I'd be pissed too if I were in Exec-Jet 699's position. The fighter jets probably scared the shit out of him, understandably. Regardless of the misunderstanding on the unrestricted altitude/airspeed request, the F/A-18's should've never been cleared for the overhead break even with altitude restriction while a civilian aircraft was on final ahead of them. Also, if the F/A-18's had the Citation in visual sight, why did they buzz him even with tower approval? They just descended and fly right past an aircraft on final. I'd say both tower and the fighter pilot in lead had responsibility in this incident.
lol. that's crazy. wow. why not hold then come in when no one is around? that maneuver is just for fun. I guess the tower thought they were unrestricted above 3500?
Australian here, in this context does "break" mean breaking away from the approach like we see at 4:00? I'm thoroughly familiar with civilian ATC phraseology but a lot of the terms I hear USAF pilots use (here and on other videos) are not so clear. If this is indeed what a break is (and even if it's not) why would they perform the manoeuvre seen at the indicated timestamp?
@@michaelhorne8366 Break in military aviation parlance means a 360 degree overhead approach. Typically flown about 500 feet over pattern altitude and as fast as the tower allows. In the turn you load up Gs which slow you down quickly to gear speed. Descend to pattern altitude and then its a normal approach although not a box pattern. Different procedures aboard ship or differing airfields. Ultimately, you follow tower instructions. These two guys gooned this up and will probably hear about it from their Command.
@@scottw5315 Yeah nice, thank you. Now I know what to google for I see its a way to get a formation of birds onto the ground safely. Each aircraft breaks off at at some point between short final and the threshold into a modified circuit, allowing them to open up some spacing to maintain separation on landing. Good little explainer video if anyone else finds themselves wondering. ruclips.net/video/pAnuCnEbDe0/видео.html
Tower approving your unrestricted request doesn't mean you can just do whatever the hell you want. They were VFR still and had to maintain clearances on their own as well as comply with ATC.
When a navy pilot is inbound for the overhead break and asks for “unrestricted altitude/airspeed” they mean EXACTLY that. That should never have been approved with an aircraft on final approach on the same runway.
@@MrLeewsee maybe and the FAA/squadron CO will address that, but the tower owns that airspace. Regardless whether the request is legit, the request from the pilot was clear and not something that should have been misunderstood by tower, yet tower approved it and he owns it at that point.
Unrestricted request doesn't give you permission to overtake and conduct a near hit (100') with the preceding landing aircraft who does not have you insight. Completely unpredictable and unsafe maneuver by the F18's.
@@Boscoh_ unfortunately we do not hear all of the radio comms between TRACON and Snake21, but I would bet a weeks take-home that snake21 was asked if they had 699 in sight and they affirmed it. This fact puts the responsibility on Snake for traffic separation. Snake was assigned VFR altitudes so I am assuming he was VFR. In a nutshell Snake violated regs pertaining to reckless operation. When overtaking another aircraft you have to turn and clear it to the right also. The controller should not have perfunctorily clear snakes request for sure, but you have here a civil airport and civil controllers... The cowboy terminology should not be used here.
As soon as you hear one Snake tell the other, "push it up, use burner if you have too.." you know the showboating has begun! Overhead breaks are a military thing and are not expected or prudent for civilian airports. Throw in the "unrestricted" and you know they are going to be aggressive in the pattern. They totally disrespected the pilot over the numbers as evidenced by "I had the traffic in sight!" Still uncalled for!
"Misunderstanding approved." Huh. I went back & watched this a 2nd time. "Push it up dude, give me burner if you need to." Then they pass him basically at the same altitude with afterburners on? What a cluster. Tower should have responded to their request with "Negative, Ghostrider"
LOL! I was a Navy pilot long before Maverick and Top Gun and had to reference them as "trouble a-brewin" when I heard lead's request granted. Turn a 24-25 y/o jet jock loose and anything might happen!
I came here expecting to criticize the Citation pilot, but this was a TOTAL lack of situational awareness by Snake 21 to even REQUEST an unrestricted airspeed/altitude break turn when there's an aircraft in front of them on short final. Whether the tower misunderstood or not is irrelevant. Snake 21 should have known high-performance maneuvers are unsafe when you're not the only aircraft in the pattern and have landing aircraft in front of him. But his ego would not be denied for such a pitiful reason such as another aircraft cramping his style. He could have easily (and safely) performed the break turn at his assigned altitude of 3500, but almost nobody would notice you at that altitude so he needed to be low enough where everyone at the airport saw how "cool" he was doing a high-speed break turn. Hence his request for unrestricted airspeed/altitude. He needs to change his call sign from "Snake" to "Biggus Dickus."
Well a certain lack of SA is understandable given the fact that he was not on VHF untill he contacted TWR. So he didn't hear all the communications going on. Secondly, the "Push it up"-Call at 3:37 implies that the flight lead is actually flying in the number 2 slot. So most likely the guy in the number 1 who is actually flying the formation is in training. The desire to be over the numbers at speed and altitude comes from training and standards, rather than a big ego. And of course you want to do a good looking break as much as the Airbus-jockey wants to do a butter landing. So in the end, Lack of SA coupled with a misunderstanding. Could happen to anyone. And they handled it in a professional manner. Also props to the approach controller to get them all in one row. This guy knows his job.
The Marine shouldn't have asked for "unrestricted altitude . . ." and the controller shouldn't have approved it. I suspect both will be hearing about it.
@@LEVELGAZANOW Could be, but I notice they made the stars and stripes. Google: Marine Corps investigating fighter jet’s close call with civilian aircraft at Austin airport
The marine is fine in asking but if it is at their discretion they “should” have seen the clear issue in overtaking the citation while descending into its path. But yes the controller 1000% should have capped them at 3500 ft which would prevent the whole issue. Lessons learned for both
Once in a while you aren't lucky! 4/14/93 my Age Cat crop duster was hit from behind by a Navy A-6e Intruder 150' AGL. The Navy wasted no time retiring the B/N and sending the pilot to some other base while I was still in a coma.
@@keithgraham6889 That’s right. Colfax, not Colville. I remember reading and watching on the news about you. Glad to hear you made it out! I’m from near Pendleton. You were big news!
I was a flight instructor in Pullman during that time. I remember this incident clearly. It informs my low level flying every day. I take nothing for granted in any airspace.
**After watching this a second time, I now see the F-18 pilots just wanted to show off. You can even hear them communicate to each other. He says, "Push it up and Hit the burner if you need to". Then the F18s blaze past the citation while on final approach. This was a reckless move. Were the USMC F 18 pilots reprimanded for their actions?
These guys have always been a joke. I was a USMC communicator for 9 years in an airwing. Personally witnessed these kids drunk many nights prior to air ops. Can only imagine how much worse it's become 20 years later.
@@rolisreefranch The only "Joke" here is an Enlisted Jarhead talking crap about what they have no idea about.... freaking Jarhead go clean the head or polish your "gun" or something and let the adults talk.
@@Raiders33 push it up means push the throttles forward and we all know what go to burners means. Ya. Show offs in a crowded civilian traffic pattern. Poor ADM at its finest
Funny, I think I saw this happen here in Pflugerville, Texas which is a suburb on the northeast side Austin. I kept looking for news about an aircraft collision but nothing ever turned up. I thought he had clipped the forward aircraft's tail because of the sudden sharp desent just as they were passing. Those F/A - 18's are Hot Rods and they had their pedal to the metal so to speak. They were flying at a very high rate of speed that is why I stopped to watch them. I am a licensed private pilot. I can tell you it was a close call. It was in the latter part of September 2024 timeframe. Talk about a tough job, Air Traffic Controllers work constantly on the edge of disaster. Commercial aircraft and military aircraft have such a huge difference in normal operational airspeeds and turbulence, flying in close proximity to each other can be a hair raising experience. I know because when I was working for NASA, I would fly my little Cessna 150 out of Ellington Airfield, Houston with all the T-38s, F-16s and old Phantoms just as it became a comercial airport. Talk about nerve racking.
The Fighter flight lead shouldn't have been asking for unrestricted speed/altitude at a busy civilian airport. That's just a stupid request. The Tower unknowingly approved it. Still the flight lead messed that up. He'll probably hear about it from his CO.
Why do they even need to do an overhead break, anyway? Someone who flies formation in a high performance aircraft would like to know. It’s nothing a couple s turns won’t solve.
@@Jimmer-Space88 You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Man civilian airports also operate as National Guard and Reserve bases and have just as many military flights as civilian, and this is a VERY common thing for them to do.
@@Jimmer-Space88 That's the old Bergstrom AFB. Probably a reserve squadron there. Nothing wrong with joint use. The flight lead screwed this up. And the tower too. The tower should deny the overhead when busy and they probably do...
First call from tower: Snake 21, continue for the overhead to runway 18L, maintain vfr at 3500, I'll call your break -- problem solved. I worked at a facility with A-10s, and they did these all the time; they did dumb stuff all of time. I heard a couple cues in there that suggested the tower controller was being trained at the time.
Austin is getting really bad about this kind of thing. Military jets shouldn't be approved for their break procedure when landing at a civilian airport that is busy.
Complete B.S. Initial for an overhead break is 1000’ AGL min. Lowest their altitude should have shown is 1600’ not 1200’. They descended to 500’ AGL so they could do a climbing break. Even tapped the AB on final. There was someone watching for them at AUS. Total showboating at a busy civilian airfield. Airmanship U
@@Dr.KennethNoisewaterWhatever you say Dr. If you want to get technical, they never did an initial. They never leveled off. They did a continuous decent. That was a low approach right over the top of another aircraft to a pull closed pattern. I just didn’t want to skewer them. Career ending event.
@@RonMcGregor-u6o I was just adding to your comment. Not sure why you got so defensive. I mostly agreed with your sentiment even haha. You didn’t want to skewer them? Did you read what you wrote 🤣🤣. You have no clue what you are talking about by the way. You sound like some heavy dude who flew a t-37/6 for 6 months and hates fighter pilots because you sucked so bad. Just sayin….And zero sense of humor. The Dr Kenneth Noisewater reference went a miler over your head apparently.
This is false. Navy / Marine jets do the overhead much lower. That's what they asked for and that's what he approved. I do think the f-18 pilots should have explained exactly what they wanted to the controllers. Most FAA guys aren't seeing f18s do carrier breaks and probably don't see the overhead all that much.
People are fundamentally misunderstanding what “unrestricted” means in terms of the clearance. Unrestricted doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. It means that you-not ATC-are responsible for separation. Those fighter jocks screwed the pooch. Either they had no SA which for two fighter planes in perfect VFR conditions is beyond incompetence.. or they purposefully buzzed the Citation for which they should be court marshalled.
I strongly doubt its the second lol. No one is that dumb…..but they were definitely focused on the best altitude for their break rather than the safety of the citation already established in front of them on final in a dirty config. ATC is at fault (for not limiting them to 3500 feet) and the airman are at fault for failure to maintain safe spacing
@@FlightX101 ATC told them they would be breaking above the Citation, and for the F-18s to maintain 4500, and then changed it to 3500(around 2:10)...they ignored it, didn't hear it, or were too focused on unrestricted altitude clearance, and it didn't register that the F-18 pilots had unrestricted altitude clearance ABOVE 3500 AGL, for their break. In my opinion, not ATC's fault, since he clearly verbalized the actions he intended the F-18 pilots to take, and they didn't.
@@jimmieusaf-pol5818 No, the "unrestricted altitude" clearance came after the "maintain VFR at 3500" clearance, so it supersedes/deletes the prior clearance. The pilot had no altitude restriction at the point that the tower approved his request.
Reminds me of my primary training days at BAF in Westfield MA. Not uncommon to hear "Cessna 1-8-Niner, traffic on your six is a pair of A-10s...best speed please".
If you listed to the comms right after the tower clears Snake21 "as requested," lead instructs his wing to "push it up,use burner if you have to" and they accelerate. This section was hell bent on performing a "SH break"and they could not be bothered there was an aircraft in their way trying to land.
Had an execjet in sight and still chose to fly by him fast and low? Hot Dogs. He’ll be answering for that one. UHF is a problem, stupid to work two tower frequencies for landings. It’s not like fighters don’t have VHF, and they’re not far away. Some dangerous chit. Bad for public relations.
I never heard anything regarding giving the F-18s discretion to do anything until the go-around and base at discretion. Why weren't the military on VHF if they were equipped all along? I find that to be an issue. Other traffic being able to hear them adds to safety of flight for EVERYONE. Second, why can't the military guys follow normal procedures the same as other jets? They're not mixing in with a bunch of piston aircraft. They all require faster speeds. And, Vref for the F-18 is only around 130-140 knots. That's another reason to slow it down and fly a normal pattern as everyone else. There should be no allowance for the additional maneuvers when mixing in with all civilian traffic.
The AOA of an F/A-18 at 130-140 knots is so high that it severely restricts their vision forward over the pointy nose (same with any fighter). Their best vision is with the AOA at no less than about 300-350 knots --- hence, the need for an overhead break approach and landing.
Navy and USAF fly overhead patterns differently. Tower never should have said break over the numbers, that wasn’t going to work. And then snake didn’t hear the break departure end, correction.
When the controller gave approval for "unrestricted airspeed and altitude", seems prudent that the jet jocky should have come back and said "but there's a citation directly in our path" or something to that extent. Or taken another course of action to allow separation between them and the citation.
@dafox0427 Nope! VFR!!! That means see and avoid regardless of being unrestricted. I’ve been cleared an unrestricted visual tons of times with field and traffic in sight. All that means is that I’m now responsible for separation.. not ATC.
@@dafox0427dosent matter much…the f18s are in perfect vfr conditions and dove down to the citation level for no reason. Yes they have clearance but they are still primarily responsible in how they conduct their approach. Not buzz the plane and cause an RA pissing the citation off
The controller found its way around not to say it, but would have been funny to hear “possible pilot deviation, I have a number for you” said to a fighter jet!
@@LEVELGAZANOW that’s amazing. A very good family friend was a naval aviator in the 80’s who started out with VF-142 in the Tomcat, and then transitioned to test flying. I was just talking to him yesterday about his test flying and carrier qualing the hornet. He told me: “I was fortunate to be on the ground floor of the hornet. The very ground floor. For example, I flew ship 3, 7 and 11. The 3rd, 7th and 11th birds off of the line! And for 2 seat birds, I flew T.F.-1. The 1st two seat bird off of the production line.“
@@LEVELGAZANOW Is it also the quickest and safest way to lose separation from the civilian pilot right in front of you? Is it approved when it's reckless under the circumstances?
@@LEVELGAZANOWBetter ADM would have your _"separation from your wingman"_ long before you reached the approach phase. It is a civil airport stateside, not a FOB in a hot zone. No need to play cowboy every approach.
It appeared to me that the Snake21 deliberately buzzed the exec-jet. Had traffic in sight? I had to go back and look at the altitude, at one point all aircraft was juxtaposition and altitude matching numbers
The approach guy did great! Can we at least acknowledge that? I don't know what the radar screen actually looks like but velocity vectors turned out would help with SA.
From the video, it appears SNAKE21 passed over EJA699 only about 100 ft above it, and descended below EJA699's final approach path before breaking left. It was a dumb idea to even ask for "unrestricted altitude/airspeed break 18L" in the first place, knowing there was landing traffic. And then, executing it like that, not maintaining proper VFR separation aside, the wake turbulence hitting the slower landing traffic risks their safety. It was just plain reckless. Tower's approval of said maneuver doesn't remove the responsibility of not doing anything that presents danger to oneself and others. Kudos to EJA699 for being so calm. Too bad he couldn't switch to guns. It was definitely too close for missiles.
SNAKE21 didn't think it was a big deal because they are used to flying close to other airplanes. The Citation probably wasn't, and the TCAS alert would have made me nervous too. They probably don't have a lot of experience flying into civilian airfields either, and was happy to shine their asses here. Not a good look on the flight lead though, and I am sure that he has been talked to about it.
This from the perspective of a retired controller. A number of minor mistakes, fortunately nothing added up to all the holes lining up. 1. approach did not adequately point out the preceding arrival, but arguably maybe not necessary as he kept altitude separation. However he he did not pass that to the tower and assumed the tower would issue traffic. 2. Tower failed to call traffic to either aircraft and assumed approach had done so. 3. Flight lead may have been unclear as to what his intentions were. 4. Flight was cleared to break at the departure end but if the video is accurate they broke at the arrival end. In the end though it was poor communications on the part of the controllers that led to this. I don’t blame EJA for his frustration ( polite way of saying it) at all.
Is there any reason why tower wasn't using 18R? Was it closed? Being a former military base, AUS is set up nicely for joint civilian/military ops with parallel runways. Bring the Hornets in for 18R and straight-in traffic for 18L.
I’ve been dealing with this for weeks where I fly. Military is running all kinds of drills, F-18’s and A-10’s treating our home airport (lots of airline traffic) like a military base. Just yesterday had an A-10 try to land behind me after a break like this (he way misjudged it) tried to land on the runway while we were still on the rollout ourselves. ATC screamed at him to go around. I’ve been less than impressed by our military aviators lately.
@@5thGenNativeTexan nothing at all to do with ATC. Had the A10 pilot been able to judge my landing and rollout, as instructed to by ATC, and plan his break accordingly, there would’ve been no issues.
@@427SuperSnake1 no that was very, very bad. But these near miss incidents are starting to really add up ABIA and luck will run out eventually. I honestly think that the airspace has gotten really finite there because of the number of people in Austin now and there is so much GA and commercial operations that it’s gotten too difficult to manage.
@@jcraigshelton I agree, I don’t know how many RA videos I have seen in the last couple of months. Not to mention runway incursions left and right signaling another Tenerife..
f18s knew about the execjet, execjet found about them being around him when tcas started alerting. yeah not cool. let the dude know he doesnt have rear view mirrors....... controller thought they wanted to break way earlier and higher. eh no harm just iffy
The "overhead break" When a military jet fly's directly to the runway end at a high speed and around 800-1500" altitude. Over the runway end or near the middle they will "break" meaning a sharp turn to return to the final approach and line up for landing. It's a military aviation maneuver to recover one or a formation of several aircraft in limited (protected) airspace in a short amount of time. Why do it in AUS? You'd have to ask them.
As a professional pilot who's been on the military and civilian side of aviation for the past 15 years, fighter pilots can definitely be some of the most block headed people to deal with.
They can also be some of the smartest. Guy who headed up the CAST (Commercial Aviation Safety Team) team who won the 2008 Collier Trophy was a former Navy fighter pilot. He and his team basically rewrote safety guidelines and procedures and reduced fatal commercial accidents by 80% between 1997, when it was formed, and 2007.
That must have scared the life out of the poor executive jet 699 pilot! Just imagine being in one of the most intense phases of the flight-at 1,500 feet, fully focused-when two F-18s zoom past just 100 feet above you. Even though the F-18 pilots had the executive jet in sight and likely thought it would be no factor, but the executive jet pilot had no idea what was happening.
Also nothing inherently unsafe about doing a break especially one at 1000 ft agl. Carrier breaks are lower and routine. You dont spend forever with your nose in the air trundling into land in the terminal area. Its actually quicker for sequencing multiple aircraft into one deck or runway to have them come in at 400-450 knots, do a break into the pattern and land then to have them configured to land 5 miles out. Probably not comfortable for passengers though lol.
If I was the controller I wouldn’t have expected them to descend because they were told they had an aircraft in front of them. It looked like they were only a couple hundred feet above the citation when they passed over. It was unnecessary for them to be so close over the top of another aircraft not in their flight, even if the did have them in sight.
The break is defined by the normal AGL at which it occurs. That's well below 3500ft or 2500ft. Typically just above pattern altitude, but can be lower where pattern altitude is artificially high. They were initially told to break at the numbers, which requires being at break altitude at that point. Only later did the controller change that to delay the break to the upwind numbers when he realized his authorization of "unrestricted " caused a conflict. (It would not be a conflict at a military airfield) Also, military aircraft are waivered to exceed 250kt below 10,000ft. Typically 350kt without asking, but "unrestricted" can be 500kt+. Regardless, it is the practiced, quickest, and most orderly way to get jets on the ground.
Approach and traffic screwed the pooch. They only called FTH 703 and not EJA699 to Snake flight. The positional traffic update to Snake flight was for FTH 703 not EJA699. No one called the EJA699 to Snake flight, which would have been "traffic 12-11 o clock low" not "2-3 o clock". Pretty obvious Snake flight never had EJA699 in sight. Lead should have just requested to spin it once for traffic then come in for the break because you can always trust that tower is trying to kill you.
I worked fighters and this was not a typical OH break. However, the request from the fighters should have been a clue to the controller. It looks like he was trying the bring them in front of the landing BJ, hence the break over the numbers, but noticed quickly that it wasn't going to work, so he changed for them to break over the departure end, but by then it was too late. Of note, the fighters would have had the BJ on their radar and likely in sight. Not surprising that an RA was triggered, but it happens often since fighters fly, climb, descend so fast, which creates the RA over-reaction. But overall, bad plan by the tower controller and the fighter pilots should have put in that request much earlier and it should have been refused by ATC otherwise.
Problem ONE.) Two military aircraft flying in civilian controlled airspace utilizing THEIR UHF channel. Problem TWO.) Military Pilots conducting themselves (let's see, how would the Department of State phrase it?) UNPROFESSIONALLY while sharing the public skies. Problem THREE.) Military Pilots winning their wings from a box of CRACKERJACKS.
In my experience, military guys have their own phraseology, that most civilian pilots are not familiar with. And often do all kinds of wacky approaches/maneuvers that are not standard at civilian airports. Military guys need to be more careful. Descending over the top and in front of other traffic is not safe.
Yes, ExecJet had previously been cleared to land, but tower then tower decided to launch Career Track, so EJ's landing clearance (not approach clearance) was cancelled until tower was sure CT would be out of the way. In that case, EJ continues the approach, but can't land until tower once again clears them to land. Then EJ would be told "cleared to land" once CT is off.
Continue the approach, and if nothing further is given, ask for landing clearance if you're getting to the point where a decision would have to be made or execute a missed approach. This is where situational awareness is important. Once the landing clearance was revoked, EJ would have had a pretty good idea it was only to depart traffic and to expect another cleared to land once closer to the runway. When in doubt, always ask.
I used to fly (civilian) out of Guam back in the 1980s. GUM was then co-located with an NAS and we had an AFB (then SAC base) in close proximity. Generally the local AF/Navy pilots/aviators were pretty well-behaved. From time to time "a few God men" would show up to the island and the only truly safe place was on the ground. This Snake flight probably forgot that they were in the US where the population is supposed to "matter".
4:20 "I had the traffic in sight" says the F-18 flight of two, but my question would be: If the Citation had suddenly unexpected veered just as the F-18's were passing it, would they then have been able to avoid it? Defensive flying is like defensive driving... you shouldn't count on other traffic always doing the predictable thing.
The f18 super hornet is one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, it's also equipped with the most technologically advanced equipment in the world... yes, it could have dodged a citation on final instantly.
@@lasagnapotato3853I wasn't actually questioning the abilities of the aircraft, I was merely wondering about the details of the incident...was there enough clearance to allow the F-18's to avoid the Citation, regardless of the Citation's actions. Even the most maneuverable aircraft with the most alert and best pilot still is bound by the laws of physics, obviously.
@jerrysmith5782 the only details we commenters have is that approach gave traffic for all aircraft involved, all aircraft acknowledged each other, and that all aircraft involved avoided collision. The flight of Tip of Guy's only rules in their flight was to maintain Visual Fligjt Rules, which they obviously did otherwise we probably wouldn't here this audio. The exact amount of clearance needed for an f18 flight to avoid a turbine jet engine powered aircraft will probably never be released to any public domain, but as an avid controller I'd say they're just dandy.
Long time fighter pilot here. Snake 21 flight lead is a total assclown. I would never pull shit like that. He needs to be grounded. Obviously putting on a show for someone on the ground.
Agreed! Thank you for your service, Sir! Retired 21 years USAF, and have talked to many fighter pilots over the years, and most have common sense and self-discipline...which sure didn't seem to be the case with these USMC pilots in this situation. Fly*Fight*Win
I'm a licensed aircraft mech working on our city airport,and been on many test flights in corporate aircraft.I live in a city with a Airforce Base,but when Navy and Marine Corp aircraft come to town for fuel,they use the city airport.I've seen the break they do,but have never seen this happen.
Citation guy should demand that the fighter guys give him their Unit and commanders name and direct phone number so they dont get the run around. A very direct phone call to the unit commander (and nobody in between) stating the unprofessional and dangerous situation caused by one of his pilots would be in order.....then....tell the unit commander that you want HIS commander's name and number and make another call so it will be hard to sweep under the rug. I am a retired military pilot and can tell you that phone calls to the right people can directly influence careers.
The controller blindly put his trust in those military aviators and I think they abused his trust. Also, controllers in the U.S cannot approve unrestricted speed (250 kts) below 10k. And there’s nothing wrong with doing an overhead at a civilian airport. Just realize civilian pilots might not know you’ll be 500ft above them which could trigger a TA and or RA. If they descended that was careless regardless if they had the lower aircraft visual. Military VFR patterns are almost always Class Delta and you can buzz around 250 kts to min maneuver speed. At civilian airports controllers want to be more accommodating to us military guys, but know the rules n cost. It’s not uncommon for fighters to only communicate on UHF not VHF. One problem that could have arise had the citation executed a go-around. I never heard the controller remind the citation in the event of a GA, maintain at or below xxxx ALT until departure end or wherever. Again complacency, luckily no accident just a HATR.
Military tactical jets are exempted to 350kt typically, and unrestricted on VR and IR routes...even supersonic in a few restricted areas. Heavy jets like 747, A380, MD-11, C-5 and loaded tankers are also waivered after takeoff because at max gross weight, 250 is way too slow clean. 747 freighters are usually allowed 320kt if they need it. This also helps with wake turbulence reduction...a clean 747 going fast not only dissipates sooner, but is milder than the raging mass of air behind them in a high lift mode...flaps and slats deployed.
@@Raiders33he may have known what initial is right out of the 7110, but he never assigned an altitude for it. He had traffic on final and traffic departing. His first instructions were to break at the approach numbers😮
Single Engine Pilot here...that would have shaken me up pretty badly...when you see something unexpected like that, your whole body gets an adrenaline dump.
How long have those Top Guns been flying? They seem to know nothing about how the TCAS works. When I switched to longhaul I was warned by some collegues about American ATC. "Cool but shitty"
Horrendous situational awareness by the F-18s. They should have known better as they were told about the citation… then afterburner!? WTF for? Trying to make noise thinking you’re cool? As I heard a beautiful female pilot tell a fighter pilot… “Your plane’s cool, you’re not”.
I can understand why they did this cuz at the bases they hit the breaks when other aircraft are landing below them but doing it at a civilian airport is a bit crazy.
I was gonna say tell that exec jet guy to stop crying then I saw the video, and I woulda cussed the jets out too LOL. come on bro, it's common sense, break or not. you can't just fly over my ass when I'm on a short final about to land the plane. LOL. good on exec jet, I woulda cussed for sure.
I realize this is edited. But if this is the kind of rushed speaking and quality of transmissions we are lucky there aren't a lot more crashes. Many of these ATC and pilots are not speaking plainly and properly. The pilot probably knows what he is planning and executing. The ATC probably knows what he is planning and stating. But they just don't always seem to be working together fully. I know this is out of normal but it appears to me to be real lax stuff.
Tower failed hard. An altitude for initial should’ve been assigned to maintain at least 500 ft above the traffic on final. Sad Austin is back in the news again lately. They kind of have a long history of screw ups.
Non pilot here. Why have the fighters approach and do a break at all? Seems silly to have them overfly another plane, just to turn around go out again and then come back to land. Why not put them in line or sequence with everyone else? Thanks for indulging my ignorance and curiosity.
@@bigbubba4314 My guess is that they were showing off for their wives/ girlfriends down on the ground. Austin is a civil airport, not a military one, so these jets were probably doing a "cross country" hop to take the pilots to a weekend vacation. Pilots are sometimes allowed to do that to maintain currency, as long as the aircraft aren't needed for something more important.
Telling his wingman over hot mic to “use burner to catch up” means his wingman had zero SA on the execjet in front of them. It’s a miracle that 2 didn’t smack right into him trying to get in position for their little squid break at an airport that is severely understaffed with controllers.
He says "misunderstanding I suppose" not "approved"
Actually, if you listen to the WHOLE tape, you can hear the tower give permission for the overhead break. Obviously, you missed that part.
@@Droolbaby The comment was correcting the captions, not the events.
@@adamhale6672 Correction noted...roger...thank you. G'Day
@@Droolbaby Over.
I'd be pissed too if I were in Exec-Jet 699's position. The fighter jets probably scared the shit out of him, understandably. Regardless of the misunderstanding on the unrestricted altitude/airspeed request, the F/A-18's should've never been cleared for the overhead break even with altitude restriction while a civilian aircraft was on final ahead of them. Also, if the F/A-18's had the Citation in visual sight, why did they buzz him even with tower approval? They just descended and fly right past an aircraft on final. I'd say both tower and the fighter pilot in lead had responsibility in this incident.
lol. that's crazy. wow. why not hold then come in when no one is around? that maneuver is just for fun. I guess the tower thought they were unrestricted above 3500?
Yes, we aren’t playing in your war games.
Australian here, in this context does "break" mean breaking away from the approach like we see at 4:00? I'm thoroughly familiar with civilian ATC phraseology but a lot of the terms I hear USAF pilots use (here and on other videos) are not so clear. If this is indeed what a break is (and even if it's not) why would they perform the manoeuvre seen at the indicated timestamp?
@@michaelhorne8366 Break in military aviation parlance means a 360 degree overhead approach. Typically flown about 500 feet over pattern altitude and as fast as the tower allows. In the turn you load up Gs which slow you down quickly to gear speed. Descend to pattern altitude and then its a normal approach although not a box pattern. Different procedures aboard ship or differing airfields. Ultimately, you follow tower instructions. These two guys gooned this up and will probably hear about it from their Command.
@@scottw5315 Yeah nice, thank you. Now I know what to google for I see its a way to get a formation of birds onto the ground safely. Each aircraft breaks off at at some point between short final and the threshold into a modified circuit, allowing them to open up some spacing to maintain separation on landing. Good little explainer video if anyone else finds themselves wondering.
ruclips.net/video/pAnuCnEbDe0/видео.html
Tower approving your unrestricted request doesn't mean you can just do whatever the hell you want. They were VFR still and had to maintain clearances on their own as well as comply with ATC.
When a navy pilot is inbound for the overhead break and asks for “unrestricted altitude/airspeed” they mean EXACTLY that. That should never have been approved with an aircraft on final approach on the same runway.
This was a marine pilot but agree with the rest.
He should never have requested it. When did he have the Cessna in sight?
@@MrLeewsee maybe and the FAA/squadron CO will address that, but the tower owns that airspace. Regardless whether the request is legit, the request from the pilot was clear and not something that should have been misunderstood by tower, yet tower approved it and he owns it at that point.
Unrestricted request doesn't give you permission to overtake and conduct a near hit (100') with the preceding landing aircraft who does not have you insight. Completely unpredictable and unsafe maneuver by the F18's.
@@Boscoh_ unfortunately we do not hear all of the radio comms between TRACON and Snake21, but I would bet a weeks take-home that snake21 was asked if they had 699 in sight and they affirmed it. This fact puts the responsibility on Snake for traffic separation. Snake was assigned VFR altitudes so I am assuming he was VFR. In a nutshell Snake violated regs pertaining to reckless operation. When overtaking another aircraft you have to turn and clear it to the right also. The controller should not have perfunctorily clear snakes request for sure, but you have here a civil airport and civil controllers... The cowboy terminology should not be used here.
"Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full."
As soon as you hear one Snake tell the other, "push it up, use burner if you have too.." you know the showboating has begun! Overhead breaks are a military thing and are not expected or prudent for civilian airports. Throw in the "unrestricted" and you know they are going to be aggressive in the pattern. They totally disrespected the pilot over the numbers as evidenced by "I had the traffic in sight!" Still uncalled for!
Congratulations, sir, you’re the newest star of the “how not to (foul) up” safety briefing.
"Misunderstanding approved." Huh.
I went back & watched this a 2nd time. "Push it up dude, give me burner if you need to." Then they pass him basically at the same altitude with afterburners on? What a cluster.
Tower should have responded to their request with "Negative, Ghostrider"
So you are saying, "The pattern is full." 😁
The caption is wrong, he said "misunderstanding I suppose."
LOL! I was a Navy pilot long before Maverick and Top Gun and had to reference them as "trouble a-brewin" when I heard lead's request granted. Turn a 24-25 y/o jet jock loose and anything might happen!
Total d!@k move.
@@jcarp1776 haha, came here looking for this!
I came here expecting to criticize the Citation pilot, but this was a TOTAL lack of situational awareness by Snake 21 to even REQUEST an unrestricted airspeed/altitude break turn when there's an aircraft in front of them on short final. Whether the tower misunderstood or not is irrelevant. Snake 21 should have known high-performance maneuvers are unsafe when you're not the only aircraft in the pattern and have landing aircraft in front of him. But his ego would not be denied for such a pitiful reason such as another aircraft cramping his style. He could have easily (and safely) performed the break turn at his assigned altitude of 3500, but almost nobody would notice you at that altitude so he needed to be low enough where everyone at the airport saw how "cool" he was doing a high-speed break turn. Hence his request for unrestricted airspeed/altitude. He needs to change his call sign from "Snake" to "Biggus Dickus."
Someone's real mad. lol.
@@BasedF-15Pilot Yep. No excuse for a Flight Lead to be considering something like this at a commercial airport with traffic in the pattern.
FYI, he doesn't get to pick the flights call sign, that's associated with the squadron. But, since you read his mind, I'm sure you already knew that.
@agrofindastation Yeah I knew that. But it worked well to make my point.
Well a certain lack of SA is understandable given the fact that he was not on VHF untill he contacted TWR. So he didn't hear all the communications going on.
Secondly, the "Push it up"-Call at 3:37 implies that the flight lead is actually flying in the number 2 slot. So most likely the guy in the number 1 who is actually flying the formation is in training. The desire to be over the numbers at speed and altitude comes from training and standards, rather than a big ego. And of course you want to do a good looking break as much as the Airbus-jockey wants to do a butter landing.
So in the end, Lack of SA coupled with a misunderstanding. Could happen to anyone. And they handled it in a professional manner.
Also props to the approach controller to get them all in one row. This guy knows his job.
The Marine shouldn't have asked for "unrestricted altitude . . ." and the controller shouldn't have approved it. I suspect both will be hearing about it.
They always want to showboat. Marines hold my beer mentally. They arent good pilots either
@@LEVELGAZANOW Could be, but I notice they made the stars and stripes. Google: Marine Corps investigating fighter jet’s close call with civilian aircraft at Austin airport
The marine is fine in asking but if it is at their discretion they “should” have seen the clear issue in overtaking the citation while descending into its path. But yes the controller 1000% should have capped them at 3500 ft which would prevent the whole issue. Lessons learned for both
@@toddw6716
Sounds like the comment of someone who has no clue what they're talking about.
@@toddw6716Ok, Karen
Once in a while you aren't lucky! 4/14/93 my Age Cat crop duster was hit from behind by a Navy A-6e Intruder 150' AGL. The Navy wasted no time retiring the B/N and sending the pilot to some other base while I was still in a coma.
Near colville?
Near Colfax, Wa. Near Diamond, not far from the airport. There are some news videos on RUclips.
@@keithgraham6889 That’s right. Colfax, not Colville. I remember reading and watching on the news about you. Glad to hear you made it out! I’m from near Pendleton. You were big news!
I was a flight instructor in Pullman during that time. I remember this incident clearly. It informs my low level flying every day. I take nothing for granted in any airspace.
Vid of crash is right here on youtube. Amazed you survived! Just wasn’t your time my friend.
**After watching this a second time, I now see the F-18 pilots just wanted to show off. You can even hear them communicate to each other. He says, "Push it up and Hit the burner if you need to". Then the F18s blaze past the citation while on final approach. This was a reckless move. Were the USMC F 18 pilots reprimanded for their actions?
🙄
When SNAKE21 said _"...give me burner if you need to"_ they were descending with only about 400 feet of vertical separation.
These guys have always been a joke. I was a USMC communicator for 9 years in an airwing. Personally witnessed these kids drunk many nights prior to air ops. Can only imagine how much worse it's become 20 years later.
@@rolisreefranch The only "Joke" here is an Enlisted Jarhead talking crap about what they have no idea about.... freaking Jarhead go clean the head or polish your "gun" or something and let the adults talk.
@@Raiders33 push it up means push the throttles forward and we all know what go to burners means. Ya. Show offs in a crowded civilian traffic pattern. Poor ADM at its finest
Funny, I think I saw this happen here in Pflugerville, Texas which is a suburb on the northeast side Austin. I kept looking for news about an aircraft collision but nothing ever turned up. I thought he had clipped the forward aircraft's tail because of the sudden sharp desent just as they were passing. Those F/A - 18's are Hot Rods and they had their pedal to the metal so to speak. They were flying at a very high rate of speed that is why I stopped to watch them. I am a licensed private pilot. I can tell you it was a close call. It was in the latter part of September 2024 timeframe. Talk about a tough job, Air Traffic Controllers work constantly on the edge of disaster.
Commercial aircraft and military aircraft have such a huge difference in normal operational airspeeds and turbulence, flying in close proximity to each other can be a hair raising experience. I know because when I was working for NASA, I would fly my little Cessna 150 out of Ellington Airfield, Houston with all the T-38s, F-16s and old Phantoms just as it became a comercial airport. Talk about nerve racking.
I was waiting for the tower to ask…”are you prepared to copy this number” but the fighters asked first
Obviously used to getting into trouble and making excuses ASAP.
The Fighter flight lead shouldn't have been asking for unrestricted speed/altitude at a busy civilian airport. That's just a stupid request. The Tower unknowingly approved it. Still the flight lead messed that up. He'll probably hear about it from his CO.
Why do they even need to do an overhead break, anyway?
Someone who flies formation in a high performance aircraft would like to know. It’s nothing a couple s turns won’t solve.
Shouldn’t be asking for a break at a civilian airport.. Fly in like everybody else or go to a military airport.
@@Jimmer-Space88 You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Man civilian airports also operate as National Guard and Reserve bases and have just as many military flights as civilian, and this is a VERY common thing for them to do.
Arrogant ego .
@@Jimmer-Space88 That's the old Bergstrom AFB. Probably a reserve squadron there. Nothing wrong with joint use. The flight lead screwed this up. And the tower too. The tower should deny the overhead when busy and they probably do...
First call from tower: Snake 21, continue for the overhead to runway 18L, maintain vfr at 3500, I'll call your break -- problem solved. I worked at a facility with A-10s, and they did these all the time; they did dumb stuff all of time. I heard a couple cues in there that suggested the tower controller was being trained at the time.
Austin is getting really bad about this kind of thing. Military jets shouldn't be approved for their break procedure when landing at a civilian airport that is busy.
It isn’t just a military procedure, it is in the AIM meaning civilians can use it too.
Agreed.
Far out, those altitude numbers ticking down was pretty scary. I thought they might have lost EJ699 under the nose.
Complete B.S. Initial for an overhead break is 1000’ AGL min. Lowest their altitude should have shown is 1600’ not 1200’. They descended to 500’ AGL so they could do a climbing break. Even tapped the AB on final. There was someone watching for them at AUS. Total showboating at a busy civilian airfield. Airmanship U
@@Dr.KennethNoisewaterWhatever you say Dr. If you want to get technical, they never did an initial. They never leveled off. They did a continuous decent. That was a low approach right over the top of another aircraft to a pull closed pattern. I just didn’t want to skewer them. Career ending event.
@@RonMcGregor-u6o I was just adding to your comment. Not sure why you got so defensive. I mostly agreed with your sentiment even haha.
You didn’t want to skewer them? Did you read what you wrote 🤣🤣.
You have no clue what you are talking about by the way. You sound like some heavy dude who flew a t-37/6 for 6 months and hates fighter pilots because you sucked so bad. Just sayin….And zero sense of humor. The Dr Kenneth Noisewater reference went a miler over your head apparently.
Navy and Marines do not do climbing breaks. That's a USAF thing.
I've seen F-35s and Vipers take it down to 200 for the break..
This is false. Navy / Marine jets do the overhead much lower. That's what they asked for and that's what he approved.
I do think the f-18 pilots should have explained exactly what they wanted to the controllers. Most FAA guys aren't seeing f18s do carrier breaks and probably don't see the overhead all that much.
At least they didn’t switch to missiles at their discretion.
People are fundamentally misunderstanding what “unrestricted” means in terms of the clearance.
Unrestricted doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. It means that you-not ATC-are responsible for separation.
Those fighter jocks screwed the pooch. Either they had no SA which for two fighter planes in perfect VFR conditions is beyond incompetence.. or they purposefully buzzed the Citation for which they should be court marshalled.
I strongly doubt its the second lol. No one is that dumb…..but they were definitely focused on the best altitude for their break rather than the safety of the citation already established in front of them on final in a dirty config. ATC is at fault (for not limiting them to 3500 feet) and the airman are at fault for failure to maintain safe spacing
@@FlightX101 ATC told them they would be breaking above the Citation, and for the F-18s to maintain 4500, and then changed it to 3500(around 2:10)...they ignored it, didn't hear it, or were too focused on unrestricted altitude clearance, and it didn't register that the F-18 pilots had unrestricted altitude clearance ABOVE 3500 AGL, for their break. In my opinion, not ATC's fault, since he clearly verbalized the actions he intended the F-18 pilots to take, and they didn't.
@@jimmieusaf-pol5818 No, the "unrestricted altitude" clearance came after the "maintain VFR at 3500" clearance, so it supersedes/deletes the prior clearance. The pilot had no altitude restriction at the point that the tower approved his request.
Reminds me of my primary training days at BAF in Westfield MA. Not uncommon to hear "Cessna 1-8-Niner, traffic on your six is a pair of A-10s...best speed please".
If you listed to the comms right after the tower clears Snake21 "as requested," lead instructs his wing to "push it up,use burner if you have to" and they accelerate. This section was hell bent on performing a "SH break"and they could not be bothered there was an aircraft in their way trying to land.
... Yeah. I can see why he's pissed. EDIT: "you guys did have that jet that you descended in front of in sight?" "Affirmative." - What the hell?
Had an execjet in sight and still chose to fly by him fast and low? Hot Dogs. He’ll be answering for that one. UHF is a problem, stupid to work two tower frequencies for landings. It’s not like fighters don’t have VHF, and they’re not far away. Some dangerous chit. Bad for public relations.
Sounds like once he got to tower he WAS on VHF, because ExecJet had a back-and-forth with him.
@@RicCrouchmilitary use UHF most of the time.
@@bks252 I’m well aware. Used to do it all the time. Doesn’t change the fact that in this case, they were on VHF when they went to tower.
@@bks252approach clearly gives them a vhf frequency after asking if they’d need the uhf
@@bks252 Your comment is pretty asinine. He was clearly on VHF at the time of the break.
I never heard anything regarding giving the F-18s discretion to do anything until the go-around and base at discretion.
Why weren't the military on VHF if they were equipped all along? I find that to be an issue. Other traffic being able to hear them adds to safety of flight for EVERYONE.
Second, why can't the military guys follow normal procedures the same as other jets? They're not mixing in with a bunch of piston aircraft. They all require faster speeds. And, Vref for the F-18 is only around 130-140 knots. That's another reason to slow it down and fly a normal pattern as everyone else.
There should be no allowance for the additional maneuvers when mixing in with all civilian traffic.
The AOA of an F/A-18 at 130-140 knots is so high that it severely restricts their vision forward over the pointy nose (same with any fighter). Their best vision is with the AOA at no less than about 300-350 knots --- hence, the need for an overhead break approach and landing.
You request discretion, but there is traffic near and you do the descending break anyway? That was a bone head maneuver.
Navy and USAF fly overhead patterns differently. Tower never should have said break over the numbers, that wasn’t going to work. And then snake didn’t hear the break departure end, correction.
When the controller gave approval for "unrestricted airspeed and altitude", seems prudent that the jet jocky should have come back and said "but there's a citation directly in our path" or something to that extent. Or taken another course of action to allow separation between them and the citation.
if the hornets saw the execjet, the FAA needs to talk to them, that could have been ugly.
The F18 pilots clearly were told they were following a citation to the airport by approach control. Terrible situational awareness. Also common sense.
They were also cleared for unrestricted altitude/airspeed break. Yes. they should have maintained seperation. But, the tower set this issue up.
Except they were told about foot hills not Execjet. I didn’t hear any comms regarding the actual stack over the runway.
@@dafox0427 ATC can tell you to do all sorts of stuff, including setting you up to fly into another plane. It's up to the pilot to have some SA
@dafox0427
Nope!
VFR!!!
That means see and avoid regardless of being unrestricted.
I’ve been cleared an unrestricted visual tons of times with field and traffic in sight. All that means is that I’m now responsible for separation.. not ATC.
@@dafox0427dosent matter much…the f18s are in perfect vfr conditions and dove down to the citation level for no reason. Yes they have clearance but they are still primarily responsible in how they conduct their approach. Not buzz the plane and cause an RA pissing the citation off
The controller found its way around not to say it, but would have been funny to hear “possible pilot deviation, I have a number for you” said to a fighter jet!
"Possible target lock"
M y question is this: Why does the military have to do an overhead break at a civilian airport? Especially with civilian traffic in the area to land.
@@LEVELGAZANOW500 knots at KORD is so wild
@@LEVELGAZANOW what were you flying?
@@LEVELGAZANOW that’s amazing. A very good family friend was a naval aviator in the 80’s who started out with VF-142 in the Tomcat, and then transitioned to test flying. I was just talking to him yesterday about his test flying and carrier qualing the hornet.
He told me:
“I was fortunate to be on the ground floor of the hornet. The very ground floor. For example, I flew ship 3, 7 and 11. The 3rd, 7th and 11th birds off of the line! And for 2 seat birds, I flew T.F.-1. The 1st two seat bird off of the production line.“
@@LEVELGAZANOW
Is it also the quickest and safest way to lose separation from the civilian pilot right in front of you?
Is it approved when it's reckless under the circumstances?
@@LEVELGAZANOWBetter ADM would have your _"separation from your wingman"_ long before you reached the approach phase. It is a civil airport stateside, not a FOB in a hot zone. No need to play cowboy every approach.
After burners to fly by a civil aircraft?! Come on guys. Common sense.
It appeared to me that the Snake21 deliberately buzzed the exec-jet. Had traffic in sight? I had to go back and look at the altitude, at one point all aircraft was juxtaposition and altitude matching numbers
Negative Ghostrider, pattern is full.
The approach guy did great! Can we at least acknowledge that?
I don't know what the radar screen actually looks like but velocity vectors turned out would help with SA.
From the video, it appears SNAKE21 passed over EJA699 only about 100 ft above it, and descended below EJA699's final approach path before breaking left. It was a dumb idea to even ask for "unrestricted altitude/airspeed break 18L" in the first place, knowing there was landing traffic. And then, executing it like that, not maintaining proper VFR separation aside, the wake turbulence hitting the slower landing traffic risks their safety. It was just plain reckless. Tower's approval of said maneuver doesn't remove the responsibility of not doing anything that presents danger to oneself and others.
Kudos to EJA699 for being so calm. Too bad he couldn't switch to guns. It was definitely too close for missiles.
Make flight should not have asked for the unrestricted maneuvers. ATC should not have approved it.
SNAKE21 didn't think it was a big deal because they are used to flying close to other airplanes. The Citation probably wasn't, and the TCAS alert would have made me nervous too. They probably don't have a lot of experience flying into civilian airfields either, and was happy to shine their asses here. Not a good look on the flight lead though, and I am sure that he has been talked to about it.
This from the perspective of a retired controller. A number of minor mistakes, fortunately nothing added up to all the holes lining up.
1. approach did not adequately point out the preceding arrival, but arguably maybe not necessary as he kept altitude separation. However he he did not pass that to the tower and assumed the tower would issue traffic.
2. Tower failed to call traffic to either aircraft and assumed approach had done so.
3. Flight lead may have been unclear as to what his intentions were.
4. Flight was cleared to break at the departure end but if the video is accurate they broke at the arrival end.
In the end though it was poor communications on the part of the controllers that led to this. I don’t blame EJA for his frustration ( polite way of saying it) at all.
Incompetent ATC, it seem every month KAUS has a screwup. The agency needs to clean house there.
Jesus will return before then. Hint: "woke values" in play.
@@samrapheal1828 in Texas.......yeah......go with that!.......
@@samrapheal1828 total BS but if it makes you comfy to think so go ahead, "woke" beats Magat every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
@samrapheal1828
Nope.
VFR still means see and avoid. Unrestricted doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want.
@@OtherSarah2 Bless your heart. You and your anti-American ass can vacate to South American at any time. don't let the door hit you on your way out
Is there any reason why tower wasn't using 18R? Was it closed? Being a former military base, AUS is set up nicely for joint civilian/military ops with parallel runways. Bring the Hornets in for 18R and straight-in traffic for 18L.
Why are 2 F18 jets flying around Austin? Are they USN or USAF? San Antonio has massive base.. air show ?
I’ve been dealing with this for weeks where I fly. Military is running all kinds of drills, F-18’s and A-10’s treating our home airport (lots of airline traffic) like a military base. Just yesterday had an A-10 try to land behind me after a break like this (he way misjudged it) tried to land on the runway while we were still on the rollout ourselves. ATC screamed at him to go around.
I’ve been less than impressed by our military aviators lately.
Has nothing to do with the military aviators, and everything to do with civilian towers not being up to speed on working with military jets.
Definitely not of the same quality as we once had.
I've been flying for 40 years. I stopped being impressed by military pilots after my first 121 job.
@@tamarindocoral
There's good and bad like every outfit, a flightsuit doesn't make a good aviator.
@@5thGenNativeTexan nothing at all to do with ATC. Had the A10 pilot been able to judge my landing and rollout, as instructed to by ATC, and plan his break accordingly, there would’ve been no issues.
Austin is going to have a PSA Flight 182 incident. It’s a matter of time.
My dad was a firefighter in SD during that time. He said the aftermath was not a pretty sight..
@@427SuperSnake1 no that was very, very bad. But these near miss incidents are starting to really add up ABIA and luck will run out eventually. I honestly think that the airspace has gotten really finite there because of the number of people in Austin now and there is so much GA and commercial operations that it’s gotten too difficult to manage.
@@jcraigshelton I agree, I don’t know how many RA videos I have seen in the last couple of months. Not to mention runway incursions left and right signaling another Tenerife..
Maverick: "You don't have time to think up there."
f18s knew about the execjet, execjet found about them being around him when tcas started alerting. yeah not cool. let the dude know he doesnt have rear view mirrors....... controller thought they wanted to break way earlier and higher. eh no harm just iffy
Could someone explain what a "break" is and why the F18s were doing it here?
The "overhead break" When a military jet fly's directly to the runway end at a high speed and around 800-1500" altitude. Over the runway end or near the middle they will "break" meaning a sharp turn to return to the final approach and line up for landing.
It's a military aviation maneuver to recover one or a formation of several aircraft in limited (protected) airspace in a short amount of time.
Why do it in AUS? You'd have to ask them.
As a professional pilot who's been on the military and civilian side of aviation for the past 15 years, fighter pilots can definitely be some of the most block headed people to deal with.
Guilty! And I'm not even a pilot anymore.
@@Trevor-gu8bb and Netjets pilots are top tier tool bag man babies on the civil side
They can also be some of the smartest. Guy who headed up the CAST (Commercial Aviation Safety Team) team who won the 2008 Collier Trophy was a former Navy fighter pilot. He and his team basically rewrote safety guidelines and procedures and reduced fatal commercial accidents by 80% between 1997, when it was formed, and 2007.
That must have scared the life out of the poor executive jet 699 pilot! Just imagine being in one of the most intense phases of the flight-at 1,500 feet, fully focused-when two F-18s zoom past just 100 feet above you. Even though the F-18 pilots had the executive jet in sight and likely thought it would be no factor, but the executive jet pilot had no idea what was happening.
Also nothing inherently unsafe about doing a break especially one at 1000 ft agl. Carrier breaks are lower and routine. You dont spend forever with your nose in the air trundling into land in the terminal area. Its actually quicker for sequencing multiple aircraft into one deck or runway to have them come in at 400-450 knots, do a break into the pattern and land then to have them configured to land 5 miles out. Probably not comfortable for passengers though lol.
The “break” is just not necessary at a civilian airport. I don’t know why it was approved with another aircraft landing.
A break is needed because of the high AOA that ALL fighter aircraft have at slow airspeeds.
Military flyover a busy civi airport, wtf?
If I was the controller I wouldn’t have expected them to descend because they were told they had an aircraft in front of them. It looked like they were only a couple hundred feet above the citation when they passed over. It was unnecessary for them to be so close over the top of another aircraft not in their flight, even if the did have them in sight.
The break is defined by the normal AGL at which it occurs. That's well below 3500ft or 2500ft. Typically just above pattern altitude, but can be lower where pattern altitude is artificially high.
They were initially told to break at the numbers, which requires being at break altitude at that point.
Only later did the controller change that to delay the break to the upwind numbers when he realized his authorization of "unrestricted " caused a conflict. (It would not be a conflict at a military airfield)
Also, military aircraft are waivered to exceed 250kt below 10,000ft. Typically 350kt without asking, but "unrestricted" can be 500kt+.
Regardless, it is the practiced, quickest, and most orderly way to get jets on the ground.
Approach and traffic screwed the pooch. They only called FTH 703 and not EJA699 to Snake flight. The positional traffic update to Snake flight was for FTH 703 not EJA699. No one called the EJA699 to Snake flight, which would have been "traffic 12-11 o clock low" not "2-3 o clock". Pretty obvious Snake flight never had EJA699 in sight. Lead should have just requested to spin it once for traffic then come in for the break because you can always trust that tower is trying to kill you.
I worked fighters and this was not a typical OH break. However, the request from the fighters should have been a clue to the controller. It looks like he was trying the bring them in front of the landing BJ, hence the break over the numbers, but noticed quickly that it wasn't going to work, so he changed for them to break over the departure end, but by then it was too late. Of note, the fighters would have had the BJ on their radar and likely in sight. Not surprising that an RA was triggered, but it happens often since fighters fly, climb, descend so fast, which creates the RA over-reaction. But overall, bad plan by the tower controller and the fighter pilots should have put in that request much earlier and it should have been refused by ATC otherwise.
Not sure I'd say it was an RA over-reaction where planes are that close.
@jovanmilosevic2494 I wasn't necessarily saying that this one was, it was likely close enough to justify one, but it can easily happen.
Problem ONE.) Two military aircraft flying in civilian controlled airspace utilizing THEIR UHF channel.
Problem TWO.) Military Pilots conducting themselves (let's see, how would the Department of State phrase it?) UNPROFESSIONALLY while sharing the public skies.
Problem THREE.) Military Pilots winning their wings from a box of CRACKERJACKS.
In my experience, military guys have their own phraseology, that most civilian pilots are not familiar with. And often do all kinds of wacky approaches/maneuvers that are not standard at civilian airports. Military guys need to be more careful. Descending over the top and in front of other traffic is not safe.
Do you enter the pattern or a missed procedure when ATC instructs to 'cancel' clearance? Thanks from a sim pilot
Yes, ExecJet had previously been cleared to land, but tower then tower decided to launch Career Track, so EJ's landing clearance (not approach clearance) was cancelled until tower was sure CT would be out of the way. In that case, EJ continues the approach, but can't land until tower once again clears them to land. Then EJ would be told "cleared to land" once CT is off.
Continue the approach, and if nothing further is given, ask for landing clearance if you're getting to the point where a decision would have to be made or execute a missed approach. This is where situational awareness is important. Once the landing clearance was revoked, EJ would have had a pretty good idea it was only to depart traffic and to expect another cleared to land once closer to the runway. When in doubt, always ask.
@@lornes7526 & @riccrouch thank you, I usually fly as foot hills or execjet on VATSIM, it's great for learning
I used to fly (civilian) out of Guam back in the 1980s. GUM was then co-located with an NAS and we had an AFB (then SAC base) in close proximity. Generally the local AF/Navy pilots/aviators were pretty well-behaved. From time to time "a few God men" would show up to the island and the only truly safe place was on the ground. This Snake flight probably forgot that they were in the US where the population is supposed to "matter".
Both controllers seemed overly excited that fighters were inbound. Just deal with the traffic.
In a civilian airport , military procedures and frequencies are dangerous 😖
Um no. I get c-130 and military king air visits all the time. Simply fly normally and theres no issue lol
Hell, it looks like to me that the two fighters knew exactly what they were doing. The problem was that nobody else was listening to what they said.
4:20 "I had the traffic in sight" says the F-18 flight of two, but my question would be:
If the Citation had suddenly unexpected veered just as the F-18's were passing it, would they then have been able to avoid it?
Defensive flying is like defensive driving... you shouldn't count on other traffic always doing the predictable thing.
The f18 super hornet is one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, it's also equipped with the most technologically advanced equipment in the world... yes, it could have dodged a citation on final instantly.
@@lasagnapotato3853I wasn't actually questioning the abilities of the aircraft, I was merely wondering about the details of the incident...was there enough clearance to allow the F-18's to avoid the Citation, regardless of the Citation's actions.
Even the most maneuverable aircraft with the most alert and best pilot still is bound by the laws of physics, obviously.
@jerrysmith5782 the only details we commenters have is that approach gave traffic for all aircraft involved, all aircraft acknowledged each other, and that all aircraft involved avoided collision. The flight of Tip of Guy's only rules in their flight was to maintain Visual Fligjt Rules, which they obviously did otherwise we probably wouldn't here this audio. The exact amount of clearance needed for an f18 flight to avoid a turbine jet engine powered aircraft will probably never be released to any public domain, but as an avid controller I'd say they're just dandy.
Is it just me or does this airport seem to have a lot of close calls recently?
Long time fighter pilot here. Snake 21 flight lead is a total assclown. I would never pull shit like that. He needs to be grounded. Obviously putting on a show for someone on the ground.
Agreed! Thank you for your service, Sir! Retired 21 years USAF, and have talked to many fighter pilots over the years, and most have common sense and self-discipline...which sure didn't seem to be the case with these USMC pilots in this situation. Fly*Fight*Win
@@Highside713 you weren’t on the ground there or in their seat………….
@themoverandgonkyshow would love a breakdown on this one
ruclips.net/video/qsarEkgl2OI/видео.html
I'm a licensed aircraft mech working on our city airport,and been on many test flights in corporate aircraft.I live in a city with a Airforce Base,but when Navy and Marine Corp aircraft come to town for fuel,they use the city airport.I've seen the break they do,but have never seen this happen.
wtf is going on in Austin? This is like the fifth near miss this year
Possible controller deviation, advise when ready to copy a number.
Pretty unprofessional on our military right there, even if the F18 had the citation in sight, 100’ clearance is classless airmanship.
Citation guy should demand that the fighter guys give him their Unit and commanders name and direct phone number so they dont get the run around. A very direct phone call to the unit commander (and nobody in between) stating the unprofessional and dangerous situation caused by one of his pilots would be in order.....then....tell the unit commander that you want HIS commander's name and number and make another call so it will be hard to sweep under the rug. I am a retired military pilot and can tell you that phone calls to the right people can directly influence careers.
An ASAP report gets the ball rolling on these things.
Ok Karen
@@jmorgan3914quiet down child
I bet the Unit Commander will hear about it for sure. Terry - CFI-I
@@jmorgan3914 It's NOT 'Ok Karen' when it's an actual life or death situation.
If thats the sharpest the Navy could get for their F-18s, perhaps someone needs to look into F-18 recruiting. What a dumb idea by that hornet lead.
The controller blindly put his trust in those military aviators and I think they abused his trust. Also, controllers in the U.S cannot approve unrestricted speed (250 kts) below 10k. And there’s nothing wrong with doing an overhead at a civilian airport. Just realize civilian pilots might not know you’ll be 500ft above them which could trigger a TA and or RA. If they descended that was careless regardless if they had the lower aircraft visual. Military VFR patterns are almost always Class Delta and you can buzz around 250 kts to min maneuver speed. At civilian airports controllers want to be more accommodating to us military guys, but know the rules n cost. It’s not uncommon for fighters to only communicate on UHF not VHF. One problem that could have arise had the citation executed a go-around. I never heard the controller remind the citation in the event of a GA, maintain at or below xxxx ALT until departure end or wherever. Again complacency, luckily no accident just a HATR.
Good point about 250kts but actually inside the delta it’s 200kts
Military tactical jets are exempted to 350kt typically, and unrestricted on VR and IR routes...even supersonic in a few restricted areas.
Heavy jets like 747, A380, MD-11, C-5 and loaded tankers are also waivered after takeoff because at max gross weight, 250 is way too slow clean. 747 freighters are usually allowed 320kt if they need it.
This also helps with wake turbulence reduction...a clean 747 going fast not only dissipates sooner, but is milder than the raging mass of air behind them in a high lift mode...flaps and slats deployed.
Your in the civilian world here boys.
Is this yet another Austin ATC fail? Wow
My question is this the same controller that had the SWA/FEDEX error! Sounds similar to me.
Well there is another controller with no military experience approving something that he is not familiar with. How about a little positive control.
The ATC knew what an "Initial" was from the start, but no one ever called it after that.
@@Raiders33he may have known what initial is right out of the 7110, but he never assigned an altitude for it. He had traffic on final and traffic departing. His first instructions were to break at the approach numbers😮
Single Engine Pilot here...that would have shaken me up pretty badly...when you see something unexpected like that, your whole body gets an adrenaline dump.
AUS has some serious issues with their ATC staff.
How long have those Top Guns been flying? They seem to know nothing about how the TCAS works. When I switched to longhaul I was warned by some collegues about American ATC. "Cool but shitty"
Those Hornet's are old, don't have TCAS nor ILS hence why they rejected the localizer.
@@mobius7089 also, they would be a bit offset laterally from the centerline so as to be able to see the runway next to them before the break.
Is there a reason they are flying right by a civilian airport?
Why is controller giving VFR altitudes?
Traffic separation. Controllers often assign altitudes to VFR traffic. Hear it all the time in the DFW class B airspace.
Dangerous in the best of scenarios.
Horrendous situational awareness by the F-18s. They should have known better as they were told about the citation… then afterburner!? WTF for? Trying to make noise thinking you’re cool? As I heard a beautiful female pilot tell a fighter pilot… “Your plane’s cool, you’re not”.
I can understand why they did this cuz at the bases they hit the breaks when other aircraft are landing below them but doing it at a civilian airport is a bit crazy.
I was gonna say tell that exec jet guy to stop crying then I saw the video, and I woulda cussed the jets out too LOL. come on bro, it's common sense, break or not. you can't just fly over my ass when I'm on a short final about to land the plane. LOL. good on exec jet, I woulda cussed for sure.
Who the hell is the super over Austin this place is just a nest of bad habits and dangerous ops.
On a side note, You don't have a name like Snake 21 and not have an outstanding mustache.
Austin has had some serious issues. This has to stop.
Yet another incident caused by informal, loose comms.
AUS screw up trying to be too cool and so become complacent, dangerous, and unprofessional.
Maverick, request permission for a flyby 🏁 Coffee spills on shirt 😮
Oh look, another AUS controller F up. At least they're getting more consistent. Before, it was 1 incident per quarter. Now it's 1 incident per month 😳
Why is the number that was transmitted on a public freq redacted?
I realize this is edited. But if this is the kind of rushed speaking and quality of transmissions we are lucky there aren't a lot more crashes. Many of these ATC and pilots are not speaking plainly and properly. The pilot probably knows what he is planning and executing. The ATC probably knows what he is planning and stating. But they just don't always seem to be working together fully. I know this is out of normal but it appears to me to be real lax stuff.
Requested... Cause he's the boss he don't need no response.
Tower failed hard. An altitude for initial should’ve been assigned to maintain at least 500 ft above the traffic on final. Sad Austin is back in the news again lately. They kind of have a long history of screw ups.
Non pilot here. Why have the fighters approach and do a break at all? Seems silly to have them overfly another plane, just to turn around go out again and then come back to land. Why not put them in line or sequence with everyone else? Thanks for indulging my ignorance and curiosity.
Fastest and most efficient way to get a formation into the landing pattern and on the ground, by FAR
@@C420sailor thanks, but why the need for such at a commercial airport?
@@bigbubba4314lts a free country
@@bigbubba4314 ..Because they felt 'the need, the need for speed'...🤡
@@bigbubba4314 My guess is that they were showing off for their wives/ girlfriends down on the ground. Austin is a civil airport, not a military one, so these jets were probably doing a "cross country" hop to take the pilots to a weekend vacation. Pilots are sometimes allowed to do that to maintain currency, as long as the aircraft aren't needed for something more important.
Not all military pilots are top guns. Some are pretty average, but still cocky. Here is an example of such.
Telling his wingman over hot mic to “use burner to catch up” means his wingman had zero SA on the execjet in front of them. It’s a miracle that 2 didn’t smack right into him trying to get in position for their little squid break at an airport that is severely understaffed with controllers.