned altitude as observed on a verified (reading correctly) automatic altitude readout (Mode C)
d. advisories that traffic is no longer a factor
e. weather and chaff information
f. weather assistance
g. bird activity information
h. holding pattern surveillance

Additional services are provided to the extent possible contingent only upon the controller’s capability to fit them into the performance of higher priority duties and on the basis of limitations of the radar, volume of traffic, frequency congestion, and controller workload. The controller has complete discretion for determining if he/she is able to provide or continue to provide a service in a particular case. The controller’s reason not to provide or continue to provide a service in a particular case is not subject to question by the pilot and need not be made known to him/her.

TRAFFIC ADVISORIES − Advisories issued to alert pilots to other known or observed air traffic which may be in such proximity to the position or intended route of flight of their aircraft to warrant their attention. Such advisories may be based on:
a. Visual observation.b. Observation of radar identified and non-identified aircraft targets on an ATC radar display, or
c. Verbal reports from pilots or other facilities.

Note 1: The word “traffic” followed by additional information, if known, is used to provide such advisories; e.g., “Traffic, 2 o’clock, one zero miles, southbound, eight thousand.”

Note 2: Traffic advisory service will be provided to the extent possible depending on higher priority duties of the controller or other limitations; e.g., radar limitations, volume of traffic, frequency congestion, or controller workload. Radar/nonradar traffic advisories do not relieve the pilot of his/her responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. Pilots are cautioned that there are many times when the controller is not able to give traffic advisories concerning all traffic in the aircraft’s proximity; in other words, when a pilot requests or is receiving traffic advisories, he/she should not assume that all traffic will be issued.

==============================

I frequently have Captains who direct me to not report "traffic in sight" to ATC, incorrectly believing that once we report traffic in sight that the Captain/aircrew is now responsible for remaining clear of traffic. This is simply not true! You are always responsible.

I'm not sure where the myth that ATC is responsible for traffic avoidance started. I know many pilots with military backgrounds believe this. As an instructor and stan/eval pilot, I've observed this myth numerous times.

(I've said this before) At a prior duty station, VFR traffic not participating with ATC was the #1 or one of the top safety concerns identified each year by our pilots. Because of the airspace density, we routinely had aircrew reporting TCAS RAs or near misses with VFR traffic while established on instrument approaches outside of Class D airspace.

Fdxlag2

I think your Captains don't won't you to report traffic in sight because the next words out of the controllers mouth are usually follow that traffic cleared for the visual.