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.
and I should also add his Lookout is appalling. That alone would prompt a fail !!
Understood, David Chadderton. Thanks for that. If they had indeed been operating in military airspace within Italy, would the controller on a military frequency have been speaking English? Also, it sounded to me like the first controller had a French accent rather than Italian, so I wonder if they had been transiting through French airspace prior to the incident…
Marc Stevens Yes Marc, (almost) everyone speaks English (except the French – lol). I can see this issue now that I watch it again. The FIGHTER CONTROLLER, clears the flight to "Block 3" – in mil parlance that's 30-39k ft. She clears them to 36,000ft at 0:10. The pilot replies FL360 and you can see that they climb to FL360 (look at the vertical dial in the RHS of the HUD). BUT, the RadAlt (just above, on the RHS), which, whilst not perfectly accurate at that height, is close enough, shows their height ASL to be approx 33,000 ft. The 2 F16s are actually 3000 ft (real world feet) away from the height given to them by the controller.
This fact was not picked up by any of the controllers because the lead aircraft's Mode C was not working (probably switched off – a common error!), so it was assumed the F16s were at the cleared height of 36,000ft. Sadly, once the pilot had started this chain of events, it was not broken either by his wingman or the 2-3 controllers (or indeed their superviosr). A poor show all round if you ask me.
And, FYI, Grosseto is NW Italy, very close to France, so it's entirely possible there is a French voice on the RT
David Chadderton, thanks again for the very helpful insights. I had indeed noted that the lead had mentioned 33,000, but I only saw 30,000 on his HUD (didn't know about the RA alt, I'll look for that), so I was somewhat confused by it. Your explanations are now helping me to put the puzzle together much better. Grazie!
Just listening to this again! The WHOLE conversation is UTTERLY unprofessional and littered with errors. The controller asks the lead pilot to get #2 to squawk 3426 (at 5:15), he replies "squawking 4620 with Ident", yet he wasn't told to "Ident" and was aksed for the #2 to pick up the squawk. Once the controller sees the #2 squawking FL360, he asks (at 5:40),
"Check your altitude and confirm 320 steady".
Dissecting that statement – it is littered with too many RT errors.
1. A flight level IS NOT an altitude. Never never never.
2. Aircraft "STEADY" on headings, they LEVEL at heights, FLs etc. There is a reason for this – Steady 320 means "I am steady on a heading of 3-2-0 deg". The controller should have asked if they were "LEVEL at FL320". If that's what he meant.
This incident was caused by incorrect terminology being used by everyone concerned. RT indiscipline can and does cost lives. We invented all these phrases for a damned good reason – to keep us all safe!
David Chadderton, any idea why the airliner wasn't painted by the lead's radar?
David Chadderton He certainly fails on RT. You are right about that, a rather common malaise. Also the climb readbacks leave a lot to be desired. My comment about the great airspace debate is that he could be talking to civ ATC on MILFREQ, as you know, they use them too. If not on class A what airspace is he on? MTA is an area, not an airspace class. What ALSET or QNH do you use on an off-shore MOA/MTA? Why put everyone on greater collision risk by not using CLass A convention if the airspace is open to civilian traffic, as the near-miss airspace in question seems to be? Just having fun here…
Daniel Melendez No probem. If he is still within the confines of D120A then a civilian aircraft has no business being there and is in contravention of every rule. MTAs are classes of Airspace (you'll forgive me if I can't remember – I left the RAF in 2007!) and are activated between certain hours, When they're active, entry by unauthorised aircaft is prohibited. The truth is that we will never be sure about the class of airspace BUT I am utterly convinced that the pilot's inaccurate RT procedures started the ball rolling and was exacerbated by poor listening skills on the part of the controller(s).
Secondary to this, it's also apparent that they're LEAVING their exercise area. They "Fence out" (make their weapons safe on leaving the area) and I would wager my house that the lead pilot had disabled his Mode C whilst conducting their ACM (air combat maneouvres) and simply did not switch it on again, thus making the controller's job harder.
Marc Stevens We often used to conduct our ACM in aircraft with unserviceable radars – just depends on the exercise and training aims. We also used to plan contingency exercises in case a radar failed in flight – this may also have been the case. It's rare, but possible, that both aircraft had unserviceable radars.
Also – at 2:15 the controller clears the flight direct to PONZA but the leader (presumably due to shortage of fuel) overrides his clearance and continues his own plan, at the wornf height and without a Mode C for the flight. He is the architect of his own near miss.
David Chadderton That certainly matches. Formally speaking a MTA/MOA is not an airspace class but a special use of airspace (SUA). In the US, MOAs are outside Class A by regulation. MTA is the UK term. What you describe seems more like Restricted airspace (at least in US airspace). In any case, this seems to be operator error.
Daniel Melendez I know, I use MTA as a general term as the actual name varies from country to country, as do the exact regulations. Anyway, I'll sign off and leave you gents with one of my videos!! (I get nostalgic every now and again ..!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll6ah5NBrmA
Excellent, David Chadderton! I really enjoyed the video, thanks. BTW, you might have interest in the book I wrote about my Dad: http://www.marchstevens.com and http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no4/page92-eng.asp
Marc Stevens I'll take a look!! He flew Hampdens? I flew the RAF's Lancaster bomber at airshows for 2 years 🙂
David Chadderton , yes, he was a Hamopden pilot. Did you know Brian Nicholl at Coningsby? He gave me a tour when I visited about 1989. He showed me his Hampden wreckage at East Kirkby and then invited me to Coningsby (where Dad had belly-landed a badly-damaged Hampden with 3 injured crew Aug '41, upon return from the Ruhr). Saved them all, and one named his only son after my Dad. I've been a big supporter of both the BCM and the Canadian Lanc for many years.
Marc Stevens No, don't know Brian. I was at CGY from 2000-2004 but was instructing at Cranwell when I was on BBMF. I took a vacation in Toronto back in '06 but didn't get to see the Lanc there, sadly. My first stint at CGY was converting to the TornadoF3 in 1990 – the name is familiar but I can't quite place it. One of my FB friends & BBMF Spitfire pilot, Paddy O'Flynn will undoubtedly know him though!
I still don't get what the difference between "cleared for 36000 ft and FL360 is? Why was that so easy to misinterpret?
Sadly, Brian died (cancer, I believe), perhaps in the 90's. 🙁
Sounds like a Italiy Adventure Airspace
What? First the difference between FL360 and 36,000 is negligible. Either way the controller would never be working with both units. They are obviously above the transition altitude so everything is FL.
I remember when I started to learn to fly, that the fighter one time had fun to follow my Cessna 152 and played with me… For me it wasn't that funny, because my first flight in solotime, but when I look back, they always take care, that I had no problems with the jetblasts …
I'm just wondering about the authenticity of this. The closing speed of the oncoming aircraft seems way too slow – as if the aircraft we're in is almost stationary. I would expect such a speed to be around 600-1000kts yet it looks clearly slower. Also, if we're in a commercial jet, the roll rate to avoid the oncoming jet seems very high for a commercial jet. Perhaps someone can explain?
yeah the high roll rate is due to the fact you're looking through the HUD of the fast jet not an airliner. The closing rate seems quite plausible, you're right on the speeds but that is what it looks like. The rate of closure is only really apparent in the last second or so as the scale becomes obvious. These things do happen, I've had a TCAS RA (traffic collision system giving us pitch commands to avoid a collision) in the cruise over Germany against a Typhoon. The trouble is fast jets use up a huge amount of sky and they fail to remember some times that they're sharing it with lots of other users.
figurati Riccardo! indagheranno come fecero con Ustica ….
David. I hear the controller use the expression 36,000' a couple of times (but if a controller tells me this I'd confirm they meant FL360) , but at no time do I hear an altimeter setting being given at all. Above the transition altitude all pilots are flying on 1013/29.92 – airliners, military, even a hot air balloon. He's not going to be out there flying on a local altimeter (which wasn't given) at 36,000. If they are flying like that, I'm not flying in Europe again!
There are several squawk code changes. It's common practice to turn the transponder to standby to re-enter the new code and then turn back on the transponder (in mode C- altitude reporting). Maybe the pilot didn't return the mode C back on, and maybe his transponder wasn't working, but he did check in with each controller with his assigned flight-level of FL360. But see below….**
Personally I think the controllers didn't do their job well enough, there were several quick hand-offs, they didn't use the correct phraseology. The pilot was at the correct flight level, and I don't agree that theres a misunderstanding about 36,000 and FL360.
** It's most likely the transponder wasn't working at all, hence the repeated request to squawk a code to be identified, and as it wasn't working there was no mode C, either for the controller (who would have seen an assigned altitude bust of only a few hundred feet, let alone 4,000) or for the TCAS to work, to give an alert for the oncoming traffic.
Additionally, if the oncoming airliner had been able to pick up the transponder of the F-16 they would have also taken evasive action – their TCAS would have instructed the pilot to climb/descend as appropriate, irregardless of ANY ATC instruction. In effect the aircraft was out there off radar (except as a primary target) and blind to other aircraft.
Summary? Transponder either in SBY of defective. Everything else wasn't pretty, but I don't see anything additional that caused this incident. The controllers could have done a better job between hand-offs. The pilot should have questioned the controller. But I honestly believe the controller would have just come back and said FL360.
If the pilot had known his transponder wasn't working, he'd have asked his #2 to squawk. And as soon as he did, the controllers noticed their mistake.
FLIGHT LEVELS VS ALTITUDE
Ben Eidem You are wrong. FL360 relates to the SPS of 29.92 or 1013Mb. 36000ft is 36,000 ACTUAL feet ASL based on a pressure setting at that Lat/Long. and is often NOT
NEGLIGIBLE. A difference of 30Mb equates to 900 feet in ACTUAL POINT IN SPACE difference. An aircraft at 36,000 ft is only at the same altitude as one at FL360 when the QNH for that point on the ground is 29.92/1013mb. For those of you not understanding this I am available for groundschool refresher courses.
MILITARY OPERATIONS
Military aircraft operating above transition altitude do not always work to 29.92/1013 – FACT. TA varies from country to country. I think I'm right in saying that it's 18,000 ft in the USA/Canada (not been there for some time!) but it's 3000ft and 10,000ft in many other parts of the world. ALL military aircraft are required to operate in ICAO airspace and SHOULD therefore know all relevant procedures – in my experience, they do.
But you guys are only commenting from a Civvie perspective – if a mil aircraft was engaged in a combat exercise, requiring rapid changes of height it would not be safe for all aircraft engaged (maybe 10-10) to be changing altimeter settings each time they passed TA. Put simply, DOGFIGHTING DOES NOT TAKE PLACE AT A FLIGHT LEVEL.
THE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT
The cause of this is NOT the transponder failure. What would you have blamed this on BEFORE transponders. The root cause of this incident is RT indiscipline, first by the Lead Pilot and secondly by the controllers (they neither corrected him nor challenged his poor replies).
Added to that, the fact that the lead aircraft seems to want to do his own thing – he gets cleared direct to PONZA but overrides the controller!! They tell his number 2 to pick up the squawk but his reply is that he's squawking with ident – that's NOT what he was instructed, but yet again he's doing his own thing.
And thirdly, perhaps most damning, is that NONE of the 3 aircraft involved were looking out effectively – let's forgive the larger aircraft a little, as F16s are amongst the smaller fighters out there, but both F16 pilots were plainly not looking out effectively (Aviation Rule #1 – Lookout!).
Great explanatioons, David Chadderton, and we civvy pilots thank you. For those of us not in the UK, "RT" means radio telephone (i.e. radio).
RADALT
Mike VeDepo This is wrong. EVERY aircraft flies ABOVE SEA LEVEL. On closer inspection, the Radalt is probably off because of the inaccurracies as the aircaft pitches, decreasing the angle of incidence and therefore resulting in an incorrect reading.
RADAR SERVICEAILITY
At the very least, the #2's radar is serviceable and working. How do I know? Because at 0:28 the no.2 locks his radar onto the lead aircraft and calls "Buddy Lock". The lead replies "Bubdy Spike". This indicates the the #2 has locked his radar onto the lead and the lead has corresponding indications on his Radar Warning Receiver.
DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.
You are ALL assuming that this incident took place in CLASS A airspace. We simply don't know that. From the HUD, it appears the F16s were operating in D120 and were warned during the video that D115 was Active. Maybe by not routing DCT PONZA as instructed these guys passed through D115? Maybe they were still in D120 and maybe they were told to level at 36,000ft to deconflict with another aircraft at FL360. Without a map, I cannot say for sure, but ALL my points are valid;
1. FL360 is NOT 36000 ft. If you've been taught this, you have been taught wrongly. An altitude is ALWAYS based on a QNH. A Flight Level is a Flight Level – the 2 are NOT interchangeable.
2. The Pilot's RT discipline is dreadful.
3. The controller's RT discipline is poor
4. The #2's radar WAS working
5. Both F16 pilots displayed appalling lookout.
Ben Eidem I have repeatedly explained WHY FL360 is not the same as 36,000ft. It simply isn't – you are wrong. I have 20 years experience, half of which I spent as one of the RAF's most senior air combat instructors. I was an instructor of instructors. I can categorically tell you that 36000ft IS NOT FL360.
Imagine an aircraft at a certain distance above sea level, with 36,000ft on the altimeter. IF that aircraft has the QNH set (let's say 963mb, 50mb difference from 1013), then is is at a point 36,000 ft ASL. If the aircraft, without moving, winds the altimeter up to 1013, then the point in space occupied by the aircraft will not change, BUT the reading on the altimeter will be 1500ft different.
THESE TWO POINTS OF TERMINOLOGY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. If any of you here are pilots and believe me to be wrong I suggest you take a trip back to flight school.