SHARE THIS > This almost mid-air collision between a fighter jet and an airliner probably had all pilots involved (and maybe a few passengers) skip a beat when they noticed it happening. The video is taken from the fighter’s cockpit and around 3.50 minutes into the video you can see the airliner coming almost head on, and a little after that the fighter pilot banks hard left to avoid a collision. The Italian pilot was talking to ATC, but my Italian isn’t that great to pick up exactly what they were talking about. Feel free to leave a comment if you can translate what was being said. Watch the video below around the 3.50 minutes mark.
Skip to around the 3.50 minutes mark.
VIDEO: An Almost Head-on Mid-Air Collision Between A Fighter Jet and Airliner Had Probably All Pilots Involved Skip A Beat
SkilledPilots.com
From 03:15 on you can pretty well see the contrail of the airliner on th far right side, wandering left in the turn and then growing bigger.
That looked like an F-16A's HUD.
The Pilot was like "Mamma Mia we almosta Crasha"
The Pilot was like "Mamma Mia we almosta Crasha"
Very close indeed. Part of the problem seems to be the lead fighter's transponder, which does not seem to be working. But ATC did clear him to 360, so how come they had converging aircraft at the same altitude? At the same time, I have to wonder why the fighter's radar did not paint this target.
are they ivoa atc controllers???
negative sir f16 italian air force
The F16 wasn't cleared to FL360. He was cleared to 36,000 ft (at 0:13) – there can be a big difference – the Pilot has confused this issue by not repeating the clearance correctly (0:19).
Clearance to 36000 is repeated again at 1:38 and again repeated incorrectly by the pilot at 1:50. the controller AGAIN clears him to 36,000 at 1:59. Plainly the pilot is unclear of the difference and sadly TWO controllers fail to get a grip of this fact as they're so used to seeing 'numbers' on a screen from the aircraft's Mode C. Bad show all round, and back to flight training for the pilot!!! (Clearly I didn't teach him!!).
Mamma Mia 🙂
Not following. Above 18kft all altitudes are FL's. Right?
Daniel Melendez – Only in the civilian world. For operational deconfliction, crews often use 1000's ft. Restricted areas often have height limits on 1000's ft – crews need to reference the Regional Pressure Setting (the lowest QNH for a given area) against the SPS of 1013mb and calculate the height difference between the FL and the actual height (using 30ft per mb). A QNH of 980 Mb results in approx 1000ft height difference between FL360 and 36,000 – now ok, that's not equal to the separation required, but clearly the F16 pilot is not clear on this difference!
But this was Class A IFR ATS. What is the source regulation on that? See nothing in AIM about it.
David Chadderton Thanks for that, David. In my country (Canada), we are taught that all altitudes above 18,000 are expressed as Pressure Altitude (ie. Flight Levels). Therefore, I assume that 36,000 feet and FL 360 are one in the same, since the altimeter in both cases will be set at 29.92. I cannot speak for Europe, however.
They are talking just before they passed, saying do you see that? Wow they just passed between us! I saw them earlier but thought they were at least a thousand feet below us, instead they were coming straight for us. As best as I can translate
After atc told them to descend to 320, the pilot says that's why he passed through our fingers, meaning so close.
Any flight in Class A must use pressure altitude. The IAF F16 was in Class A and IFR. I am not aware of different rules in Europe. Am I missing something?
Marc Stevens – Not in a military training area they're not. Categorically, 36,000ft IS NOT THE SAME as FL360 – whatever the class of airspace, the two phrases are NOT interchangeable, never have been. And if you've been taught that they can be used either/or, you need a better instructor !! 🙂
The upper limit of a MTA may well be a FL, but military exercises taking place inside the areas (in the USA, Canada AND Europe) regularly use 1000s ft INSIDE the Restricted Areas – fighter crews often tranistion rapidly for 30,000ft+ to low level in these areas and it is MORE confusing and dangerous to ascertain deconfliction levels around 23-25,000 ft. Fighter crews are often engaged in combat at those levels and going 'heads in' to switch alitimeter settings is not safe.
And @Daniel – I see nothing on the video to indicate what airspace the F16 is operating in (although I assume you're correct, given the presence of a larger aircraft).
The fact is, the pilot is 100% wrong and it is very unfortunate that;
1. his transponder wasn't working
2. ATC did not pick up either his incorrect read back or the fact his Mode C was unserviceable.
And here's the next issue. We hear the pilots conducting Weapons Checks ("Fence" checks) – part of this check is a transponder check by the wingman. The #2 should have confiirmed correct M1/3 squawk … we can assume that either this was done correctly and it was *just* the Mode C that had failed, or that it wasn't done correctly by the #2 and the Lead aircraft's transpaonder was U/S.
David, this incident took place in the civilian world. In my country (Canada), we are taught to use only Pressure Altitude above 18,000 feet. As a result, 36,000 and FL 360 can be construed as having the identical meaning. And why were two converging aircraft at the same altitude anyway? The ATC guys seem to have missed something pretty serious here.
I should qualify my comments – I am an ex RAF Tornado Air Combat & Tactics Instructor and Air Navigation Instructor with experience of exercises in Canada, the USA, Italy and many other countries. 🙂
David, I don't disagree about 36,000 meaning something different in a designated military training area such as an ADIZ. But clearly this 2-ship flight was in transit in civilian airspace. Am I missing something???
David Chadderton My inference as to the airspace the F16 is at comes from the fact that he is being vectored by ATC. He does not seem to be MARSA in a MTA so I cannot understand on what basis he would not use FL convention. I understand now your comment about using regional ALSET but that is an excepted practice and is not applicable to IFR.
Okay, David, I see where you're coming from. But does civilian ATC routinely issue clearances to military a/c operating in civilian airspace in thousands of feet? Not trying to be smart, just trying to understand. I myself am a measly low-time glider pilot. And the son of a highly-decorated wartime RAF bomber pilot mentioned in at least 10 books. 🙂
Marc Stevens That would be contrary to the regs. The system cannot work unless all are at the same altitude datum in IFR within Class A.
I thought all aviation communication was to be in English.
Daniel, that's exactly my point. 🙂
Daniel Melendez You both assume that this incident took place in Class A airspace. I have been operating in an MTA on many occasions when civilians transited through without clearance. It does happen!
A quick online check tells me that these aircraft are probably departing Grosseto en-route to a training area and get handed over to Roma Military 262.625 at 2:25.
And I repeat, 36,000 is NEVER the same as a Flight Level. Anyone using it in Class A (IFR) airspace is using an incorrect and not recognised term. They might as well say 36 goldfish. There is no occasion when these terms can be the same.
Nothing changes my original point though – the pilot is using incorrect terminology and had he been a student of mine he'd have failed the mission due to Safety. We trained many IAF pilots in the UK in the early 2000s and most of the aircrew were very good. This guy is not operating to the standard I would have required.