Warbird Information Exchange

An F16 pilot flew pretty close to a Pilatus PC12 and a Beechcraft Premier Jet. The GA pilots filed a complaint. Interesting Video.

http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/arti ... 7f-16.html

I doubt that an Air Force F-16 pilot knowingly flew within 10 feet of the Beech Jet, as they said, or any other civilian plane that he had not briefed the formation with and was not in radio contact with, unless he was ordered to intercept. Even with orders, the standard intercept procedure would be to fly off the left wing and he'd be farther out than that. The Pilatus pilot seemed to barely speak English, but not to be in such a panic.
I once had sort of an intercept situation, I was at the CAF base when it was Harlingen and went out for a morning flight along the beach. I was defintely on our side of the border, and at low level over the water. As I climbed up and turned inland some kind of customs or Coast Guard civilian type jet like a Citation appeared off to my left a few hundred yards and slightly behind. I flew along like this for a minute or so, made sure I was not in restricted airspace, then made a steep turn and went under and behind them. I never saw them after that. Another time I was going from Lakeland into St. Petersburg and a fighter jet, F-15? came along the left side at my speed and altitude. I waggled the wings, but he stayed at least a hundred yard away for a few minutes until I descended to land.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Bill, I would encourage you to read the following - http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/arti ... 9f-16.html

The pilot in question has been reprimanded and a full-fledged investigation is going on because of this incident. He did fly in close formation with not one, but 2 pilots within minutes of each other. Formal complaints were filed by the pilots and the radar video with the synched-up radar was done by the AOPA as part of their following of the story after the pilot of the Permier notified AOPA of the incident and that prompted the articles by AOPA.

BTW, AOPA is not known for creating stories, so why would they do so in this case?

I've met several military pilots whom I'd see doing this in a heartbeat to "get rid of those pesky GA pilots" for daring to tread into their playground while they're trying to have fun. Most of the guys I've met are like Randy - extremely professional, but there's been a few who are definitely Mavericks in the worst way.

That guy should spend the rest of his career sorting turbine blades in a carbon pit.

Radar & comms: http://media.aopa.org/080711f16.asx
Robbie

We used to have military jets get fairly close to us darn near every year, while flying the Sea Furies and Bearcat to Reno for the races ( I was just a back seater). They just wanted to "check us out," and frankly, we didn't mind a bit. Now, with that being said, I reckon I can see where the guys in the spam cans might have gotten nervous, but I dunno...it never really bothered us. We were quite sure that those guys were pretty competent pilots and they never did anything to make us uncomfortable. Of course, they never really formed up with us either.

Randy, what are your thoughts on this?

Gary

CAP Flyer, As I wrote in my first post, I doubt the F-16 pilot got within 10 feet as one of the civilian pilots claimed. Do you have any proof of the 10 foot thing?
I have no doubt that the hired pilots filed a complaint, they had to do something when they climbed above 18,000 without clearance. Nowhere in my writing did I say AOPA created or invented the story. If I did, please quote my words, instead of distorting them.
Just as Gary wrote, I have had military pilots, even an airline or two come up in sort of loose formation. But they always stayed a safe distance away, certainly not 10 feet.
The story claims the pilot was "reprimanded". If his commander really felt he endangered the F-16 as well as millions of big $$$$ civilian jet $$$$ and could have gotten the base and commander sued; I think there would be more than a "reprimand".
It is possible the F-16 pilot did something foolish on his own, maybe being young and agressive got the better of his judgement. But I doubt he put his career at stake that foolhardily.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

The thing that I think is different in both cases between you guys and the PC-12 and Premier is equipment. While both the Pilatus and Premier were flying VFR at the time, both come equipped with TCAS and so if the pilot got anywhere that the TCAS though they were at risk of collision, it would have given an RA. Flying alongside an airplane is one thing. Popping up on them from below is another and what seems to have caused the RA (as the radar return and the RA avoidance directive as relayed by the crew appears to show.

BTW, it was the PC-12 pilot that said 10 feet and that he had to maneuver aggressively to get clear. I can understand military aircraft pulling in and flying formation on a warbird. I can even understand it to an extent on smaller GA aircraft, but I don't agree with it being done unless on an actual intercept on Biz-class aircraft. Those guys are usually flying people and flying with equipment like TCAS and thus the fighters create an issue when they make aggressive "intercepts" like they did and cause RA avoidance maneuvers like they did. If he'd come up slowly and performed a point-parallel intercept, the TCAS would have never gone off.

10 feet or 100 feet- he violated the other aircraft's airspace, and should have his wings clipped for a while. Maybe a nice paperclip counting posting in Antarctica for about 6 months. If it were a civilian pilot, he would definitely be facing a certificate action, no doubt about it.

Robbie

If you are flying in a MOA in VMC and on a VFR situation, no IFR flight plan or CLEARANCE, and you equip your plane with a techno gadget that detects other transponders, AND SOUNDS AN ALARM WHENEVER THEY ARE WITHIN ONE HALF MILE, then you have set up a Catch 22 situation. If you go into gyrations or "evasive" or "elusive" maneuvers without any judgment then can you blame it all on the other plane?
They come in and out of our airport here all the time, and especially a few years back they were always on the radio talking about conflict alerts and TCAS traffic, and expecting everyone else to get out of their way. Mostly we have traffic landing and taking off in opposite directions on the same runway due to terrain and prevailing wind. We frequently pass within a few hundred feet of each other, almost always within a 1/4 mile. It doesn't seem as prevalent now, maybe they turn the gadgets off when landing and even take a glance out the window now and then.
The F-16 pilot may be young, aggressive, low time, even dumb, but he knows how to fly formation, and it is unlikely he is going to run into the civilian plane. I have flown with F-16 pilots. And CAP, I read your post of the AOPA bit, and it said military pilots were NOT subject to the same formation rules as us. I have been CAF formation rated for 21 years and about 17 years EAA formation rated and I am aware of the FAA reqirement to brief and both parties agree to. As far as I know there is no firm definition of what distance from another plane constitutes formation.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

The issue for me is that the USAF has very clear intercept and practice intercept procedures. Those were violated in this incident not once, but twice within an hour by the same pilot. This is a problem. Just as if I were to twice bust airspace in the same flight, I would expect more than a reprimand and think the guy got off easy. Unless he had real suspicion that it was a potentially hostile aircraft and he'd attempted to get ahold of the aircraft on GUARD (either himself, via AWACs or via ATC), then he had no reason to believe those two aircraft posed any threat and thus had no provocation to approach in such a manner as to set off the TCAS RA.

In addition, the MOA rules are clear on the military side - if aircraft enter your section of the MOA - KNOCK IT OFF. This guy intercepting those aircraft was against those rules. MOAs activate and deactivate much too often for VFR pilots to be able to flawlessly know and avoid them during active times. In fact, many of those VFR pilots in the MOAs don't have radios in the first place nor are they required to.

As well, TCAS RAs must be responded to. That's in the FARs Bill, it's not something that's open to judgement. The rule is that you respond to an RA then evaluate. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of technology in the cockpit because it too often becomes a crutch, but the Catch-22 here Bill isn't the TCAS. It's the FAA requiring that equipment on the PC-12, Premier, and most other business jets and Biz-class aircraft. The FAA wrote the rules on how a TCAS is built, how the RAs are done, and that the pilots must respond to the RA first and then evaluate its validity afterwards unless it will obviously put you in danger of CFIT or another safety issue (like overstressing the aircraft or violating some aircraft limit).

Do some of you believe the GA pilots might have overreacted?

Not at all, once the civillian received an RA on his TCAS, he is bound to follow the commands.
There was no conflict until Lt Viper Driver created one.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

Cap, you may know a lot more about the TCAS and related FARs than I do. I don't/didn't know a Pilatus was required to have it. Is it required to be on in flight? Always? Maybe that's why you don't see too many corporate jets or Pilatus flying into EAA Airventure.
Now what if "Lt. Viper Driver" is flying along in the MOA and the hired pilot in his jet or Pilatus comes close enough to set off a TCAS in the F-16? Has the civilian pilot created a problem, or is the burden always on the guys in the military plane?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

As far as I'm aware, TCAS is standard on all PC-12s. The FAR just states that if it's equipped, it has to be followed at all times when in use. The TCAS can be disabled (put in standby mode), however it can only be done under VFR rules and Part 91 operation (i.e. even flying VFR, if you're operating under a 135 or 121 certificate you have to have it on). The TCAS controls are part of the transponder controls (Off-Stby-Test-On-Mode C-TA-TA/RA are the selector positions) and you can have the TCAS off (Mode C), just monitoring (TA), or monitoring and deconflicting (TA/RA).

Many pilots do use it as an excuse not to look out the window as much, but the issue here is that the pilots in question were flying in a straight line and the F-16 intercepted them and the radar tape is pretty clear on that. As well, the F-16 has the better "see and avoid" equipment so he is primarily responsible for maintaining separation from other traffic. If the PC-12 (or Premier) had better "see and avoid" equipment (say it was a PC-12 and a light single), it would be his responsibility to ensure he didn't create a conflict with the other aircraft.

BTW, here's a little item on TCAS RAs -

TCAS RA response

AC 120-55B

AC 20-131A