Pull up buddy pull up

[AuxBatOn]

That.

But remember this is a Canadian forum, most Canadians trust and rely on government more than their own family.

Just shows you can't provide anything of substance to back your opinion.

For the third and final time, please provide evidence of NTSB biasing a report conclusion to suit another government agency. Once tou can do that, provide evidence for this specific case.

[SuperchargedRS]

That.

But remember this is a Canadian forum, most Canadians trust and rely on government more than their own family.

Just shows you can't provide anything of substance to back your opinion.

For the third and final time, please provide evidence of NTSB biasing a report conclusion to suit another government agency. Once tou can do that, provide evidence for this specific case.

Dude, you drank terminal amont of kool aid, I could spend the time in vain digging up topics for you, but you're already a goner.

[NotDirty!]

(a) If you have traffic on your radar at 20 miles and a controller tells you that you have traffic at two miles, believe them. Why would you become confused? ATC is not going to give you 20 mile traffic in this situation.

Because on the radio, sometimes, "TWO" and "TWO-ZERO" can sound very similar, especially if there is any interference, other sounds in your aircraft, or the controller is speaking quickly.

That certainly can happen. But as we can see in the interview quote that I posted above, he very clearly heard two miles and in terms of trying to sight the aircraft, took immediate action. Therefore, this is not an issue in this accident. But good point anyways as a general statement.

I think you'll find that the statement made after the incident may be biased by the outcome.

As the Cessna
continued its departure climb, the airplanes converged to within about 3.5 nautical miles (nm)
laterally and 400 ft vertically, triggering a conflict alert (CA) on the controller's radar display
and an aural alarm. About 3 seconds later, the air traffic controller issued a traffic advisory
notifying the F-16 pilot of the position, distance, and indicated altitude of the radar target that
corresponded to the Cessna, stating that the aircraft type was unknown. When the F-16 pilot
replied that he was looking for the traffic, the controller issued a conditional instruction to the
F-16 pilot to turn left if he did not see the airplane. The F-16 pilot did not see the airplane and
responded, asking "confirm two miles?" The controller responded, "if you don't have that
traffic in sight turn left heading 180 immediately." As the controller began this transmission,
the F-16 pilot initiated a standard rate (approximately) left turn using the autopilot so that he
could continue to visually search for the traffic

About 7 seconds elapsed between the beginning of the
controller's first conditional instruction to turn and the beginning of her subsequent
conditional instruction to the F-16 pilot to turn "immediately."

We're talking about 7 seconds here, while there was possibly some ambiguity between TWO and TWO-ZERO miles, which isn't a whole lot of time. Actually, it works out to about the same amount of time it took you to read that sentence. Put yourself in the pilot's shoes, and tell yourself that a reasonable person wouldn't have made the same mistake. I am not trying to say that the F-16 pilot is blameless, or did everything perfectly; but I think that it is fair to say that he should not be held criminally responsible. I am fairly certain that at some point in my flying career, and likely in yours too, we have done poorer jobs of following ATC instructions, and while the outcomes may have been less disasterous, the violation was likely worse. For example: not so long ago I received a "descend 7 thousand" instruction from ATC. My FO read it back, and then we discussed whether it was a "when ready" clearance, or an immediate instruction. It was customary on this flight to get a "descend 7 thousand when ready" clearance at about the same point, so we decided to ask ATC to confirm. By this point at least a minute had gone by, since ATC was making some other calls on the frequency, and after we asked, we were told "negative, I need you to start down now, you've got opposite direction traffic I need to get you below". This call had been made with lots of time to spare, so the outcome was a non-event, but the F-16 driver took 1/10th of the time we took to respond to an instruction, yet somehow you feel he should go to jail.

[GyvAir]

We're talking about 7 seconds here, while there was possibly some ambiguity between TWO and TWO-ZERO miles, which isn't a whole lot of time. Actually, it works out to about the same amount of time it took you to read that sentence. Put yourself in the pilot's shoes, and tell yourself that a reasonable person wouldn't have made the same mistake. I am not trying to say that the F-16 pilot is blameless, or did everything perfectly; but I think that it is fair to say that he should not be held criminally responsible. I am fairly certain that at some point in my flying career, and likely in yours too, we have done poorer jobs of following ATC instructions, and while the outcomes may have been less disasterous, the violation was likely worse.

There are four NTSB re-enactment type videos related to this accident on this NTSB YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... LHP7ZVpdp6 (Moncks Corner)
(From the within the link that nbinont posted earlier.. thanks)

The videos give a better idea of what the real world time frames between communications and actions were like, rather than raw numbers.

This whole discussion reminds me a bit of the Sully movie where they dramatize the conflict between Sully and the NTSB over why he didn’t choose to head for an airport. In the sim, they were turning instantly towards the nearest airport; no time allowed for any normal human thought process to take place in a suddenly changed and unusual situation.

[pelmet]

Because on the radio, sometimes, "TWO" and "TWO-ZERO" can sound very similar, especially if there is any interference, other sounds in your aircraft, or the controller is speaking quickly.

That certainly can happen. But as we can see in the interview quote that I posted above, he very clearly heard two miles and in terms of trying to sight the aircraft, took immediate action. Therefore, this is not an issue in this accident. But good point anyways as a general statement.

I think you'll find that the statement made after the incident may be biased by the outcome .

A statement that could be made about any question answered in this type of interview with nothing to back it up. Hardly a winning argument on what appears to be an emphatic statement by the F-16 pilot on his reaction to the initial traffic information transmission from ATC.

This call had been made with lots of time to spare, so the outcome was a non-event, but the F-16 driver took 1/10th of the time we took to respond to an instruction, yet somehow you feel he should go to jail.

How about taking a decent amount of time to read through this thread before posting, like others, incorrect information. Nowhere, have I said that anyone should go to jail as stated by you in response to a quote from me.

Anybody else have some incorrect information to post?

[pelmet]

A minor note to add from an article I recently read. One poster had questioned the Cessna pilot's collision avoidance actions after he took off.......

"A tragic midair collision occurred in June 2015 between a Cessna 150 and a U.S. Air Force F–16 near Charleston, South Carolina. The pilot of the Cessna flew with a portable receiver able to display nearby traffic on an iPad or similar device. However, ADS-B ground stations did not automatically send ground-based traffic information known as Traffic Information System-Broadcast (TIS-B) to airplanes not equipped with 2020 mandate-compliant ADS-B Out. So even though the Cessna pilot likely had the ability to see traffic, the F–16 never would have appeared on his display.

Why? Before anyone rushes to blame the FAA, it’s important to understand that the decisions for how ADS-B would work were made long before the iPad or low-cost portable ADS-B receivers were invented. At the time, it was difficult to foresee the potential benefits of setting up the system differently. As we know now, with portable receivers and tablet displays come the ability to display TIS-B traffic information—basically, aircraft positions as determined by ATC radar, supplementing ADS-B data—in the cockpit at a low cost. But this happens only sometimes, and therein lies the rub.

To get the complete traffic picture, pilots have to fly with an FAR 91.227-compliant system with both ADS-B Out and In. But what about pilots with only portable ADS-B receivers? They might not realize that even though portable receivers such as the Appareo Stratus and Garmin GDL 39 can display traffic information, they often don’t. Ground stations require an airplane with an active ADS-B Out system to trigger the broadcast of TIS-B data—and then, the data includes only traffic within that aircraft’s “hockey puck” of airspace. If an aircraft with a portable receiver were close enough, it could piggyback on this signal and receive some traffic information.

This caused a lot of confusion, because pilots flying with a portable system near an ADS-B Out-equipped aircraft would see traffic information—but as soon as the ADS-B-equipped airplane was out of range, the TIS-B broadcast would stop and the traffic information would disappear. Worse yet, there was no way of knowing whether the traffic picture was complete. Adding to the confusion were marketing materials for portable ADS-B receivers touting “free traffic and weather information.” That’s true, but the devil’s in the details.

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more confusing, TIS-B traffic information was never designed to be a permanent part of the ADS-B system. It was intended to be an interim traffic tool that will go away sometime after 2020. The thought was that TIS-B traffic information would no longer be needed, because everyone would have equipped with rule-compliant ADS-B—and the ADS-B traffic information would be all that’s needed for aircraft to see one another.

Assuming that the vast majority of the general aviation fleet would equip before 2020 was overly optimistic. Based on the FAA’s data, it is clear that ADS-B installations are lagging behind what was originally envisioned. Extrapolating from the latest installation rates, we can expect approximately 60,000 to 80,000 GA ADS-B installations by the 2020 deadline, out of a fleet of more than 200,000 aircraft. This is not a good-news story for the FAA—or GA, for that matter.

Many aircraft owners might be waiting for the prices to come down or for the deadline to get closer before having ADS-B installed. There’s a problem here, too. There just aren’t that many avionics shops that can perform this work. At the time this was written, most avionics shops already had a backlog of three to six months. Those who choose to procrastinate will likely find long lines to schedule their installation. And once the 2020 deadline passes, anyone without a compliant ADS-B Out system installed will be unable to fly in ADS-B rule airspace.

See and avoid is an imperfect system, and ADS-B-based weather and traffic awareness information are great tools. AOPA has been working with the FAA to change the current system and make TIS-B traffic information available to all airplanes, even those with portable receivers. But it’s a slow process, and there’s no guarantee it will happen. If you’re on the fence waiting for the right time, that time is now. AOPA strongly encourages you to equip with an appropriate ADS-B Out and In solution. Installing ADS-B well ahead of the deadline will give you all the safety benefits of in-cockpit weather and traffic information, and being 2020 compliant so that you can fly in rule airspace after the deadline passes. For more information, visit AOPA’s ADS-B resource page (www.aopa.org/adsb)."

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -was-blind

[pelmet]

Old thread but I came a cross a link to show the human face of an avoidable tragedy.........

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/04/c ... amics.html