
Pilots Say That the F-16-Cessna Crash Illustrates a Civil-Military Difference - curtis
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/can-the-right-stuff-become-the-wrong-stuff/399632/?single_page=true
======
pm24601
When I was training for my pilot license, my instructor was very clear about
this point:

"Your responsibility is to NOT get into an accident. It doesn't matter what
the air traffic controller said, what I told you to do, or what the other guy
did. If you collide with another plane - IT IS YOUR FAULT. You are the PIC."

This absolute responsibility is well placed when even a "fender bender" is
death for all.

It sounds like the military pilot didn't get taught that concept.

~~~
peckrob
Same here. My instructor was very clear that I, as the PIC, was responsible
for maintaining clearance from other airplanes at all times regardless of what
ATC says. Even if I am operating in controlled airspace, ultimately, the
authority over what happens to me and my airplane is my responsibility alone.

While traffic callouts are nice to have and I really appreciate ATC giving me
heads up when I'm flying, I still spend the majority of my flying time looking
out the windows for other airplanes. Especially before making any turn or
other maneuver where I might have limited view, always dip the wings to check
the area first.

Unfortunately, I know some pilots who fly as if they've never seen a radio.
Used to do a lot of flying out of a semi-uncontrolled field (it's untowered,
but right under the 2,000ft shelf of a nearby class C). I would be doing
pattern work, turning base and some yahoo would do a straight-in without a
single call on the radio. If I hadn't seen him it and turned early it might
have ended badly.

~~~
tw04
So... just a thought as a non-pilot. It's 2015 - we have collision camera's on
cars. Given you need to be looking literally every direction to see if
something is going to hit you, why aren't planes equipped with similar
technology. I feel like at cruising altitude, there aren't really enough
false-positives out there that the system would be unusable.

Not necessarily expecting you personally to know. But I feel like the
incremental cost to the price of a plane should make this a no-brainer. Did I
just come up with a ycombinator 2016 idea?

~~~
Maxious
It doesn't even have to be cameras
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system)

>It monitors the airspace around an aircraft for other aircraft equipped with
a corresponding active transponder, independent of air traffic control, and
warns pilots of the presence of other transponder-equipped aircraft which may
present a threat of mid-air collision (MAC).

> The next step beyond identifying potential collisions is automatically
> negotiating a mutual avoidance manoeuver between the two (or more)
> conflicting aircraft.

This works along side the ADS-B broadcasts for generally knowing where other
planes are without ground based radar - however that's not going to be fully
implemented until 2020 in the US
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadcast#US_implementation_timetable)

~~~
marvin
For gliders, FLARM is a radio-based system that also takes turning rates into
account. It alerts the pilot visually and audibly 20 seconds before a possible
impact would happen. In my experience it works great even in very congested
airspace such as when circling in a thermal. it's not perfect, but it's a very
good complement to looking out the window.

It only tells you about other FLARM-using aircraft, though. (Some also look
for transponder-carrying aircraft).

------
throwaway64908
The article is 100% correct about civilian (FAA) air regs - in fact the rules
mentioned are pretty basic to any civil IFR pilot.

Although it's not surprising that military pilots would not be sharp on FAA
regs, it does raise the question, "so how does civil and military aviation
share the same airspace?"

From accidents seen around the world, you can't safely mix them. Civil pilots
are "solely responsible" and military pilots are "flying under orders" and
"flying a mission", which is why they defer to controllers.

------
mmaunder
A couple of comments about the article. Firstly, if you're a pilot or into
aviation, definitely read Fate is the Hunter. It's awesome. You'll need to get
the paper version as it's not available for an ebook AFAIK.

A few folks in the article suggest 'slamming' the plane into a turn when ATC
uses 'immediately'. That's really not a great idea in a variety of situations.
Remember: aviate, navigate, communicate. AOPA has a great article this week on
a situation where ATC screwed up and cleared a pilot for landing with another
plane on final. He turned onto a tight base ready for short final and ATC told
him to turn quickly. He executed a 60 degree bank/climb at 300 ft AGL and
stall/spun the plane and put a 4 foot smoking hole in the ground.
[http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-
Live.aspx?watch={384817B3-70C4-4147...](http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-
Live.aspx?watch={384817B3-70C4-4147-9C4C-2A5517FD5DEE})

I'd add that I've been in the pattern at small airports around Colorado
Springs with Air Academy pilots (and flown through the MOA's in the area) and
they've always been polite and helpful. Although it sounds like the culture
issue described comes up with military pilots on IFR plans around VFR
civilians.

~~~
bootload
_" if you're a pilot or into aviation, definitely read Fate is the Hunter."_

Second that, _" Fate is the Hunter"_ [0] by Ernest Gann [1] describes the
precarious life of a US career airline pilot (including descriptions of flying
DC2's, DC3's & DC4's, flight seniority and luck) between the 30's to the 50's.
The book is dedicated to a hundred or so commercial pilots not as fortunate as
EKG.

    
    
        "Although we can never be absolutely certain, 
         we now believe the Eastern Airline crash at 
         Bainbridge was caused by unporting. Do you 
         know what that is?"
    
         I confessed that I had never heard of it.
    
         [Unporting: could be caused by a missing 
         elevator hinge bolt, like that missing on 
         Gann's DC-4, and cause an uncontrollable 
         nose-dive, if the plane were flown at certain 
         speeds and center of gravity loadings.]
    
         "Did you slow down when you first noticed 
          the vibration? You did not because you had 
          no fear of it. But if you had been the 
          nervous type, if you slowed down, the center 
          of gravity would have changed. That would have 
          been quite enough to complete the process of 
          unporting which had partially begun."
    
    

The title of the book is derived from the fickle nature of flight and how
cumulative mistakes become catastrophic depending on luck and fear associated
with flying. [2]

One interesting chapter I do remember is Ch16, "A Pretender" where an
untrained pilot takes command of an aircraft only to be found out by very poor
co-ordination. Gann describes how nobody checked his credentials prior to
employment of commercial flying.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_Is_the_Hunter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_Is_the_Hunter)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_K._Gann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_K._Gann)

[2] [http://rwebs.net/avhistory/fate.htm](http://rwebs.net/avhistory/fate.htm)

------
mikeash
Does anyone know if fighters run their radar routinely, or if it's only done
when required (e.g. in combat, or training for combat)? I've always wondered
why modern fighters ever collide with other aircraft, since they have the
hardware on board to track every aircraft in the sky within 50 miles in front
of them.

~~~
thrill
Most aircraft with air-to-air radar, such as fighters, have the radar on and
use it from takeoff to landing. That said, there are limitations on the number
of targets it can track, and, without rereading the specifics of this
accident, I think the F-16 had just made a descending turn a dozen seconds or
so before the midair. That's not a lot of time to pick up and analyze new
traffic as it comes into the radar's sight, especially when single seat and
giving more concentration to the instrument approach procedure.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, I suppose the fact that they're only scanning a cone in front of the
airplane is highly relevant if they're not flying in a straight line.

------
blantonl
One interesting Civil-Military difference is that military aircraft and
civilain aircraft operate on two completely different sets of communications
channels yet the air traffic controllers talk to both military and civilain
aircraft at the same time.

Military aircraft typically trasmit to air traffic controllers in a frequency
range between 225-380 MHz, while civilan aircraft transmit to air traffic
controllers in a frequency range between 118-136 MHz.

The air traffic controllers simulcast their transmissions betweeen both
frequency bands to make sure their instructions reach both military and
civilan pilots, however the transmissions back to the controllers cannnot be
heard between civilan and military pilots.

This is a prime example of the "Civil-Military" difference outlined in the
article.

* Note: Most Military pilots have the ability to transmit on both VHF (118-136 MHz) and UHF (225-380 MHz) however it is up to pilots discretion.

~~~
repiret
Controllers don't always simulcast on the military and civilian frequencies.
Sometimes they do, because its convenient, just like they sometimes simulcast
on Ground and Tower or on Ground and Clearance, but often they only transmit
on the frequency used by the people they're talking to.

------
comrh
> Delusions of infallibility, arrogance, defensiveness, and blind deference to
> rank and regulation over common sense have all been shown, through the
> history of aviation tragedies, to be much more dangerous than all other
> factors.

Basically the most dangerous type of people across any situation.

~~~
jnbiche
> Basically the most dangerous type of people across any situation.

The amazing things is that most surgeons are like this -- the traits described
are a near archetype for surgeons -- and yet outcomes for surgery are pretty
damn good, and rapidly getting better for many types of surgery.

~~~
hackuser
> outcomes for surgery are pretty damn good

I would say that "good" is relative to what can be reasonably expected. If
most surgeons fit that description, then we may not have an independent way to
establish our expectations. That is, maybe we think it's "good" because we
don't know better.

Hospital error is a leading cause of death in the U.S., though I don't know
how much of that is due to surgery.

~~~
ngoede
The only source for that I have seen assumed that if the optimal treatment was
chosen that the outcome would always be positive which I suspect is not super
accurate. I wish I remembered where that source was. Do you have one? Would
love to look at it again.

------
pdonis
One question that I don't see discussed in the article, or in any of the
previous ones it links to: why didn't the air traffic controller tell the F-16
to turn right? From the geometry as described, a right turn would seem to be
better for avoidance. (The F-16 was northeast of the Cessna and heading west-
southwest; the Cessna was heading east-southeast.)

~~~
lujim
Although this is armchair quarterbacking, having the F-16 break off the
approach to climb and maintain a new altitude would have been nice. Not sure
if there was traffic above him though. Altitude separation is always more
comfortable than a vector away from traffic at or near your altitude.

~~~
jsight
This part baffles me as well. The Cessna was at 1200 feet indicated to begin
with. AFAIK, Mode C has an error of +- 200 feet.

That doesn't sound like adequate vertical separation to me. Why not ask for a
500 foot climb instead of giving a vector?

------
sandworm101
IFR training in a one-man airframe? That's very odd in the civilian world.
One-man planes are rare enough, but a one-man plane with full instrumentation
would be something special. And to then use it for training?

I suspect this crash is the result of a gap in FAA regulations. I would
suggest that no pilot should be doing IFR training alone while around aircraft
not flying IFR. But I can see why the rule doesn't exist: it is an
extraordinarily rare situation that, probably, nobody thought needed covering.

This is one of the reasons that American's and Brits go to Goose Bay for low-
level training. Canada has more empty sky than either of them combined.

~~~
dbenj
It was an F16 (e.g. military, not civilian).

And if the pilot is simulating instrument conditions, there is a rule: FAR
91.109 "No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight
unless - The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at
least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate
to the aircraft being flown".

If not simulating IMC, it's the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid per
91.113(b)

~~~
ngoede
What constitutes a "civil aircraft" in this situation?

~~~
ksherlock
Per the Code of Federal Regulations:

 _Civil aircraft_ means aircraft other than public aircraft.

 _Public aircraft_ means any of the following aircraft ...

(1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government ...

(2) An aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces ...

(3) An aircraft owned or operated by the National Guard ...

------
poof131
I don’t think this article is fair and borders on click bait, with a salacious
headline and handpicked responses.

1\. All all the facts are NOT in, yet judgment has been reached and
mudslingers are throwing.

2\. By the NTSB preliminary report, the entire time from the first pilot
warning (1100:18) to midair (1100:52) was 34 seconds. Barely half a minute for
life and death decisions to be made. All of which fell on ATC and the F-16
pilot with the civilian not in radio contact.

3\. ATC made the traffic call. 8 seconds later ATC gives the ‘turn south’
call. The F-16 pilot asks ‘confirm 2 miles’. 8 seconds later ATC says ‘if
traffic not in sight, turn immediately 180.’ The F-16 pilot complies and
begins his turn south. 18 seconds later they collide.

4\. From 2 miles to collisions in 34 seconds coincides with just under 4 miles
a minute closure or 240kts. Cesna at 60 and F-16 at 180 seems reasonable.

Could the F-16 driver have overbanked and started his turn quicker by a few
seconds? Maybe, but there was only 16 seconds and the pilot collided in a
turn, so if he’d delayed a few more seconds the collision would have been a
miss.

Also, how responsible is a civilian pilot for climbing through an instrument
approach near a military airfield without radio contact?

It’s a tragedy. Military aviation could probably ditch Tacan approaches, but
they are good training. Perhaps any that are close to civilian fields need to
be given the axe.

Yet to blame this only on the military pilot and military pilots in general is
a complete disgrace. An accident is like swiss cheese, with multiple holes.
Errors with people, processes, and things all help cause it.

If only one thing would have changed (if the turn started earlier or later, if
ATC picked up the radar hit earlier, if the F-16 pilot got a visual quicker,
if the F-16 had a radar lock, if the Cesna was in radio contact, if the Cesna
stayed below and didn’t climb through an instrument approach) the crash
wouldn’t have happened.

Aviation is dangerous, especially if you aren’t in a bus. Even a bus driver is
mildly dangerous.[1] General Aviation and Fighter Aviation are especially
dangerous. While I’m all for lessons learned, this salacious, click-bait,
profiteering-off-a-tragedy, poised-as-a-question trash doesn’t help.

[1] [http://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-
to-d...](http://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-die-on-
the-job-than-police-patrol-officers/)

~~~
mikegreen
"Also, how responsible is a civilian pilot for climbing through an instrument
approach near a military airfield without radio contact?"

Other than responsible for not seeing a fast moving jet rear-end him, not very
responsible. Even if he was under radio control and his head on a swivel, it
would have have been near impossible to see the jet coming from behind and
left at that speed. He wasn't "near a military airfield" \- he had taken off
from a general aviation airport just north of Charleston's International
airport (CHS), also shared with military, however FAA ATC and rules prevail in
this airspace. There is no "military airfield" difference around CHS. The F-16
was on a practice approach to CHS, just as anyone could do a practice approach
to CHS by requesting to do so from ATC. One major contributing issue to this
was the controller descending the F-16 to such a low altitude so far out
(1600' at 34 miles out) [1]. This is well below any slide glope and frankly,
as a pilot who flies IFR and no-radio-VFR, I would never expect to see a jet
on an approach that low even 15 miles out.

The incident did not occur in the military operation areas (MOA) north of CHS.

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

~~~
poof131
My main point is that there are likely multiple factors and a headline titled
“Can the ‘Right Stuff’ Become the Wrong Stuff?” with speculation and hand
picked comments doesn’t help the investigation or preventing accidents in the
future. It does drive traffic and revenue for James Fallows and the Atlantic
though.

If you fly GA, I’d recommend you know where nearby airports are (and thirty
miles isn’t that far for jets), where instrument approaches are, where MOAs
are, where low level routes are, etc. I’d also recommend using flight
following. You can say that these things aren’t your responsibility, but I
don’t think that’s a good attitude.

Also, I’m not sure how you interpret that the Cesna was rear ended. Reading
the NTSB report it sounds like the Cesna was heading southeast (135) and
climbing and the F-16 was heading west (265) and turning south (180). Seems
closer to head-on or perpendicular with the Cesna climbing into the F-16’s
altitude and the F-16 in a belly up turn with no visibility.

Regarding the Tacan, I don’t see any mention that the F-16 was below altitude
or off course. So just because you wouldn’t expect a plane there, doesn’t mean
that one won’t be there. Again, maybe this is a bad Tacan with nearby civilian
airfields and should be axed, but it doesn’t seem any rules were broken.

We don’t know the results of the investigation, yet all the blame is being put
on the F-16 driver. It sounds like small failures from all involved resulted
in a tragic outcome. There may be lessons learned from this incident that can
help prevent another in the future, but placing blame without the facts and
pointing fingers in the media isn’t how we figure them out.

------
cmurf
Let's pretend the perspective is true, that ATC has full responsibility for
separation when the pilot is doing instrument training in visual conditions
under radar contact.

Why delay doing _exactly_ what you're told to do, twice?

1\. Turn left if you don't have that traffic in sight, does not mean ask
questions to confirm the distance, it means turn left if you don't have that
traffic in sight. This delay is a minimum of 8 seconds difference in whether
this accident happens.

2\. Turn left immediately means do it now, not beginning to turn over 18
seconds... I've put a Cessna in a 60˚ 2G bank inside of 5 seconds many times
(it is an unusual attitude, done for training purposes), and this guy is in a
fighter jet. He can do better than that.

From this transcript, it's a much easier case proving negligence on the part
of the F-16 pilot, than defending it. About the best defense the F-16 pilot I
can come up with is that he probably had no chance to see and avoid because of
the nose cone of the F-16 obstructing the view of the slightly lower Cessna;
and the whole see and avoid principle is probably statistically bullcrap, and
all flights should be under positive control. But unfortunately that's not the
system we have, and I don't understand the cause for these two delays and the
seemingly slow turn when the word "immediately" was used by ATC, which has a
very explicit, formal meaning in ICAO terms which is when instant action is
required by a pilot.

------
berkut
Is it really the F-16's pilot's responsibility to ensure separation when under
ATC control?

Doesn't the US have MARSA (Military Accepts Responsibility for Separation of
Aircraft) rules that military flights _can_ occasionally use, and which point
_they_ are then fully responsible, but otherwise I thought they'd still have
to generally follow ATC directions.

~~~
ubernostrum
_Is it really the F-16 's pilot's responsibility to ensure separation when
under ATC control?_

Yes:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9965658](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9965658)

~~~
berkut
That post doesn't really prove anything: obviously, if you can see you're
heading towards another aircraft and it's likely you'll collide, you'll take
evasive action irrespective of ATC control.

I was talking more about deciding which flight level to use and general legal
responsibility.

Unless the F-16 pilot turned on his radar or could see other aircraft, how
does he know exactly what other aircraft there are. Admittedly, ATC only
generally knows squarked aircraft, but this is generally a good picture of
what's happening, and will probably be more complete a picture than what the
F-16 has access to under non-military conditions (AWACS, datalink, etc).

~~~
ubernostrum
ATC provides a lot of guidance, but in the end responsibility for the safety
of the aircraft rests with the pilot in command. If you collide with another
aircraft and say "well, it can't be my fault because ATC didn't tell me there
was traffic", you are not going to have a good time.

------
Patrick_Devine
An IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) pilot in VMC (Visual Meteorological
Conditions) is still responsible for looking out of the airplane. Even if the
pilot was "under the hood" (wearing a view limiting device), the safety pilot
(the guy in the other chair) should have ensured separation from the Cessna.

My guess is this is going to end up in court.

~~~
zrail
There was only one pilot in the F-16 (there are two seat trainer F-16s but
AFAIK this was not one of them).

Also, you're basically making the same point as the article, except that (so
the article conjectures) the military pilot didn't think he needed to look out
for other aircraft because ATC was doing it for him.

~~~
ngoede
But also failed to respond appropriately to the ATC instructions that he turn
immediately. It seems to me you cannot have it both ways regardless.

------
chinpokomon
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree
than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or
neglect.

? Captain A. G. Lamplugh

------
mcguire
I don't want to address the difference between civilian and military pilots,
since I think the author has done a fine job of that.

But I would like to point out that see-and-avoid doesn't really work in
general, and particularly not in the case of two small aircraft with wildly
different performance characteristics. I suspect that, even if the F-16 was on
a practice instrument approach, the bottom of its performance envelope is
significantly higher than the top of the Cessna 150's. (According to the
'pedia, maximum speed is 109kt and Vne is 140kt.)

See-and-avoid has been the first and more-or-less primary anti-collision
system in aviation use, but if you've ever tried to cross a highway with high-
speed oncoming traffic, you've probably already learned that there are limits
to the human visual system. It's just not built to do that sort of thing. No
doubt keeping your head outside the cockpit does prevent a lot of crashes, but
expecting it to have prevented any crash, much less this one, is too much of a
reach.

Keep in mind that most animal's visual systems are pretty good at picking up
movement, but one of the signs that you are on a collision course with another
vehicle is that it _isn 't moving_ in you visual field.

From [1]: " _[The University of Washington’s Autonomous Flight System Lab]
came up with a novel way to [modeled the UAS collision risk], reasoning that
the known behavior (and random collisions) of gas molecules could serve as a
way to predict collision probabilities between VFR aircraft, including UAS.
(PDF)[3] To test the hypothesis, they compared the gas-molecule data to actual
midair collision data and found a remarkably good fit. This allows two
conclusions: manned airplanes under VFR run into each other at about the same
random rate as gas molecules do and that’s pretty strong statistical evidence
that see and avoid doesn’t work. (Because of a variance between the gas data
and actual midairs, the paper concluded that see and avoid might work 14
percent of the time, but a bit better during the past few years. Possibly for
a reason.)_ "

By the way, [1] is an entertaining post with some information, while [2] is a
paper from 'stralia called, "Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle".

[1] [http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Why-See-and-Avoid-
Doesnt-...](http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Why-See-and-Avoid-Doesnt-
Work-223680-1.html)

[2]
[http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/259.pdf](http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/259.pdf)

[3]
[https://www.aa.washington.edu/research/afsl/publications/lum...](https://www.aa.washington.edu/research/afsl/publications/lum_risk_for_uavs_2010_2.pdf)

Ps. Ok, I do want to say something about the difference between military and
civilian pilots. Back in 2004, six soldiers and a general died when a
Blackhawk hit a television transmission tower guy wire while in heavy fog.[4]
The tower was 1800 feet tall; apparently the helicopter hit the wire about
half way up. It wasn't a training mission; the helicopter was "headed to Red
River to check maintenance on equipment". The first question from me, the most
holster-sniffing of non-pilots, was, "What was he doing flying below 1000 feet
in heavy fog?"

[4] [http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Seven-
soldie...](http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Seven-soldiers-
from-Fort-Hood-killed-in-Texas-1964766.php)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>But I would like to point out that see-and-avoid doesn't really work in
general, and particularly not in the case of two small aircraft with wildly
different performance characteristics.

This^. I was right-seat in a King Air and heard Center call traffic for us at
1/4 mile, looked once, nothing, turned head in case I might have lost my
bearing, looked again and there it was. I felt I could almost read the numbers
and ID on the aircraft, that's an exaggeration, but it was close. If there
hadn't also been some altitude separation, we could've been in a lot worse
shape because we were under the other A/C's nose. Neither myself nor the pilot
could see it before it was already very close, and it closed too fast for us
to do much because we didn't have much energy (climbing spiral with skydivers
on board).

------
icambron
Can someone more familiar with this stuff tell me why the air traffic
controller had the F-16 turn left, so that its path would cross that of the
Cessna's? Seems backwards.

~~~
rockdoe
Check the previous articles that are linked in the header, it's explained at
length!

------
touristtam
Reminds me of the Cavales cable car disaster.
([http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/04/world/20-die-in-italy-
as-u...](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/04/world/20-die-in-italy-as-us-jet-
cuts-a-ski-lift-cable.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/04/world/20-die-in-
italy-as-us-jet-cuts-a-ski-lift-cable.html))

------
Animats
Trying to read the actual NTSB report, but the NTSB site is completely down.
"500 Internal Server Error" (not as a HTTP status, as a text web page) for
their home page.

~~~
TallGuyShort
I wonder if the people who do the post-mortems on IT outages there are
considered "crash investigators".

------
frozenport
I find it crazy that one small aircraft could collide with another small
aircraft, with such a vast amount of space to avoid each other. How is a
collision possible? What am I missing?

~~~
SapphireSun
When I was going through flight training, I thought about this a lot. I think
the reason is that the places airplanes go is not random. If airplanes just
went to random places in the sky at random altitudes, then indeed accidents
would be rare, but everyone heads towards airports, which have particular
traffic pattern altitudes for instance. I don't know the specifics of this
situation, but perhaps the military pilot wanted to practice IFR near the
ground and there also happened to be a VFR corridor passing through there.
These non-random intents of pilots mean that airplanes get a lot closer
together than you would otherwise think.

~~~
hudibras
> I think the reason is that the places airplanes go is not random.

This is how two planes collided 37,000 feet above the Amazon rain forest.

[http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/01/air_crash200901](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/01/air_crash200901)

~~~
SapphireSun
Thank you for that, that was an incredible article. I was ultra surprised that
just after finishing that, this popped up on HN's front page:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9970336](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9970336)

