Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#21

Post by ycombinatrix »

joezydeco wrote: post #16
ranger_danger wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pilots have ipads and internet connections... can't they just have it check e.g. flightaware or similar tool for nearby aircraft and keep them alerted if something is getting too close?

Yes, that's called ADS-B. It's a huge improvement in avoiding collisions. But both planes need to be transmitting their location and vectors. The military plane was running silent.

Why would both planes have to be transmitting? The military plane can read the commercial plane's transponder.

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#23

Post by GolfPopper »

pixl97 wrote: post #19
goku12 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How considerate of them! That aside, comparisons with 'even' Iran or Israel is not very meaningful for US these days. Granted, both committed some very serious atrocities. But I don't remember Israel just arbitrarily blowing up every flotilla headed for Palestine. Meanwhile, the US administration treats small boats off the Venezuelan coast like targets of a duck hunt or something. The way they joke about it on TV is…

The people that elected Trump elected him because he doesn't care about the lives of the same people they hate.

Ironically, it turns out that they hate themselves, too.

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#24

Post by sfifs »

ycombinatrix wrote: post #21
joezydeco wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's called ADS-B. It's a huge improvement in avoiding collisions. But both planes need to be transmitting their location and vectors. The military plane was running silent.

Why would both planes have to be transmitting? The military plane can read the commercial plane's transponder.

You are assuming military pilots will pay attention enough to unilaterally notice and stay clear without making mistakes. In the Dulles disaster at least, this clearly didn't happen.

With transponders on, both aircraft (via TCAS) and the air traffic controllers are able to pay attention and avoid the situation, so much better chance of catching.

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#25

Post by [deleted] »

_jzlw wrote: post #4

"Outrageous" is an understatement. Why does it always seem like military aircraft get a free-pass to break FAA regulations, communicate with no one when in shared airspace, and endanger the lives of everyone in civilian aircraft without any repercussions? This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it doesn't always end in a near-miss.

[deleted]

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#26

Post by [deleted] »

_jzlw wrote: post #4

"Outrageous" is an understatement. Why does it always seem like military aircraft get a free-pass to break FAA regulations, communicate with no one when in shared airspace, and endanger the lives of everyone in civilian aircraft without any repercussions? This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it doesn't always end in a near-miss.

[deleted]

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#27

Post by JBiserkov »

goku12 wrote: post #8
_jzlw wrote: post #4

"Outrageous" is an understatement. Why does it always seem like military aircraft get a free-pass to break FAA regulations, communicate with no one when in shared airspace, and endanger the lives of everyone in civilian aircraft without any repercussions? This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it doesn't always end in a near-miss.

An aerial refueler flying so close to Venezuela [1] can't have been there with the best intentions. I don't think that they're too keen on advertising their presence or whereabouts. I know that some here absolutely hate any suggestions that the US military is capable of any evil. But you're getting very sanitized news. Even otherwise, they have already murdered 80+ Venezuelan civilians in international waters and we…

> An aerial refueler flying so close to Venezuela can't have been there with the best intentions. I don't think that they're too keen on advertising their presence or whereabouts.

Which is precisely why they should avoid flying INTO civilian aircraft.

Imagine if that refueler had stayed away from the JetBlue, we wouldn't be talking about it ;-)

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#28

Post by squigz »

sfifs wrote: post #24
ycombinatrix wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would both planes have to be transmitting? The military plane can read the commercial plane's transponder.

You are assuming military pilots will pay attention enough to unilaterally notice and stay clear without making mistakes. In the Dulles disaster at least, this clearly didn't happen. With transponders on, both aircraft (via TCAS) and the air traffic controllers are able to pay attention and avoid the situation, so much better chance of catching.

Presumably military aircraft have their own ATC?

This does seem insane from a civilian perspective, but I'm curious to know the military side of it. Is this totally normal and not something they worry about, or is this as crazy as it seems for everyone involved?

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#29

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

randerson wrote: post #18
goku12 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. The civilian planes fly on pre published routes and communicate with air traffic controllers in plain text That's called a flight plan. It's just a declaration of intent, so that the ATCs know that you're expected. There are many valid reasons for deviating from the flight plan. For example, technical difficulties, bad weather, last minute diversions etc. That makes it very unreliable to predict the aircraft's l…

If they deviate from their flight plan, don't they have to at least inform ATC to basically update the flight plan? I vaguely recall this from my PPL training about 20 years ago (I haven't been current for a long time) but I also never had to fly over international waters where I'd imagine you can't radio anyone so I don't know that that works.

> If they deviate from their flight plan, don't they have to at least inform ATC to basically update the flight plan

When on an IFR flight plan - at least domestically, especially in busy airspaces, the flight plan is mainly sort of a backup in case of lost-comms. You are typically vectored by ATC and your route may or may not be exactly what you filed. For example, in the SoCal area, the "standard" IFR routes can be pretty roundabout going around the approach/departure corridors of the main airports. But, if at any time the area is clear, ATC would typically clear you through a shorter routing.

I am not sure how it works for international routes. I know that for trans-oceanic routing, they typically make position reports over HF radio when over the ocean where there is no ADSB coverage.

Re: Pilot narrowly avoids 'midair collision' with US Air Force plane near Venezuela

#30

Post by goku12 »

JBiserkov wrote: post #27
goku12 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An aerial refueler flying so close to Venezuela [1] can't have been there with the best intentions. I don't think that they're too keen on advertising their presence or whereabouts. I know that some here absolutely hate any suggestions that the US military is capable of any evil. But you're getting very sanitized news. Even otherwise, they have already murdered 80+ Venezuelan civilians in international waters and we…

> An aerial refueler flying so close to Venezuela can't have been there with the best intentions. I don't think that they're too keen on advertising their presence or whereabouts. Which is precisely why they should avoid flying INTO civilian aircraft. Imagine if that refueler had stayed away from the JetBlue, we wouldn't be talking about it ;-)

Absolutely agreed. But the midair collision that happened at the Ronald Reagan Intl airport (DCA) in Washington DC in February doesn't really give me the confidence that they care that much. Especially given how furious the senior NTSB official Jennifer Homendy was at both the military and the FAA.
Post reply on HN