James Fallows has written an interesting Atlantic piece about the F-16 fighter jet that ran over a little Cessna 150 in South Carolina in beautiful clear VFR conditions (NTSB), killing Michael and Joseph Johnson. One technical oddity seems to be that these crazy expensive and heavy F-16s don’t have the standard traffic advisory or TCAS systems that are standard in higher-end civilian airplanes (about $10,000 and 10 lbs.). They are even available as portable electronics for less than $1000 (i.e., when you buy the certified (legal-to-install-permanently) box you are paying about $1000 for the circuitry and $9000 for regulatory compliance).
(You could argue that you wouldn’t want the TAS or TCAS in a fighter jet because they often fly in formation, but I think it would still work because what is typical in formation flying is that only one airplane has its transponder on.)
For me as an engineer this is the saddest thing about the accident. It could likely have been prevented with a small box of electronics.
Related:
From reading the articles on the accident it seems like the F-16 pilot was told by an air traffic controller about the presence of the Cessna flying at 1200 feet. So, in my opinion, a TCAS device will not have changed much.
Why was the jet flying at 1200 feet is a good question. Another good question is why the jet pilot, with excellent visibility from his cockpit, could not find traffic that was pointed to him by the controller.
I think the Cessna pilot had a reasonable expectation that a military jet, flying at who knows what speed, was not going to cross his path at pattern altitude. When I look at my Zaon portable anti-collision device and I see an alert at that altitude I don’t expect to see an F-16.
I just read the NTSB preliminary accident report and it looks to me like the jet pilot had received plenty of notice about the presence of the Cessna.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=1
The final report will contain the standard sentence “failure of both pilots to see and avoid,” but I think the accident was clearly the fault of the jet pilot who was, thanks to the air traffic controller, aware of the presence of the other plane.
Another segment notes the culture clash between civilian and military pilots. Among civilian pilots, when an ATC tells you to do something “immediately” you don’t ignore it. Military ATC personal are enlisted men subordinate to the officers flying the jets; one of the letters indicates it’s not unusual for the office-pilots to question ATC directives.
J. Peterson. Thanks for the link. Very interesting observations. One of the comments notes that the F-16 cannot be flown safely at less than 300 knots. I guess it was authorized to fly that fast because the maximum speed at that altitude is 250 knots (14 CFR 91.117 – Aircraft speed.).
If a F-16 needs to practice approaches, there are better places to do it…
Olentzero: I certainly hope that an F-16 can fly slower than 300 knots since touching down on the runway at 300 knots would result in quite a long ground roll (by definition an airplane is flying until it touches the runway). From Googling a bit it seems that 133 knots is a typical Vref (i.e., it lands slower than a Canadair Regional Jet).
My only reference was “The Atlantic” article posted by J. Peterson. An experienced F-16 pilot states that the plane cannot be safely flown at less than 300 knots on downwind. I have no idea of how a combat jet flies an approach.
There is going to be litigation concerning this accident. The military is going to have a very difficult defense.
I do think we (particularly true in my case) have strayed from your original post observation concerning the value of inexpensive TCAS systems. Amazing technology does not show up on airplane panels because absurdly expensive regulatory requirements (or perhaps absurdly expensive liability).
olentzero: We see F-16s land at our dual-use airport (KBED; also Hanscom Air Force Base) from time to time. I can assure you that they are not screaming down the glide slope at 300 knots. There is presumably a huge change in configuration when the gear and flaps come out. I guess the accident F-16 was still pretty far from CHS so perhaps it was still in a clean configuration and zipping along.
I suspect (the fastest airplane I have ever flown was a Mooney) military jets use angle of attack to adjust speed for landing. Judging by the angle of attack that some of those jets seem to have when they approach the runway, I guess they don’t maintain it for more than the last few moments before touch-down.
It is surprisingly difficult to find information on the web concerning the speeds or AOAs of the F-16.
“jet pilot, with excellent visibility from his cockpit, could not find traffic that was pointed to him by the controller”
The one place without good visibility is at 12 o’clock looking down, due to the panel and nose.
If we accept that the thing has to go 300 knots clean and has no TCAS…. now you’re talking about a situation in which an airplane with just one (possibly not very experienced) pilot is going 2-3X faster than same-altitude bizjets. Bizjets have a two-pilot crew (almost always one very high time) and are thought to require TCAS. If a slow two-pilot airplane needs it, why not a fast one-pilot airplane?
It is hard to understand why this doesn’t happen even more frequently .
The FAA should open up traffic info for all ADS-B In. No more “you need Out to get traffic In” bullcrap. The 2020 deadline is enough incentive for equipping.
If the FAA did that I’d guess that within a month most pilots would have a portable ADS-B in device. And that 150 might (probably) have seen that F-16 bearing down on him…
The FAA is withholding safety information…