U.S. Midair: Cessna and F-16

[Guest SrPilot]

Unfortunately, there has been a midair collision over South Carolina in the United States. A USAF F-16 and a Cessna were involved. The Air Force pilot ejected.

 

F-16, small plane collide in midair over South Carolina

 

Published July 07, 2015

 

FoxNews.com

 

Facebook962 Twitter139 livefyre792 Email Print

 

[/url]

 

 

NOW PLAYING

 

Military jet collides with Cessna

 

An Air Force F-16 fighter jet and a small plane collided Tuesday over South Carolina, raining down plane parts and debris as one of the pilots ejected to safety.

 

Maj. Morshe Araujo, a spokeswoman at Air Force headquarters at the Pentagon, told The Associated Press that the F-16 originated from Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. Araujo says the pilot of the jet, which collided with a Cessna, ejected safely.

 

Lt. Jenny Hyden at Shaw Air Force Base said the pilot was taken to the base for observation, though she did not disclose his condition.

 

It was not immediately known how many people were on board the Cessna or if any of them survived. Its fuselage has been located.

 

There also are reports that toxic flames were coming from the F-16, according to WCSC.

 

 

 

The Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement that the fighter jet collided with the Cessna around 11 a.m., about 11 miles north of Charleston. A witness told WCSC that the crash occurred in a rice field close to the historic Lewisfield plantation home.

 

 

 

North Charleston Fire Department spokeswoman Bianca Bourbeau said the agency has sent a chief and a boat to assist Berkeley County with the crash, and will send other help as needed.

 

 

 

Berkeley County Airport manager Stacy Thomas declined to comment on the plane crash, referring questions to the FAA.

 

 

 

The Air Force has flown F-16s since the 1970s, though very few active-duty squadrons still fly them. Many F-16s still in service in the U.S. are assigned to Air National Guard units. However, Col. Cindi King of the South Carolina Air National Guard said the F-16 involved in the crash did not belong to the Guard.

 

 

 

F-16s from Shaw Air Force Base, about 35 miles east of Columbia, do routinely fly training missions over eastern South Carolina and the Atlantic.

 

 

 

Since 1975, the F-16 has been involved in 359 accidents that have caused more than $2 million in damage or resulted in a fatality or permanent total disability. The crashes have resulted in the deaths of 84 pilots. The plane's safety record has improved over the past decades, however. In the 1988 fiscal year, there were 23 of the most serious accidents. In the 2013 fiscal year, there were 7, and zero in the 2014 fiscal year, according to the most recent statistics.

 

 

 

The smaller plane was a Cessna 150, according to the FAA, a two-seat plane that debuted in 1959 and remains one of the most common single-engine planes in the U.S.

 

 

 

The Cessna 150's maximum altitude is about 15,000 feet, according to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Most models weigh about 1,500 pounds when fully fueled.

 

 

 

By comparison, an F-16 is about 50 feet long and weighs nearly 10 tons, not counting fuel or weapons.

 

 

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

Although the Air Force pilot successfully ejected, the two people in the Cessna were killed. Don't ask about the engine photos. The earlier photo shows an engine in the woods;a photo accompanying this news story shows the engine tail section leaned against a mobile home -- perhaps a very close call for the people using that unit.

 

(CNN)An Air Force F-16 fighter jet and a small private airplane collided Tuesday over South Carolina, killing two people aboard the civilian aircraft and prompting the military pilot to eject, authorities said.

 

Someone called 911 shortly after 11 a.m. to report the collision about 30 miles north of Charleston near Lewisfield Planation in Berkeley County, county spokesman Michael Mule said. Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters indicated the aircraft hit each other a little farther south, about 11 miles from Charleston.

 

The F-16 was on an instrument-training mission into Joint Base Charleston.

 

"All the facts at this point indicate that the pilot was talking to air traffic control ... when the accident occurred," said Col. Stephen Jost, commander of the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter, where the pilot is based.

 

An investigation is underway into the events leading up to the collision, including why the planes were so close to each other.

 

The F-16's pilot, Maj. Aaron Johnson, safely ejected, was picked up and transported to a hospital, authorities said.

 

"From what I understand, he seemed to be in pretty good shape," Berkeley County Rescue Squad Chief Bill Salisbury said.

 

The FAA identified the small private plane as a Cessna 150, which broke up considerably after the collision. No one on the ground was hurt by falling debris, which Berkeley County Sheriff Duane Lewis said fell largely in "a remote, marshy area."

 

The National Transportation Safety Board said two people aboard the Cessna died. They were not identified and the remains have not been found.

 

"We are in investigative mode trying to find out who that plane belonged to and who was on board," Salisbury told reporters. "... We have debris of the small plane scattered over a large area, and part of it is in a rice field."

 

Capt. Robert McCullough of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources said at least part of the Cessna went into the Cooper River, while the F-16 crashed in Berkeley County. CNN affiliate WCBD showed a picture of what appeared to be a jet engine lying next to a trailer in that area.

 

"The main object now is to locate the people and bring them back home to the families," Salisbury said.

 

At least 20 different agencies on the local, federal and state level are actively searching the crash site. The search area from where the crash occurred to where the military aircraft was found is 7.3 miles.

 

CNN's Rene Marsh and Saran Aarthun contributed to this report.

 

 

[farri]

Saw that photo on facebook...Thank you for your posts...Cheers.

 

Frank

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Thank you SR,. . . . interesting to read but extremely sad.

 

Phil.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It's very sad to hear. It does go to show why we need the controlled and restricted airspace around our airports though.

 

 

[farri]

Not the first time a USAF jet has hit a civilian aircraft...F-100F...Douglas DC7...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_736

 

Frank.

 

 

[PommyRick]

It's very sad to hear. It does go to show why we need the controlled and restricted airspace around our airports though.

I disagree completely. Radar service outside controlled airspace would be more then sufficient to improve separation, but even then there is a lot more to accidents then having ATC driving you around.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

there is no separation outside controlled airspace. Why bother with a radar service, make it controlled airspace and give the controller the tools they need to provide the separation you deserve.

 

 

[SDQDI]

there is no separation outside controlled airspace. Why bother with a radar service, make it controlled airspace and give the controller the tools they need to provide the separation you deserve.

I'd rather take my chances than lose that much freedom. Controlled airspace where we have it now is fairly reasonable but to make great amounts of our country controlled would be detrimental IMHO

 

 

[PommyRick]

there is no separation outside controlled airspace. Why bother with a radar service, make it controlled airspace and give the controller the tools they need to provide the separation you deserve.

Ah, lets also all just get an instrument rating and autopilots, no point in VFR... I think you are brainwashed into the controlled airspace is safer mentality, it is suitable around busy airspace, but elsewhere it's unnecessary. Radar services outside controlled airspace is very effective where provided, and with a deconfliction service for those who need it or IFR craft its good, whilst the rest can keep a listening watch (perhaps with an associated squark) to traffic information, but no need to be told where you can and can't go.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

This is a really sad time for the family involved of the Cessna. The pilot was a well known skydiver flying with his son. They have been unable to find their remains and it has been reported that the military pilot ejected just before the collision.

 

The family are just coming to terms of losing the pilots older brother and his wife when they were murdered by their 16 year old grandson a couple of weeks ago.

 

freakin tragedy.

 

Would ADSB have been of benefit here?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

it's nonsense to think an IFR aircraft can be separated from an unknown radar return who's altitude is unverified, aircraft type unknown and intentions unclear.

 

I'm not saying we need to change uncontrolled airspace, I'm saying there is a need for the controlled and restricted airspace we have now.

 

 

[ozbear]

If the jet was ifr and the cessna VFR shouldn't they have had 500ft vertical separation

 

 

[Happyflyer]

it has been reported that the military pilot ejected just before the collision.

I would have thought if the military pilot had time to eject before the collision he would have had time to avoid the collision. Sounds like a dubious report.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The F16 weighing 9.2 tonnes empty would have gone through a 600ish kg C-150 like a hot knife through butter. I agree with Happyflyer, it's most likely he ejected after impact.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

we'll see what the black box says.

 

a coincidence that all three have the same surname. Micheal (Zeke) Johnson and his son Joseph and Maj Aaron Johnson F16 pilot.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

If the jet was ifr and the cessna VFR shouldn't they have had 500ft vertical separation

The aircraft were operating in a MOA.

 

How does an F-16 and a C-150 end up in the same airspace? In the U.S., we have airspace known as MOAs (military operating areas). The use of such airspace is explained: "Why would a very fast Air Force F-16 fighter jet and a light, slow little Cessna 150 even have been in the same part of the sky? The main reason is that substantial parts of American airspace, especially away from the crowded northeast, are set aside as Military Operating Areas, or MOAs. Planes flying on IFR flight plans—where, again, the pilot goes where the controller says to go—are routed around the MOAs when they’re active, or through them if the controller has cleared a safe route with the military authorities. Planes flying under Visual Flight Rules are allowed to enter the MOAs even when they’re active—unlike Restricted Zones (for instance, over a nuclear-submarine base) or Temporary Flight Restrictions (like the gigantic one that surrounds all of Washington, D.C., or goes with the president wherever he travels). But passage through or near an MOA is at the pilot’s own risk."

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/why-would-a-fighter-jet-and-a-little-cessna-be-in-the-same-part-of-the-sky/397880/

 

Would strict air traffic control (with radar coverage coast-to-coast) end such accidents? Maybe; maybe not. Air traffic control isn't a panacea. I will mention two tragic incidents - PSA 182 and US Air 1493. In the U.S., we are headed toward "an advanced traffic-avoidance system called ADS-B. Discussion of that system can be found at:

 

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Air-Traffic-Services-,-a-,-Technology/Air-Traffic-Services-Brief-Automatic-Dependent-Surveillance-Broadcast-ADS-B

 

But back to radar control:

 

In the PSA 182 crash, a commercial airliner was on approach to San Diego when it overtook and struck a C182 also on approach. Both were in communications with and receiving instructions from San Diego Approach Control. San Diego Approach had both aircraft on radar. 144 people died.

 

In the US Air 1493 incident, 1493 was cleared to land at Los Angeles International Airport while a Skywest commuter had been cleared to taxi onto the runway and hold. Skywest was not given clearance for takeoff, and U.S. Air continued its nighttime approach. The resulting collision killed 34 and injured 67 individuals.

 

Sobering accounts of the PSA crash are found here:

 

http://scars-of-the-past.wikia.com/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

 

http://www.tailstrike.com/250978.htm

 

The official report is here:

 

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR79-05.pdf

 

Because of this crash, radar control rather than radar services is the norm today in high-density terminal areas in the U.S. which results in separation of aircraft in those areas. Nevertheless, two sets of pilots were talking with a controller, both planes were on radar, one set of pilots was supposed to be watching the other aircraft, and the crash still occurred. (And the media commonly blames the Cessna pilots for colliding with the airliner despite the fact that the airliner was overtaking the Cessna from behind and above and had been told to maintain separation. For example of such a news report, note this 2014 anniversity report on a San Diego TV station: "The [PSA] aircraft was on final approach to Lindbergh Field on a clear morning on Sept. 25, 1978, when it was struck by a small private plane and plowed into a residential neighborhood."

 

http://www.10news.com/news/36th-anniversary-of-flight-182-north-park-crash

 

The NTSB identified the probable cause of the crash thusly: "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of the flightcrew of Flight 182 to comply with the provisions of a maintain-visual-separation clearance, including the requirement to inform the controller when they no longer had the other aircraft in sight."

 

Thus, even with radar and air traffic control measures in effect, the probable cause of the crash was the failure of the pilots to comply and to report a loss of sight of the Cessna.

 

The second incident is the US Air 1493 crash which occurred at night. US Air 1493 was cleared to land on Runway 24L at Los Angeles International Airport. Another controller cleared a Skywest Airlines commuter aircraft to "taxi into position and hold" on 24L. The plan was to clear the Skywest turboprop for takeoff before the USAir jet landed. The clearance was not issued, however, and as USAir 1493 landed, it with the Skywest aircraft.

 

Here's the FAA report on that crash:

 

http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/USAirways1493/aar91-08.pdf

 

Again, even with radar control, accidents happen. Therefore, I continue to believe that eyes out of the cockpit is a good idea especially when told to watch for specific traffic in a specific area and maintain separation with that traffic. I previously posted NTSB materials on see-and-be-seen in the General Discussion folder on June 8, 2015. Those publications are worth reading. "See and be seen"[post-497900]

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

If the jet was ifr and the cessna VFR shouldn't they have had 500ft vertical separation

Ah, ob, but there is no "vertical separation" in an MOA (only, perhaps, visual separation). In MOAs, the military aircraft may be engaged in all types of flying - aerobatics, dives, climbs, formation flying, imagined target acquisition (more on that later), etc. They are not just passing through the area at a certain altitude and heading. They may be cleared in for many exercises.

 

I think this quote from a published discussion of MOAs is chilling given the recent event:

 

"A C-150 will be invisible to an F-16, which can climb and dive 20,000 feet in seconds. Keep your eyes outside the aircraft at all times in the MOA. Look high and low. Turn toward any aircraft to keep that aircraft in sight. Climb or dive to avoid since pitch rate is much faster than roll rate. ATC may fly IFR flights through if radar separation possible. Because of military aerobatics VFR flight requires caution. No clearance required but contact controlling agency to see if area is "hot". "Hot" area requires extreme caution and is best avoided."

 

http://4vfr.com/?goto=view_article&section=articles&article_key=68

 

There are a number of MOAs in my area of operations. Once, I was flying in my RV-3A when a friend behind me in a much slower airplane said "You have a fast mover coming up on you." Thinking he was talking about his snail-paced plane, I said "yeah, right." But I looked over my right shoulder. At my 4 sat an F-4 doing a pretty good job of flying formation with me. About that time I saw another F-4 in the distance at my 3 closing quickly. Both had their gear extended. As the 2d aircraft approached, he rocked his wings and turned to his right. As he did, both raised their gear, poured on the coals, and beat it for home. I later asked an Air Force pilot about that and he said they probably had seen me and decided to play "target acquision" or were just curious about my airplane. On another occasion, same MOA, I was on final for RWY 18 at an uncontrolled, rural county airport. About a half-mile out, I had another (or one of the same?) F-4 cross my path left-to-right headed west in a hurry. He was low and fast. I arrested my descent until I crossed over his path to stay out of his turbulence, then did a steep descent into the airport. I've seen B-52s and C-17s in MOAs or Military Training Routes down low and moving on.

 

Here's a briefing from the FAR/AIM series:

 

3-5-2. Military Training Routes

 

a. National security depends largely on the deterrent effect of our airborne military forces. To be proficient, the military services must train in a wide range of airborne tactics. One phase of this training involves “low level” combat tactics. The required maneuvers and high speeds are such that they may occasionally make the see‐and‐avoid aspect of VFR flight more difficult without increased vigilance in areas containing such operations. In an effort to ensure the greatest practical level of safety for all flight operations, the Military Training Route (MTR) program was conceived.

 

b. The MTR program is a joint venture by the FAA and the Department of Defense (DOD). MTRs are mutually developed for use by the military for the purpose of conducting low‐altitude, high‐speed training. The routes above 1,500 feet AGL are developed to be flown, to the maximum extent possible, under IFR. The routes at 1,500 feet AGL and below are generally developed to be flown under VFR.

 

c. Generally, MTRs are established below 10,000 feet MSL for operations at speeds in excess of 250 knots. However, route segments may be defined at higher altitudes for purposes of route continuity.

 

Although I've flown through MOAs under both IFR and VFR, it is not the safest place to be sometimes. On the other hand, it may be safer than operating at a rural airport where they are not used to seeing strangers about. They know the local customs which may have no resemblance to usual procedures, tend not to use the radio such as giving position reports or "calling downwind," and may, in fact, land downwind regularly because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Oh well; BTDT.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Makes me feel right at home!

 

 

[Nobody]

SrPilot,

 

Are you sure that this accident was in an MOA? The news reports said that is was about 11 miles north of Charleston at Moncks Corner. The nearest MOA is further north about 25 miles from Charlston.

 

News reports can be wrong but your post was the first time anyone mentioned that it was in an MOA.

 

Nobody

 

 

[ozbear]

It's a wonder there are not more incidents in MOA areas if that's the case scary stuff.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

SrPilot, Are you sure that this accident was in an MOA? The news reports said that is was about 11 miles north of Charleston at Moncks Corner. The nearest MOA is further north about 25 miles from Charlston. News reports can be wrong but your post was the first time anyone mentioned that it was in an MOA.

Well, errors can be made by the media, me, or almost anyone I know. I read "MOA" in a couple of my sources. But not mentioning and not being in an MOA are two different things, aren't they?

 

Here's one media account of the midair that mentions MOAs:

 

"Why would a very fast Air Force F-16 fighter jet and a light, slow little Cessna 150 even have been in the same part of the sky? The main reason is that substantial parts of American airspace, especially away from the crowded northeast, are set aside as Military Operating Areas, or MOAs. Planes flying on IFR flight plans—where, again, the pilot goes where the controller says to go—are routed around the MOAs when they’re active, or through them if the controller has cleared a safe route with the military authorities. Planes flying under Visual Flight Rules are allowed to enter the MOAs even when they’re active—unlike Restricted Zones (for instance, over a nuclear-submarine base) or Temporary Flight Restrictions (like the gigantic one that surrounds all of Washington, D.C., or goes with the president wherever he travels). But passage through or near an MOA is at the pilot’s own risk.

 

In practice, I always check this real-time display from the FAA, which shows the “hot” or “cold” status of MOAs and other “special-use airspace.” Here is the way it looks right now. The areas in red are “hot” MOAs. I’ve added a yellow arrow pointing to the Gamecock MOAs that are north of Charleston.

 

 

Active “Special Use Airspace” this afternoon, via the FAA’s interactive site. The arrow shows sites just north of Charleston, in the approximate vicinity of today’s crash.

 

I don’t know yet whether the collision actually happened within the MOA or outside it. It sometimes happens that the high-speed military traffic makes its swooping turns and dives beyond the exact vertical and horizontal limits of the MOA—and in any case, the fighter planes have to travel to the MOA from their bases. In this instance, the F-16 is reported to have been from Shaw Air Force Base, further inland near Columbia, South Carolina."

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/why-would-a-fighter-jet-and-a-little-cessna-be-in-the-same-part-of-the-sky/397880/

 

Note the "I don't know yet whether the collision actually happened within the MOA or outside it." Neither do I. What I do know is that the yellow arrow falls within not far from not one, but two, F-16 bases - one is Shaw AFB, the other is McEntire SCANG. Although McEntire's F-16 unit is a National Guard unit, they are Wild Weasels with some of the latest F-16 technology. They go in early to wipe out radar etc, which is what they did both times in Iraq. They also train regular AF pilots at McEntire because the ANG pilots frequently are older, more experienced, and better trained. The reason is simple; when I was in the AF, the regular AF held the high ground. We got the best training, most of the flying time, the best equipment, etc. The Air Guard has closed that gap. Today, more people (but not all) go into the Air Force, become pilots, come out, and go into the Guard for a part-time career as a citizen-military pilot. One of my closest friend's son is an F-16 pilot (a Major) at McEntire so I know the area. I just don't know the point of impact - whether in or out of the MOAs. But it's crowded skies in that area sometimes just as it can get busy in our neighborhood sometimes too.

 

More detailed maps of the military ops areas in South Carolina are found at pages 428-29 of this document.

 

http://www.denix.osd.mil/sri/upload/SRR2012-AppendixCFigures.pdf

 

I live just a few miles north of the Gomex range on the western side of those maps - in Alabama. Although I am outside the MOAs around us, they are on two sides and it is not unusual to see low flying military aircraft coming out of the MOAs to do approaches or landings at our civilian airport. The day they brought a Foxbat A22LS in for me to fly, we had all kinds of military aircraft landing and taking off (I remember Texans, Pavelows and Ospreys). We have a large AF base (Columbus AFB) to our west and multiple military bases to the south and southeast. Pensacola NAS to our south and Columbus to our west are major pilot training bases for the Navy and Air Force .

 

The crash site under discussion has two AF bases within a few minutes flying time. Transitioning into and out of MOAs can also be interesting. So whether it occurred IN or just NEAR an MOA may make little difference but for "he was in the right." Either way, it happened. I have yet to see lines drawn on the terrain to let me know where the MOA starts and ends. Either party can wander in or out a bit without even realizing it. In or out? We will see. I agree with you. I've seen news accounts that do not mention MOAs, but unlike you I've seen media accounts that do mention them. And I know media people that not only do not know what MOAs are - they cannot even spell MOA. :-)

 

 

[Nobody]

It's a wonder there are not more incidents in MOA areas if that's the case scary stuff.

The reality is that MOA's are not as scary as made out, avoiding them is good but flying through them with caution is OK too. In some parts the MOA is used to give light aircraft a path through the restricted areas where live firing is taking place. For instance go to http://vfrmap.com/ and search for "MRH" to the north of this is the "Core MOA" which is a strip between the R-5306 and W-122 both of which have a large amount of military operations. Without flying through the MOA flight to the north wouldn't be possible above 3000'. Somehow the US system allows little and big aircraft to play together with relatively few incidents considering the amount of traffic.

 

From the AIM

 

b. Examples of activities conducted in MOAs include, but are not limited to: air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics, formation training, and low-altitude tactics. Military pilots flying in an active MOA are exempted from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.303© and (d) which prohibits aerobatic flight within Class D and Class E surface areas, and within Federal airways. Additionally, the Department of Defense has been issued an authorization to operate aircraft at indicated airspeeds in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL within active MOAs.

[Nobody]

MOA's in this instance are a red herring. The nearest MOA was 15 miles away. Even if an F-16 that is a significant distance.

 

Other media reports suggest that the F-16 was doing practice instrument approaches into Charlston which is both a civil airfield and military airforce base. See here for instance:

 

http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/despite-crash-military-civilian-midairs-are-rare

 

When the full report is released we will know why they cane so close but I doubt that MOAs will feature significantly in the discussion.

 

 

[skeptic36]

If the jet was ifr and the cessna VFR shouldn't they have had 500ft vertical separation

I don't think they worry about it under 3000' in the USA

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/91-vfr-cruising-altitude-flight-level-19562336#ixzz1KPTTW8V4