Almost Mid Air between a Tornado and one Tucano

[Silverbolt 104]

"For over a routine training mission, where a Panavia Tornado GR4 to simulate an attack with bombs against a small airfield and return to its base, the supersonic jet of the Royal Air Force (RAF, Air Force, UK), was surprised by a Shorts Tucano turboprop training, now only 10 meters from his cockpit at a speed of 560km / h.

The images were made from the Head Up Display (HUD, digital display at eye level) of the Tornado, which capture the poor second in the Tucano appears on your field of vision, from left to right. To predict the possible and tragic accident, the pilot turns the Tornado to the right, the 800km / h, avoiding the collision. After the incident, the crew of the Tornado came into contact with the pilots of the Tucano using the frequency of emergency.

to see the planes hit, the result would be two huge balls of fire and four pilots killed. The Defense Ministry said that investigations have been opened to ascertain the reason for the incident. "

 

 

Edited February 18, 2009 by Silverbolt

[johnrey 0]

Whoah!That was close!And where the hell did that come from?Why is it not picked up by the Tornado's radar?Dang, I have a lot of questions!

[Silverbolt 104]

Whoah!That was close!And where the hell did that come from?Why is it not picked up by the Tornado's radar?Dang, I have a lot of questions!

 

the tornado could be flying in AG mode only...

where was the ATC?

 

 

if it happened, we could calling this week the "collision week"

[FastCargo 412]

You're assuming ATC would have seen either of them. Or that they were under ATC positive control.

 

FC

[Silverbolt 104]

i thought at least inside the country the safe would came first

 

 

so, there was nobody managing them during the exercice?

 

ins't normal someone to coordinate everybody in the air to avoid mid air collisions?

 

i mean, i'm not inside of how those exercices are made but i thought that were an safety level to be stablished during those exercices.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Silverbolt

[FastCargo 412]

Depends what kind of exercise and where.

 

FC

[Silverbolt 104]

wow, this is madness....traine without coordination in a populated area,maybe in a desertfied one but i think those guys need to be inside of who is up there to avoid this things

 

Offcourse, speculate about it will not help :blush2:

 

thanks FC :D

Edited February 18, 2009 by Silverbolt

[Nesher 629]

Damn close!! :X

lucky nothing happened

[+SkippyBing 8]

The video is about two years old.

I'd say both aircraft were conducting independent training, i.e. not part of an exercise, the low flying booking system would have informed them that there were other aircraft in the general area, but then it always does. It'd be pretty hard to train effectively if you had to remain under ATC control and at those sort of altitudes it'd be a very intermittent radar contact at best.

[+Piecemeal 450]

I'd say at least one of those pilots needed fresh Y-fronts upon returning to base.

 

"Better make that a boil wash, Luv - those skidmarks look like they need some TLC"

[+ST0RM 145]

The video is about two years old.

I'd say both aircraft were conducting independent training, i.e. not part of an exercise, the low flying booking system would have informed them that there were other aircraft in the general area, but then it always does. It'd be pretty hard to train effectively if you had to remain under ATC control and at those sort of altitudes it'd be a very intermittent radar contact at best.

 

Another point is that most low-level routes are VFR, so you use the "see and avoid" rule. Obviously there was a scheduling error for that route.

 

We've had similiar conflicts along some of the local air refueling tracks with tankers and their receivers cruising along a track when ATC warns of traffic at the same altitude block, coming at them. It was another tanker with an AWACS in tow. Apparently the owner of the A/R track (the AWACs unit) did not schedule it for themselves because "we own it, so we shouldnt have to schedule it for ourselves". Duh...

 

-S

[GASCAN39 7]

Close calls happen all over and where you least expect it....I remember an up close and personal encounter with an F-16 from Hill flying low level from Vance AFB. I was fortunate enough to get (beg) a ride with a UH-1 from Ft Sill to the Airshow at Vance in '85. I had moved one of the rear seats to face forward just aft and between the AC and Peter Pilot for our return to Sill. After being up for some time, they mentioned to me to keep an eye peeled for fast movers. (Hell, the Vipers were still preflighting when we left VAFB, maybe half hour head start?) Wasn't long - I scanned to the right, and saw one, before I could call F-16, three o'clock, he was passing across our nose same altitude. And no joy on his wingman. The AC just pointed to the ground in front of us, and I got to experience a little negative G rather abruptly. We happened to be passing over some Native American museum with an outdoor tour, and you know - you can hear a Huey from miles away. So someone HAD to be looking skyward, and had to do a double take as we appeared to make a gun run on them!!!

 

I have heard of many close calls in Iraq, the Army and Marines fly their helos differently, most flight ops to FOBs are at night, and all of these birds are converging on a tight LZ at night, approaching from different directions. The potential is there.......................

[+SkippyBing 8]

Another point is that most low-level routes are VFR, so you use the "see and avoid" rule. Obviously there was a scheduling error for that route.

 

We don't have low-level routes as such in the UK, basically if it's not an avoid or part of an avoidance area (e.g. around London) you can fly where ever you want. There are a few choke points where the traffic direction is controlled but even there you don't book a time slot, the low flying booking system essentially books aircraft into a geographic region for a given time slot. I think there is some upper limit for each region but I've never been told I couldn't book into an area although I think some of the tac training areas may have stricter limits as they also have stricter timing i.e. +/- 5 mins vs +/- 15 on your entry and exit time.

Has to be said most of the time it feels like the system is there to deal with complaints from the public rather than de-conflict aircraft!

 

Happy memories of carrying out a dummy attack on a cargo ship in the Bristol Channel only to be overflown by a couple of Tornado GR.4s blissfully unaware of our presence. We called a guns kill.

[+ST0RM 145]

Happy memories of carrying out a dummy attack on a cargo ship in the Bristol Channel only to be overflown by a couple of Tornado GR.4s blissfully unaware of our presence. We called a guns kill.

 

Classic!

 

On a similar note. On my last deployment, we were orbiting in our designated track over Iraq. It was time for our scheduled refueling with a pair of F-16Cs and we heard them on the radios asking the controller for a BRA (Bearing, Range, Altitude) for a us. Long story short, he got within a mile of us, but was looking in the wrong part of the sky. He queried the controller again, which was overheard by us and my pilot promptly replies, "look left and up". The Viper driver gives a curt "roger" and forms up. After we got him on the boom, I tell him we claim a guns kill on him. We all got a good laugh.

 

-S

[+Florian 394]

Similar incident happened in Germany on January, 13th 1989 but with a bad end. Eight AlphaJet of the Fighter Bomber Wing 43, based in Oldenburg, conducted a training attack on the german air force base Wittmund, as suddenly a british Tornado, based in Brueggen, crossed their way and collided with two AlphaJets. The Tornado hit the ground only 200 meters outside a small village, sadly killing both of the crew. One german pilot ejected the first AlphaJet, the second one managed to land the aircraft in Wittmund.

The german air force was not informed about the british Tornado, while the Royal Air Force said, the Tornado had no clearance for this area at all. All aircraft operated under visuell flight conditions. The reason for this tragedy where never found.

German News Article about the crash

[Silverbolt 104]

Too bad AmoFlook, that's why i think is stupidity with irresponsability do this kind of things withou ATC coverage in peace time , over a populated area.

[+SkippyBing 8]

Too bad AmoFlook, that's why i think is stupidity with irresponsability do this kind of things withou ATC coverage in peace time , over a populated area.

 

Tends to make it a bit confusing when you go to war and suddenly find ATC aren't playing though.

In the Brueggen example it sounds like the Tornado was lost, I'm not saying it's impossible but most ATC services wouldn't have been able to track him at 200 feet. Also there's no requirement for anyone to use an ATC service outside controlled airspace, heck there're large areas of the UK where ATC don't actually have you on radar and you basically get a traffic service which consists of the controller telling you what he thinks is in the area.

[Silverbolt 104]

agree, but...populated areas? why a awacs couldn't manange it? or maybe an TCAS?

[+SkippyBing 8]

Military aircraft tend not to have TCAS because it's not exactly stealthy, and it was in '89 so I'm not even sure it was invented.

Pretty much all of Europe is a populated area if you're doing 400kts+, seriously look on google earth, there're little villages everywhere.

As for AWACS there aren't the numbers available to provide ATC to aircraft in the low flying system and carry out their primary role, during an exercise there probably would be one on task but both these examples were day to day training.

[Silverbolt 104]

Military aircraft tend not to have TCAS because it's not exactly stealthy, and it was in '89 so I'm not even sure it was invented.

Pretty much all of Europe is a populated area if you're doing 400kts+, seriously look on google earth, there're little villages everywhere.

 

yeah, i know, that's why is a good deal traine in other countries, or remote lands, AFAIK, the frenches have one unit in chad(yeah, because that video )

 

 

As for AWACS there aren't the numbers available to provide ATC to aircraft in the low flying system and carry out their primary role, during an exercise there probably would be one on task but both these examples were day to day training.

 

still think it's madness, Irresponsibility(Like play with other's lifes) and this let almost no space to fail.

 

offcourse i'm saying this because i live in a huge country with free space(and an old airliner system) , this such of thing with military plane is rare to happen, and i don't even thing such of thing happen in last 20 years here. ATC is military here

 

it's not guarantee of non-accident happening, but safety should never be putted in second plane.

 

too bad we had a mid air between civi planes 2 years ago, but was a sequence of fails and not one only fail that result in a disaster, but if both sides wasn't so irresponsible and that could decrease the chace to that didn't happen.

 

 

you know, it's just give a chance to everything work as it supposed to and not play with other's life.

 

Edited February 26, 2009 by Silverbolt

[FastCargo 412]

it's not guarantee of non-accident happening, but safety should never be putted in second plane.

 

You really don't comprend how the world works, do you?

 

You want to be safe? Don't fly.

 

We put safety in something less than first place everytime we fly (hell, most of the time when we drive too).

 

FC

[Silverbolt 104]

Rgr, in this case i'll buy an armoured unbrella

Edited February 26, 2009 by Silverbolt

[FastCargo 412]

Perhaps you should.

 

Let me give you a real world example.

 

Do you wear a helmet everytime you ride your bicycle?

 

Have you installed a rollcage in your car? Or do you wear a full nomex suit and helmet when you drive everyday?

 

Have you worn a parachute when you fly commerically?

 

Or do you wear a oxygen mask when walking around your city?

 

If you said no to ANY one of these questions...you've just put something ahead of safety.

 

FC