Maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way so please correct me if I am wrong.
1. The civilian planes fly on pre published routes and communicate with air traffic controllers in plain text
1. Any covert military operation has access to these plans
1. I understand that there may be reasons why military planes might want to fly undetected but given they know where the civilian planes are and where they are flying, it should be trivial for the military ships and planes to avoid those areas.
> 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 location. You have to rely on your radar instead. The Military has some of the best radars around - especially on AEW&CS aircrafts and ships that stay close to conflict zones at all times.
> 1. I understand that there may be reasons why military planes might want to fly undetected but given they know where the civilian planes are and where they are flying, it should be trivial for the military ships and planes to avoid those areas.
Did you know that the Ronald Reagan Intl airport (DCA) saw one 'close call' between a civilian airliner and a military helicopter every month for the 13 year period from 2011 to 2024? [1]. That's close to 150 near disasters in total, for consecutive months for more than a decade! This is ridiculous!
Clearly, it's not a question if they can stay clear to avoid an incident. It's a question of if anyone cares at all.
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.
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?
Even if the military aircraft could read the ADS-B from the commercial plane, they were flying with their night vision goggles on. It's very unlikely that they would have seen all the instruments and could very well have missed the display. And since the two aircrafts were flying approximately at right angles to each other, the warning may have been degraded. (I'm not very sure about this point though. Needs confirmation.)
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.
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?
From what I have seen, I believe that both types of aircrafts are controlled by the same ATC. Otherwise, the two ATCs will have to coordinate among themselves to create non intersecting vectors for each aircraft - which sounds needlessly tedious. But the military does have its own ATCs in many areas. They usually separate the airspace into 'civilian corridors' and 'military corridors', each under the control of the respective ATCs. In conflict zones though, the military operates entirely under their own control. The concept of ATC becomes a bit blurred here. The aircrafts are vectored either by ship-based controllers or more frequently by AEW&CS aircrafts. This is what I assume was happening with the tanker in the story. They were near Venezuela and the Curacao ATC had no information about the tanker.
Wouldn't that make it an announced war? I mean, technically a NOTAM doesn't declare the intention of a war. But one under the current circumstances is not just an unofficial declaration of a war, it's also an invitation to search that area. An aerial refueler isn't that hard a target to find either.
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 sickening, to say the least.
Even if you take civilian aviation activities, the US standards are a rather low bar these days. For example, when you launch a space vehicle, you usually notify via NOTAM, the entire region where it might fall in case of a failure or destruct. But how many times has Starship fallen outside the notified area? We even have videos of flaming streaming wreckage, taken from commercial airliners. That's absolutely insane, if you ask me! Have you seen how ridiculously tiny the notified area was? That too for a vehicle that had never worked properly before that. It's a display of pure hubris and lack of concern.
And then you have the jaw dropping revelation that there was nearly one near-collision between a military aircraft and a commercial civilian airliner over the Potomac near DCA every month for 13 years, till a pair finally collided killing 67 innocent people. I mean, who is taking all these unbelievable decisions? I thought each near-miss is supposed to be treated as seriously as a full crash. Do you need 2 such incidents, much less ~150 before your alarm bells go off? And when it inevitably fails, you see the culprits running for a scapegoat, like what Boeing tried to do with the pilots of the crashed 737 Max-8 aircrafts.
Clearly, somebody is not getting the message here. All concerns about human lives have gone out the window. How many more?
"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 don't even know if they were actually guilty of drug trafficking, since those were extra-judicial executions. And at least two of them were murdered in a double tap attack, which is an international war crime, regardless.
[1] It was Curaçao to be precise, but it's still oddly close to Venezuela.
> 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.
Maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way so please correct me if I am wrong.
1. The civilian planes fly on pre published routes and communicate with air traffic controllers in plain text
1. Any covert military operation has access to these plans
1. I understand that there may be reasons why military planes might want to fly undetected but given they know where the civilian planes are and where they are flying, it should be trivial for the military ships and planes to avoid those areas.
> 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 location. You have to rely on your radar instead. The Military has some of the best radars around - especially on AEW&CS aircrafts and ships that stay close to conflict zones at all times.
> 1. I understand that there may be reasons why military planes might want to fly undetected but given they know where the civilian planes are and where they are flying, it should be trivial for the military ships and planes to avoid those areas.
Did you know that the Ronald Reagan Intl airport (DCA) saw one 'close call' between a civilian airliner and a military helicopter every month for the 13 year period from 2011 to 2024? [1]. That's close to 150 near disasters in total, for consecutive months for more than a decade! This is ridiculous!
Clearly, it's not a question if they can stay clear to avoid an incident. It's a question of if anyone cares at all.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5324543/ntsb-dca-mid-ai...
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.
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.
Even if the military aircraft could read the ADS-B from the commercial plane, they were flying with their night vision goggles on. It's very unlikely that they would have seen all the instruments and could very well have missed the display. And since the two aircrafts were flying approximately at right angles to each other, the warning may have been degraded. (I'm not very sure about this point though. Needs confirmation.)
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?
From what I have seen, I believe that both types of aircrafts are controlled by the same ATC. Otherwise, the two ATCs will have to coordinate among themselves to create non intersecting vectors for each aircraft - which sounds needlessly tedious. But the military does have its own ATCs in many areas. They usually separate the airspace into 'civilian corridors' and 'military corridors', each under the control of the respective ATCs. In conflict zones though, the military operates entirely under their own control. The concept of ATC becomes a bit blurred here. The aircrafts are vectored either by ship-based controllers or more frequently by AEW&CS aircrafts. This is what I assume was happening with the tanker in the story. They were near Venezuela and the Curacao ATC had no information about the tanker.
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/JBU1112/history/2025...
https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1pm83dv/pilots_re...
https://youtu.be/bUcs1LCjhcs
Track log here
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/JBU1112/history/2025...
You can see the rate of climb change from 2000 feet per minuteto 220 feet per minute before resuming.
If we're going to have an unannounced war we should at least file NOTAMs.
Wouldn't that make it an announced war? I mean, technically a NOTAM doesn't declare the intention of a war. But one under the current circumstances is not just an unofficial declaration of a war, it's also an invitation to search that area. An aerial refueler isn't that hard a target to find either.
Even Iran and Israel filed NOTAMs during their war in June
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 sickening, to say the least.
Even if you take civilian aviation activities, the US standards are a rather low bar these days. For example, when you launch a space vehicle, you usually notify via NOTAM, the entire region where it might fall in case of a failure or destruct. But how many times has Starship fallen outside the notified area? We even have videos of flaming streaming wreckage, taken from commercial airliners. That's absolutely insane, if you ask me! Have you seen how ridiculously tiny the notified area was? That too for a vehicle that had never worked properly before that. It's a display of pure hubris and lack of concern.
And then you have the jaw dropping revelation that there was nearly one near-collision between a military aircraft and a commercial civilian airliner over the Potomac near DCA every month for 13 years, till a pair finally collided killing 67 innocent people. I mean, who is taking all these unbelievable decisions? I thought each near-miss is supposed to be treated as seriously as a full crash. Do you need 2 such incidents, much less ~150 before your alarm bells go off? And when it inevitably fails, you see the culprits running for a scapegoat, like what Boeing tried to do with the pilots of the crashed 737 Max-8 aircrafts.
Clearly, somebody is not getting the message here. All concerns about human lives have gone out the window. How many more?
> I don't remember Israel just arbitrarily blowing up every flotilla headed for Palestine
Just because they were filled with Westerners. They didn't have any trouble with bombing refugee camps and apartment blocks full with Palestinians.
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.
JetBlue pilot calls incident ‘outrageous’ and says US military refueling tanker didn’t have transponder turned on
I wonder what illegal activities/war crimes the USAF is up to in Venezuela this time?
"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.
> military aircraft get a free-pass to break FAA regulations
Because FAA regulations literally do not apply to military aircraft. FAA regulates civilian aviation.
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 don't even know if they were actually guilty of drug trafficking, since those were extra-judicial executions. And at least two of them were murdered in a double tap attack, which is an international war crime, regardless.
[1] It was Curaçao to be precise, but it's still oddly close to Venezuela.
> 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.