> Is it actually common for military aircrafts with transponders off to mix and match with public traffic in activate flight regions?

As a pilot, I can tell you it happens all the time. Even in US domestic airspace. Transponder use is optional for the military, and they will turn them off for some training missions. (Or in this case, a real mission.)

No, they don't close the airspace when this is being done.

The pilots of both aircraft (civilian and military) are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic. The military aircraft should also be keeping an eye on primary radar.

(Transponder use is also optional for some civilian aircraft, btw.)

▲

crote 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The pilots of both aircraft are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic.

How's that supposed to work with Instrument Flight Rules, for which you literally train by wearing glasses which block your view outside the window [0]? And how are you supposed to spot an airplane coming at you with a closing speed of 1000 mph (1600 kmh)? It'll go from impossible-to-see to collision in a few seconds - which is why you won't see any "they didn't look outside the window enough" in the report of accidents like Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907.

The whole point of Air Traffic Control is to control air traffic. Sure, there's plenty of uncontrolled airspace where you do indeed have to look out for traffic, but it's uncontrolled precisely because it rarely if ever sees commercial traffic.

[0]: https://www.sportys.com/jeppshades-ifr-training-glasses.html

	▲	tjohns 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> How's that supposed to work with Instrument Flight Rules, for which you literally train by wearing glasses which block your view outside the window [0]? If you're wearing "foggles" (the technical term is a "view limiting device"), you're legally required to have a safety pilot who is responsible for maintaining visual watch. You never, ever wear those while flying solo. > And how are you supposed to spot an airplane coming at you with a closing speed of 1000 mph (1600 kmh)? First, this near-miss was with a refueling tanker, which only travels at normal large-jet speed and is quite large. If it was a fighter jet, you're right, it would be very hard to see. But frankly, compared to a fighter jet, everyone else might as well be a stationary object in the sky in terms of speed and maneuverability - so you're just relying on the fighter jet not to hit you. (They also have onboard primary radar and other fancy toys - so you hope they have more situational awareness of non-participating aircraft.) > The whole point of Air Traffic Control is to control air traffic. Sure, there's plenty of uncontrolled airspace where you do indeed have to look out for traffic, but it's uncontrolled precisely because it rarely if ever sees commercial traffic. Most airspace below 18,000 feet is still "controlled airspace", even though you have to look out for traffic - including commercial traffic. The big jets don't like to stay down there any longer than they have to, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Being on an IFR clearance only guarantees that you're deconflicted with other IFR traffic. There's always the risk that there's non-participating traffic, especially in visual conditions (VMC). Class A airspace and transponder-required airspace help reduce this risk, but it's never completely eliminated. Also, more importantly: The military largely plays by their own rules, entirely outside of the FAA.

▲

0_____0 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been buzzed by a flight of military helicopters in the New Mexico desert. Not intentionally, they just happened to overfly my tent, and I just happened to have cell service somehow. I checked ADSB and sure enough they were flying dark.

▲

ceejayoz a day ago | parent | next [-]

Not necessarily; the same remoteness that made cell signal sparse likely makes ADS-B ground stations unlikely. There has to be one in range for it to show up places like FlightAware. Plenty of dead spots; you can help expand the network! https://www.flightaware.com/adsb/piaware/build/

	▲	FireBeyond 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have an ADS-B receiver on a computer here, and am overhead a number of flight paths for JBLM. The above comment is accurate, plenty of local training helicopter flights will be fully or partly dark (lights and/or transponders off), looking at my receiver's raw output stream.

▲

miahi 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

ADSB is not mandatory in the US below FL100 or FL180 (10000/18000 feet), that covers most helicopter flights.

It depends also on the website you are using to track. I have an ADSB receiver that publishes to multiple tracking websites (the same data, unfiltered), and not all of them publish all the data. Flightradar24 doesn't show most of the military aircraft - I can see them on my local tracking interface but they are not shown on their website.

▲

embedding-shape 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The pilots of both aircraft (civilian and military) are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic. The military aircraft should also be keeping an eye on primary radar.

So in your opinion, that was went wrong here, the military/pilot of the refueling plane didn't actually keep visual watch for traffic nor radar?

	▲	tjohns 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I wasn't there and don't know all the facts, so I'm not going to attempt to assign blame in this specific instance. But speaking generally, I'll just say: If you're flying in VMC conditions (good weather), you're always required to see-and-avoid. Even if you're on an IFR clearance. Everything else is just considered an aid for situational awareness.