And that means you are doing a good scan. . .like you are supposed to. My point stands.
“The Viper has way better fields of view than an slow-moving, low flying high wing bird. Nonetheless, I am sure they'll blame the dead guy”
F-16s have great visibility but they are still subject to LOS issues, the number one cause of mid-airs. A non-moving dot means you are on a collision course, be the non-moving dot being straight ahead or off-set. A non-moving dot is hard to see, especially small dots like small aircraft. A larger dot means a larger aircraft and that means the larger dot can be seen earlier (and further away) than a smaller dot.
Right now we don't know the circumstances of the mishap. Assessing blame is not appropriate at this time.
The mishap investigation will do their job. Fairly and without bias. Especially the military investigators. Speaking from personal experience investigating mishaps, we seek truth as we do not want to ignore facts that could prevent another mishap.
I don’t have as much faith in the investigative process as you do. Most of accidents I have seen were heavily coated in career-protecting whitewash.
Like I said, they will probably blame the poor schmuck in the Cessna and the whole chain of command will be absolved of all error.
Seen too many of these.
This mishap seems to have inspired a witch hunt with a preconceived notion it is the fault of the F-16 pilot. Why?
Am I not seeing this correctly?
Our pilots are not all perfect but they are working very hard to do their jobs with precision and professionalism under horrible pressures and with worn out aircraft. I am fiercely loyal to them.
Our military is in terrible shape. I see the boys do their jobs and cant help but feel sorry for them.