Ref AvWeb: F-16 Ejection Followed Unauthorized Intercept Of GA Aircraft
The text:
An Air Force accident investigation says a Tulsa Air National Guard F-16 was destroyed after an off-the-books intercept of a private light aircraft near a Louisiana airport last March. Investigators found the pilot of the $26 million fighter mistakenly thought he’d lost control of the fighter as he closed in on the unidentified light aircraft to read its tail number. He ejected safely but the aircraft became a smudge on some scrubland in the Warrior Military Operating Area. The report says the pilot hit the wrong button as he maneuvered the Viper near the stall to read the registration and he could have safely recovered. But it also takes the pilot and the flight lead in a second F-16 to task for airmanship and leadership issues.
“Also, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Board President found two substantially contributing factors to the mishap, 1) lack of flight leadership and 2) lack of flight discipline, in MFL and MP’s violation of various training rules, including intercepting a non-participating GA aircraft, and incorrectly handling the F-16 in a low speed and low altitude environment,” the report says. The flight of two launched from Ellington Field in Houston, where they were attached to the 138th Fighter Wing, on the morning of March 22 with goals to practice a high-speed intercept by the pilot on the flight lead’s F-16 and to refuel from a tanker. After the practice intercept, the pilot spotted the small plane flying the holding pattern below the MOA floor at 1,700 feet and the flight lead told him to go and get the tail number.
They didn’t contact the GA aircraft or civilian air traffic control about the intercept. “During this unplanned and uncoordinated intercept, the MP failed to maintain positive aircraft control in a low airspeed state,” the report says. “The MP incorrectly assessed that the aircraft had departed controlled flight below uncontrolled ejection minimums, resulting in the MP ejecting.
Some top notch comments on the bottom of the page 
and the direct link to the US AAIB report: F-16CM, T/N 89-2142
Dan wrote:
Some top notch comments on the bottom of the page
Loved some of those:
“after an off-the-books intercept of a private light aircraft”
Why do we have IDIOTS flying our military aircraft?
-—————
Don’t all military pilots get regularly tested for recreational drugs?
-—————-
A double-tap of “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
-—————-
Isn’t an over-abundance of testosterone pretty much a prerequisite for the job?
Or should we blame Top Gun II?
ANG = Weekend Warriors. It’s not a job, its a hobby.
Essentially a tax payer funded jet flying club for inactive service pilots who make their living doing something else. Typically airline pilots, although probably not this guy since he had under 1400 hrs PIC.
Notwithstanding that a civil aircraft can operate legally within a MOA, without any radio contact, its a bit hilarious that the ANG guy went after a plane below the MOA, then lost control in doing so and crashed. He was just playing around but ANG won’t ever admit it. Instead it was done “with a training objective of accomplishing a low/slow Visual Identification (VID) intercept” Then he stalled and spun in because in addition to playing around he couldn’t fly the plane and retracted the flaps by mistake.
What’s $27 million of the taxpayer’s money and the safety of people flying along and minding their own business when it comes to having fun?
Imagine being the light plane pilot who was likely endangered by this nonsense – I wonder if he circled the guy and his parachute once he was on the ground? And then left
Or should we blame Top Gun II?
Imagine GA crew watching him flying nearby, “in C150 with 4th generation fighter?”
After the practice intercept, the pilot spotted the small plane flying the holding pattern below the MOA floor at 1,700 feet and the flight lead told him to go and get the tail number.
Bad things happen when you break the hard deck !
arj1 wrote:
Loved some of those:
Not to mention:
“I hope they [the civilian aircraft pilot] paint an F-16 silhouette on their fuselage….”
…. “Best comment I’ve ever seen on AVWEB”
Cobalt wrote:
Or should we blame Top Gun II?
Quite possibly. Fact is, what is shown there is not how these fighters are operated. I know some FA18 guys and they were more than outspoken about it. Hence, I never bothered to see the movie, as it appears to be based on the main actor’s wet dreams rather than reality.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Hence, I never bothered to see the movie, as it appears to be based on the main actor’s wet dreams rather than reality.
The movie really isn’t very good. Surprisingly, the followup is better.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Hence, I never bothered to see the movie, as it appears to be based on the main actor’s wet dreams rather than reality.
Sorry for the off-topic but if you only see movies because they reflect reality as closely as possible then I’m really sorry for you.
In fact some of the best movies of all time are taking place far removed from reality, such as Peter Jackson’s interpretation of Lord of the Rings or the original Star Wars trilogy.
Movies about really existing topics, such as Top Gun are also better for liberally interpreting the topic in a way that is fun and exciting to watch. If they were to stick as closely as possible to the subject matter, they’d be documentaries.
