128
That's twice in one week that a military aircraft was in the flight path of a commercial aircraft in the US. In both instances, collision was averted by the commercial pilot taking evasive maneuvers.
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
128 points (98.5% liked)
News
31294 readers
2488 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Indeed. “The FAA is investigating the event…”
I actually saw this on TV earlier and took over 2 hours for me to find something online.
Indeed. “The FAA is investigating the event…”
A møøse once bit my airplane....
😂😂😂 …so glad no one was seriously injured ‘cause I’m LMAO
Were the military jets on flightradar24? They often aren't. As far as we know, we don't know the military craft didn't take maneuvers. Generally, as long as both pilots see the other craft, they'll both take maneuvers. There are rules on who goes up and who goes down. I just doubt the military planes were playing chicken because a midair crash won't go well for them either
This article makes it sound like it was.
The planes were 4.86 miles apart at their closest point, according to FlightRadar24.
You're right. I found it in FR24 from the tail number in your link. Looks like the Hunter (N335AX) turned right at the same time SWA1496 dipped, although I have no idea if the Hunter was simply realigning itself for landing. The Hunter was ahead of SW. July 25, 2025 at 19:03 UTC, over Russ. SW was climbing NE, the Hunter was descending WSW. The altitude status has too low a refresh rate and low precision, though I don't know if premium subscription makes that better
Both flights on flightradar24 are linked in the article. No need to speculate.
The original link didn't work for me. Found the tail in another link. I'm just a casual FR24 user that clicks planes to see what's overhead. Didn't know you could search by tail number. I get a fair amount of military helicopter activity over me but they often are unidentified and not tracked. Something about low altitude I guess.
Though I have seen/heard/tracked a P-8A circling above at 18k for a couple hours, which is spooky as shit at midnight.
Usually they are because they need to have their transponders on for this exact reason. They usually turn them off when they're entering no fly zones / going on missions. During the build up to Iran firing missiles on US airbases in Qatar you could watch a lot of German and British military planes fly close to the border, turn off their transponders, then reappear a while later on the other side of the no fly zone.
Kudos to the pilot
I assure you, the pilot forgot about the issue as soon as the plane landed, other than being mildly annoyed and bitching to his buddies. It's really not a big deal. A random geriatric cirrus pilot in any class c airspace in any part of america has caused more of of an issue than this did.
If only some technology existed already to keep this from happening weekly, perhaps some kind of informational map screen with exact down-to-the-fucking-pixel position of every plane in the area along with their headings and vertical speeds.
Don't worry, only 20 more similar incidents till they have the AI 30% trained!
Good luck out there, pilots! The shareholders are counting on you!
To be fair, the pilot was responding to Resolution Advisories from the peer to peer TCAS system. The Resolution Advisories are loud and intrusive, and they tell the pilots exactly how fast they need to climb out descend. FAA rules require pilots to obey the Resolution Advisories instead of ATC if there is a conflict.
Are they really required to obey?
I was under the impression that as PIC you can tell ATC that you are unable to follow instructions but you better be able to back it up later (ie. Flying VFR and ATC tells you to fly into a cloud). Following TCAS over ATC is definitely defensible unlike the famous 1NR. I don’t know if it’s required but it certainly seems like a good idea
Edit: I skimmed the AC from 1993 wrt TCAS:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/ac120-55A.pdf
Again I skimmed not read so don’t take my next statement as proof of anything, especially if you will operate as PIC:
Generally speaking, follow TCAS unless doing so would be more dangerous
Follow RA instructions to the extent required. Communicate with ATC as soon as practical. ATC is not formally providing traffic separation service to you until you are back to following their instructions.
Always take any action needed to ensure the safety of flight, even if it's against an RA.
AIM is not regulation, but it certainly reflects the FAA's view of pilot training.
Air traffic controllers have access to sophisticated radar systems that provide an overview of the airspace they control, and they have communication tools to coordinate flight paths with the air crew. Pilots lack the tools necessary to get an overview of the airspace, so they have to rely on air traffic controllers to guide the aircraft through congested airspace.
Got it from an old article that’s quite informative.
I agree with @mkwt…
authoritarians hate it when the population can travel
making it scary as shit for air travel, functionally no trains, and highways disintegrating really has accomplished that goal
While there are huge issues in ATC and military aviation, 5 miles is pretty damn far apart for planes not on a collision course. The (IFR) standard is 3 miles of separation within 40 miles of the radar site and 5 miles separation beyond that. So that could be within standard separation.
Yeah it's by the book. and not a real concern. But the media is picking up on SOP and having issues because it sounds scary to those that don't know.
Were it not for recent stories and the general vibe, no one would have even noticed other than the weird feeling you get in your tummy when a plane moves in a way you didn't expect. And that happens a lot. Bigger moves are made regularly to correct wind shear or avoid turbulence.