The NTSB recently released a couple of simulations of air to air crashes. They scanned the views from inside the aircraft involved and then re-created what the pilots would have seen leading up to the crashes. As the videos show, by the time visual contact was made the crashes were inevitable. This is pretty darned sobering. It's even more disturbing that one of the crashes happened at a Tower Controlled Airport (San Diego). The other one happened in Virginia where an F-16 flew through a Cessna 150. The 150 never had a chance. Again, air traffic control was in contact with the F-16 and knew of the conflict, but did not give instructions to avoid the collision. Spooky!





I think I'll accelerate getting ADS-B out installed so I have some technology to help my eyes identify traffic.The story behind these videos is here:
http://generalaviationnews.com/2016/11/16/ntsb-issues-safety-alert-on-midair-collisions/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=25aae265d6-TPoA2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_62525a9780-25aae265d6-53353

Actually, the ATC controller instructed the F16 pilot to turn TWICE and the jet jock blew her off until it was way too late. The NTSB Docket report is very interesting as it lays out the events and communications that preceded the collision, with time stamps. I've read many posts elsewhere by apologists who offer rationalizations for why the 253 knot fighter could barely lumber off it's course to the mid air. FWIW, It's a doubly sad event because had the fighter pilot followed instructions immediately it would have saved two lives and (perhaps) his career ... assuming THAT was jeopardized by the event. This is the AOPA'S PRE-Probable Cause take on the accident. http://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/november/02/pilots-unaware-before-midair?_ga=1.17246705.918871704.1443805219. It says the fighter pilot had a 40 second warning prior to impact, but does not mention the second ATC communication discussed in the Docket.

AD/S-B in both cockpits would, as you've pointed out, probably have cut through the fog and accelerated the jet pilot's decision to initiate a turn. We also need to remember that AD/S-B is not required in Class E airspace, nor in Class G. Whether the C150 would have been equipped is unclear. Also, aircraft without electrical systems are not required to equip.

ADS-B is a good start but wont tell you if you're on a collision course with another aircraft.
It just puts dots on a screen that we need to interpret (if you have ADS-B IN and a screen, that is).

That and as mentioned, it's not required everywhere or for everyone.

Sailplanes in Europe all fly with FLARM - which will actually calculate collision risks and not just proximity alarms.

I really don't care if there are 9 other aircraft in a 2 mile radius of me. Are any of them converging? That's important.

A cheap and portable ADSB type solution for the purpose of collision avoidance that everyone can carry would be a great idea.

Seems easy enough to judge a collision course to me. There's a guy at your altitude heading your way on this image:

Yes and no. It's still not telling you there is a collision.

It's telling you there is an aircraft at the same altitude that's pointed at you.

He may be No Factor and pass behind you.
He may be No Factor and turning away from you.
He may be No Factor and climbing/descending away from you

It's still up to me to stare at the screen and figure all that out.

What about the aircraft 367 feet below ahead and to my left? Is he climbing and going fast enough that we will converge?

I want the system to tell me that if neither of us change course or altitude, you will hit each other (or come really really close to hitting).
Other than that, I shouldn't have to care.

In high density, it was so comforting to be, "50 feet off the trees and not traffic," as one busy tower controller called me when airline pilots fussed about CTAS. Just get down and call yourself "pipeline 58J" or any last three.

Bagarre wrote:Yes and no. It's still not telling you there is a collision.

It's telling you there is an aircraft at the same altitude that's pointed at you.

He may be No Factor and pass behind you.
He may be No Factor and turning away from you.
He may be No Factor and climbing/descending away from you

It's still up to me to stare at the screen and figure all that out.

What about the aircraft 367 feet below ahead and to my left? Is he climbing and going fast enough that we will converge?

I want the system to tell me that if neither of us change course or altitude, you will hit each other (or come really really close to hitting).
Other than that, I shouldn't have to care.

True, but the system gives you a really good cue to use to look outside. You're no longer staring into the distance trying to see if there's traffic. You're now looking in a specific azimuth and elevation to see the traffic you know is out there.

Also, I think those are in hundreds of feet. As in 36,700 below.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=1

Here's the NTSB's "probable cause" statement for the C150/F-16 collision. In the NTSB Docket there are various reports. One of those was a document that said the closure rate for these aircraft was "300 kts", and that the pilot of the F-16 was actually vectored TOWARD the C150 by ATC. The C150 pilot was not talking to ATC, nor did it appear the pilot was on frequency. He was not utilizing VFR FF. The F-16 pilot commenced a standard rate turn on receiving the command "turn immediately". The controller said the altitude was unconfirmed (because of no contact with the C150), and that she expected a "fighter to be capable of rapid turns" when she issued the "immediately" command. The Cessna pilot was described by all who knew him as very careful, conscientious, etc. The fighter pilot was described in reports and in supporting documents (which are in the Docket) similarly.

Big, really big bummer for all.

And, a point reference ADS-B: To date, the Air Force has stated that they have no intention of equipping its aircraft with ADS-B Out.

I've used ADS-B in busy airspace, in flight instructing, and while I concur that in some scenarios it does help point out threats, I found that we (both the student and me) spent an inordinate amount of time head down staring at that screen (very large MFD) and transitioning between the MFD and outside. When you're doing that, your eyes don't always accommodate to the "new" focal distance quickly. I'd find myself looking up to searc for a target, and actually focused on a bug on the windscreen.

I can't even imagine how easy it would be to ID traffic and find them from a small portable device......

But, the point is, even had that accident occurred after the ADS-B mandate, the jet would not have been equipped with it, and the 150 may not have been.

Finally, if ATC tells me to turn "immediately", I'm racking the thing up into a max performance turn NOW.....no hesitation, no communication.....just max rate turn.

MTV

I agree with MTV. The safest way to go to big cities is IFR for the safest procedural track, but look outside and comply like you mean it.

If lack of navigation equipment and/or training preclude that, the safest place is low; as low as possible.

It is illuminating how the presence of terrain and obstacles above us will sharpen our visual scan and keep our heads up and cause us to clean the windscreen every flight and encourage us to both cushion up and remove anything above the too high anyway panel.

When I read the ntsb report urging GA to maintain vigilance to see and avoid, I watched the videos numerous times. Perhaps it didn't help, because it keeps pointing me to controller issues, particularly in the F16/150 crash.

As long as human beings are involved there will always be human factors. But it requires humans to make the call.

The F-16 at 250 kts has a 2.5 mile turn radius. The 150 is not in communication, so there is no control there. But based on the direction of the 150, turning the F-16 left to 180 created the intercept. An immediately climb would have been a better directive, but even continuing on heading appears that it would have missed it.

The Sabreliner/172 comes across in a similar light, although speed difference should not have been a factor for the pilots flying to see and and avoid. From a controller perspective, perhaps not a full comprehension of the speed and range difference of the radar blips? Distracted by other aircraft? I would guess that airport proximity conflicts would take a lot of practice to handle precisely, and I give them credit for what they accomplish.

Sad events all the way around. Always use everything you have in the airplane, including your gut instinct. A friend of mine said this; "In training we listened to tapes of several professional pilots questioning ATC about a clearance right before they follwed the ATC instructions and flew into the ground."

I'm not in the second guessing mood right now, but I have one rule that I have followed pretty religiously. When ATC tells me to turn, I turn right away. It's only happened a few times that a controller has told me to make an "immediate turn", but I didn't hesitate, didn't question, and didn't do a standard rate turn--and I sure wouldn't have used the autopilot to make the turn. I don't regularly fly into congested controlled airspace much these days, except when I fly into the Denver B or around it. Years ago when it was a TCA surrounding Denver Stapleton, I was in there at least twice a week, and it was a very busy place. But still, each time I have been told to turn, whether "immediate" or not, I've been well into the turn before responding to ATC. For sure, "immediate" is not a time to make the passengers comfortable or limit the bank to 20 degrees or comment before turning. It means right now, instantly, no hesitation, maximum safe bank angle.

Cary