Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Commercial Pilot Communication To Military Planes  
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7210 posts, RR: 17
Posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

hey guys,

Landed on the endangered DL1941 from CVG about 4 hours ago, and while in flight (one of the nicest flights i've taken, i may add: they moved me to a very nice exit row and it had the PTVs on it so I watched baseball all night) I saw a pair of F-16s race by the starboard side of the plane going to the east as we were going west. We were passing to the south east of COS (Colorado Springs,) and I know in proximity to COS there is the USAF academy.

When I landed I asked the pilots if they saw those two fighters and they peculiarly said that they didn't and seemed a bit surprised.

What I noticed is A)The planes were either at our flight level or maybe 1000 feet below us, but weren't too far away from us B) We made a turn to the south right before they passed us.

Do you think that the ATC turned our flight away from the fighters? Did those pilots communicate with the ATC somehow or with the flight crew of our flight?

It seemed very peculiar that they were flying at such a rate of speed so close to us, yet weren't involved with us.

Any input on how this works between the two would be appreciated.

(also if this is in the wrong forum please change it)

-Z


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5317 times:

ATC probably advised the crew of the approaching jets just as they would of any close by traffic. The fact that the crew didn't see them isn't particularly uncommon as I certainly don't see every jet ATC tells me about. The fact that they were military has nothing to do with it short of the fact they were probably talking to ATC on UHF. I would doubt that ATC turned your plane and the small size of the jets may have made them appear to be going faster than they were.

User currently offlinePapaChuck From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

I promise you that the F-16s were operating IFR and in communication with ATC. While they may have appeared to be close, I am willing to bet that they were at least 1000' below you. Unless military aircraft are flying in a MOA or some other designated military playground, they play the same game with ATC as everyone else. If a piece of military use airspace is active, ATC will steer you clear of it. Military aircraft do not freely roam the skies in Class A airspace.

I have yet to work an F-16 that is RVSM certified, but then again I typically work older F-16s belonging to ANG units. That's not to say that the birds you encountered were negative RVSM. If they were so equipped, they could have easily passed you only 1000' below.

I also have yet to see an F-16 use anything other than UHF radios. Military transports typically use VHF, but my rule of thumb is: if it has the ability to blow stuff up (i.e. fighters/bombers), use UHF.

Bottom line, I wouldn't be alarmed. While it may seem unusual to see a couple of fighters streak past you, it's really no different than seeing any other civil or commercial aircraft pass you in flight.

PC



In-trail spacing is a team effort.
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5358 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5247 times:

Years ago when working toward my PPL, I was flying in the training area (at 4000' or so) when the tower called me and advised me of fast moving traffic 1/4 mile north of my position, 1000' below and moving east to west.

A couple of F-16 buzzed through the area about 5 seconds later. Had I not been pointing ENE at the time, I wouldn't have even seen them, though I did hear them.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinewoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1023 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5062 times:

I'd say it is coincidence.

Most of the time most military aircraft don't have the ability to talk on civilian ATC frequencies in the VHF band. When talking to civilian ATC, they are usually using UHF frequencies. Military aircraft flying in the flight levels are under ATC control except when operating under MARSA - Military Accepts Resposibility for Separation of Aircraft, but that is when the military aircraft are operating in their own areas or in a refueling area and civilian aircraft are kept away from the area by ATC.


If a fighter is tasked to intercept and get inside minimum separation, their transponder Mode C altitude encoding is turned off so as not to induce a TCAS RA event onboard the target airliner.

When you have two aircraft proceeding in opposite directions (your aircraft flying west, the fighters/other aircraft flying east) the apparent speed of the aircraft is higher - you're travelling anywhere from 450-550kts to the west, the other aircraft is flying anywhere from 500-600kts to the east. So from that alone, you're looking at a 950-1150kt relative speed differential. When looking at another aircraft flying the same direction the relative speed difference is a lot less usually less than 150kts.



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4952 times:

Quoting woodreau (Reply 4):
Most of the time most military aircraft don't have the ability to talk on civilian ATC frequencies in the VHF band. When talking to civilian ATC, they are usually using UHF frequencies.



Actually, I'm finding they are using VHF frequencies more and more which is a huge help for both pilots and controllers. The controller has fewer transmission that stepped on by the other radio and it helps the pilots be more aware of their surroundings.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 2):
I have yet to work an F-16 that is RVSM certified, but then again I typically work older F-16s belonging to ANG units. That's not to say that the birds you encountered were negative RVSM. If they were so equipped, they could have easily passed you only 1000' below.

I take it that transports are RVSM? I was flying from Chicago to PBI and over Georgia(I think) we crossed paths with what I thought was a C-17, I asked the pilot when deplaning, and he said "actually it was a C-5, and was 1000' below". made my whole flight.

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 2):
I also have yet to see an F-16 use anything other than UHF radios. Military transports typically use VHF, but my rule of thumb is: if it has the ability to blow stuff up (i.e. fighters/bombers), use UHF.
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 5):
Actually, I'm finding they are using VHF frequencies more and more which is a huge help for both pilots and controllers.

I listen to PBI's tower freq at work and hear military aircraft on the VHF all the time, be it Seahawks going to and fro from AUTEC, or just guys stopping off to spend a day in south Florida. Most of the time the tower will request a fly-by when a fast mover comes in. Thats the time I walk outside for a smoke to watch the show. Nothing like seeing a F-15 smoke by at 300 kts at 500 feet. Hard to believe how much military traffic comes to PBI. I have seen V-22's, F-16,F-15, F-18, C-5, C-17, C-130, All kinds of helo's, and every so often a civi AN-124.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlinePapaChuck From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4674 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 6):
I take it that transports are RVSM?

Generally speaking, yes. At least in my experience, the C-5s, C-17s, KC-10s, and the myriad of military 707 derivatives are, more often than not, RVSM certified. They also typically have UHF radios on board, but for the most part use VHF when talking to ATC.

I've seen F/A-18s both RVSM capable and using VHF radios, but this still uncommon among combat types. NASA's T-38s are commonly using VHF these days as well. Many of the older types (the B-52s come to mind) are not RVSM certified and are UHF only.

PC



In-trail spacing is a team effort.
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4645 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 6):
I listen to PBI's tower freq at work and hear military aircraft on the VHF all the time

Doing some work up here at BTV and the F-16s all use UHF. Bear in mind that the controller is usually transmitting simultaneously on both the VHF and UHF frequencies so you'll hear ATC talking to them on VHF regardless (just not hear the response on VHF).

All the Helos use VHF up here at least, and the transports.

..actually today even some surprise F-18s in 'aggressor' colors (red stars etc.)

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 7):
NASA's T-38s are commonly using VHF these days as well.

Yep, the NASA 38's have been pretty much VHF users for 10+ years now, I forget what the WB-57 uses but probably UHF.

More and more of the Air Force training aircraft like the TEX2 I've heard on VHF as well doing their approaches particuarly.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4569 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 8):
Doing some work up here at BTV and the F-16s all use UHF. Bear in mind that the controller is usually transmitting simultaneously on both the VHF and UHF frequencies so you'll hear ATC talking to them on VHF regardless (just not hear the response on VHF).

Do they simucast the VHF traffic on UHF? Or do they just turn on the UHF when someone calls on UHF? My sectional shows the UHF for Palm Beach approach but not a tower freq. just wondering

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 10):
Do they simucast the VHF traffic on UHF? Or do they just turn on the UHF when someone calls on UHF? My sectional shows the UHF for Palm Beach approach but not a tower freq. just wondering

IAHFLYR is better qualified to answer that, but at BTV they do transmit on both simultaneously all the time, for both approach and tower.

The Airport Diagram for PBI does show 257.8 for a Tower Freq.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 11):
The Airport Diagram for PBI does show 257.8 for a Tower Freq.

Thanks, I just pulled out my sectional cuz it was on top in my flight bag. Might just add that freq into my scanner at work. I guess there is no correlation between the VHF and UHF as there is with IAD and MAD (121.5 and 243.0-- hmm double the IAD freq and get MAD, somebody was thinking).

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4471 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 10):
Do they simucast the VHF traffic on UHF?


When you have a VHF and UHF paired together as most ATC facilities in the U.S. have, I leave the UHF in the speaker not my headset, and the transmitter un-keyed. When I hear an aircraft call on UHF then I select the transmitter and receiver and put it in my headset.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 11):
IAHFLYR is better qualified to answer that


Thanks Jimbo, but you are way too kind!  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting woodreau (Reply 4):
I'd say it is coincidence.

Most of the time most military aircraft don't have the ability to talk on civilian ATC frequencies in the VHF band. When talking to civilian ATC, they are usually using UHF frequencies

My tank buster, typhoon, and tornado traffic are all VHF... I'm pretty sure that the local F16's are too...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinejgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

In my experience B52's have VHF radio's, but they hate to use them. If they come over on VHF they ask to switch as soon as possible and if you have switch to a VHF to check a frequency or something they always request to switch back to UHF. Also B2's are the only tactical aircraft I've seen which are RVSM qualified.

Quoting woodreau (Reply 4):
Military aircraft flying in the flight levels are under ATC control except when operating under MARSA - Military Accepts Resposibility for Separation of Aircraft,

Not too nit pick too much but just because two or more aircraft are MARSA doesn't mean they are not under ATC control. For example there are often local procedures in which MARSA has been pre-coordinated and is being utilized however ATC is still providing separation from non-military/non-participating aircraft.


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Quoting jgarrido (Reply 15):
Quoting woodreau (Reply 4):Military aircraft flying in the flight levels are under ATC control except when operating under MARSA - Military Accepts Resposibility for Separation of Aircraft,
Not too nit pick too much but just because two or more aircraft are MARSA doesn't mean they are not under ATC control. For example there are often local procedures in which MARSA has been pre-coordinated and is being utilized however ATC is still providing separation from non-military/non-participating aircraft.

Correct. AFAIK, MARSA is only used under pre-defined agreements, and is used only to relieve ATC of the task of separating IFR military aircraft from each other... not relieve them of separating the military aircraft from other IFR aircraft. Examples are air-to-air refuelling and formation flying where it makes sense that the aircraft involved are responsible for the separation.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Commercial Pilot Communication To Military Planes
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
I Want To Be A Commercial Pilot posted Fri Nov 9 2007 01:24:12 by ThreeFourThree
Lasik And Becoming A Commercial Pilot posted Tue Dec 14 2010 18:55:36 by jonstock
Student Pilot Question To Aviation Interviewer posted Mon Dec 15 2008 17:19:25 by RPaulson
Pilot A.netter To Other A.netters-inflight posted Mon Nov 17 2008 01:07:00 by Deaphen
Being A Commercial Pilot Help...? posted Fri Nov 2 2007 06:51:07 by Felipemia89
Becoming A Commercial Pilot posted Thu Sep 27 2007 17:53:45 by Samair
Commercial Pilot Layovers posted Tue Sep 18 2007 23:17:52 by Rcardinale
Last Commercial Airline/airplane To Use Navigators posted Sat May 12 2007 12:02:01 by DIJKKIJK
LAX Gulfstream V Pilot Urged To Call The FAA. posted Thu Oct 12 2006 22:48:31 by FlyMatt2Bermud
Difference Between Commercial Pilot & ATP posted Mon Jul 3 2006 04:59:41 by Bio15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format