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. th-cam.com/video/pAnuCnEbDe0/w-d-xo.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.
Actually, .mil pilots aren't bound by the FAA and civilian aviation rules. They can still get written up with the FAA but it doesn't affect their military flying at all. They generally do try to follow the rules 1) because it makes sense; when in Rome... and 2) because violations do follow them into a civilian career if they want to fly for the airlines after service. But some of them boys couldn't give a hoot.
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.
America still expects military aviators to be the experts of experts. Navy you shall not let us down! This does not pass private pilot practical test, dudes!
"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!
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.
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...
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.
1. Austin ain't THAT busy. 2. If they had the available airspace, they can do it. Likewise, check the FARAIM for break procedures (no, not "brake"), it's in there
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
If you're wondering what a "break" is, here's what ChatGPT told me. Please correct me if anything is incorrect: When fighter pilots request a "break" from Air Traffic Control (ATC), they are typically asking for permission to perform a high-speed overhead break maneuver during landing. This maneuver is used in military aviation to quickly transition from high-speed flight to the landing pattern while maintaining situational awareness and tactical readiness. Here's how it works: 1. Initial Arrival: The aircraft approaches the airfield at a higher speed than standard civilian traffic, often at a low altitude. 2. Overhead Pass: The pilot flies directly over the runway (the "initial point") at high speed. 3. Break Maneuver: At the designated point, the pilot performs a sharp, banking turn (usually 180°) while reducing speed. This maneuver dissipates energy and positions the aircraft on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. 4. Landing Sequence: After the break, the pilot transitions to a base turn and then aligns with the runway for a final approach and landing. The "break" is a standard procedure for military aircraft, but it requires ATC approval because it differs from civilian traffic patterns and involves unique speed and altitude requirements. It is efficient for quickly integrating high-performance aircraft into the landing sequence.
**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
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!
Austin gets military traffic all the time, especially student training from Laughlin and Sheppard flying T-6 and T-38s. That’s Air Force side. Texas is huge for flight training with Laughlin on the border, Sheppard in Wichita Falls, Lackland and Randolph both in San Antonio, Vance just across the border in Oklahoma, and the NAS at Corpus and Pensacola. Austin is no stranger to the overhead, Air Force or navy, and legally speaking it’s just a VFR pattern with a much smaller turn and greater initial speed. Legally there’s no reason a military pilot couldn’t execute an overhead anywhere under VFR and civilian pilots in GA could do it too, it would just be more unnecessary. The consideration is if the tower would be likely to be familiar or not with them and explaining in more plain terms what they wanted to do if not. In the high volume pilot training patterns, there are multiple avenues for identifying and resolving conflicts. It’s a crazy busy pattern. It works because everyone understands the procedures for breaking out and reentry based on what position other aircraft are reporting in the pattern. In civilian fields with less procedure and control, separation becomes the primary consideration but that doesn’t mean the overhead can’t be done. And, to the max extent practical, the overhead should be done for training. That’s not to excuse the incident in the video, there wasn’t adequate separation to execute the overhead and there are multiple ways they could’ve resolved this while still being able to recover with an overhead. I’m just saying a lot of people are blindly talking about how an overhead should never be flown in a civilian pattern when in reality it’s super common, at least at decent sized airports near air bases or stations where military traffic is frequent.
@@bigblue207 I appreciate your insight and candor. Please know that my comment is not in any way flippant. Over 8 years in the USAF, four at Nellis, I'm thankful for being able to see the best in the world in the pattern. As a civilian pilot, I've also been thumped by a pair of vipers over FL. Not cool. Sarcasm is dripping from the flight leads voice and even tries to back down the controller, as if the controller did something wrong. Common or not, inappropriate and unprofessional.
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.
@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
So, after deliberately blowing past an aircraft on short final, with mere hundreds of feet of separation, putting that aircraft directly into your wake turbulence, these meatheads then go on to completely blow the break instructions and break over the LANDING end numbers instead of the instructed DEPARTURE end.
Something else I noticed, the hornets sped up to around 350-400 knots (i’m guessing), they buzzed the citation and broke at the approach end NOT the departure end as directed! I’m also guessing this set off a TCAS / RA in the citation.
"Possible pilot deviation, let me know when you can copy a number" is such a common utterance, how in holy heck was that not ATC's first call to these buffoons? This is some of the most reckless flying of the year over US airspace. Please tell me they don't just get away with it because of their employer.
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.
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.
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.
May I ask the reasoning behind the "overhead break" and "unrestricted altitude/airspeed"? Is there a purpose for this maneuver (is it meant to simulate a carrier landing)? Honest questions, just want to know.
They didn’t say “possible pilot deviation” which tells me they just want to talk and might even think they were partially or fully to blame instead of the pilots.
@@Maver1ck911 Means nothing when they said they saw the Execjet on its approach and did it anyway. ATC approval doesn't mean you get to be a knob head. Common sense.
Tower never told the Execjet pilot about the Hornets but told the other aircraft. He has every right to be pissed when 2 fast jets come screaming over him with no warning. I see fast jets every day do these run in breaks and they always wait for the landing aircraft to be down and taxiing before crossing him for the break.
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.
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.
No the military pilot knew exactly what he was asking for and what he intended to do, unfortunately the controller expected discretion and instead he got thrown under the bus.
@@FlyingWildAZ Since they were VFR, it is still their responsibility to maintain separation from other traffic, so I dont think controller will be completely screwed.
@@sassyassasin2712 you're right but if you're tower and have those fighters at an altitude restriction to deconflict from your arrival then approve the fighters to descend through assigned restriction it seems a bit reckless imo
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.
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.
3:57 - I would have been on the radio immediately with "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT" ?? Also, pushing into burners on approach right next to a GA aircraft, LOL - showboating
@@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.
1. Using UHF with approach when VHF would have increased overall SA to other traffic. 2. Requesting an overhead recovery while other aircraft are simultaneously performing straight ins, increasing likelihood of a mishap and controller workload. 3. Requesting a special snowflake overhead recovery which isn’t defined anywhere when you could have just used the published numbers for this airfield, increasing likelihood of a mishap. 4. Going so close to another aircraft that you set off a TCAS/RA when you allegedly had the traffic in sight. Well done Marines.
I am not a pilot, but have been an aircraft mechanic (F/A-18s also) for over 30 years and I cannot believe that the tower would have thought that an F/A-18 would fly slower than a slotation (Citation). Glad every one safely landed.
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
When I was in flight school years ago at KBJC the Marines used it for a fuel stop. They would break midfield at probably 300kts or so and fly just like they were going to land on a carrier. Any Naval aviators out there correct me if I’m wrong but don’t they start the break at 800ft agl? If so they zoomed that citation. Thankfully the controllers at BJC would tell them to pound sand if traffic was an issue.
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.
"Of note, the fighters would have had the BJ on their radar and likely in sight." At 5:00, Snake confirms he saw the citation. And still buzzed him. Total recklessness.
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
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.
You can hear it in all three of their voices that they were shaken after what happened. The fighter and tower were scared they fucked up and would get in trouble, the jet was scared that he almost got in a mid air. Ive been on both sides of that myself lol.
Never seen an overhead break at 3500 ft agl. Standard for a Navy break is 1000agl (800 at the carrier). Break speed normally around 300 kias. Obviously the civilian guys really didn’t understand military breaks. Lesson I’ve learned is unless it’s a Joint Use Airfield, just make out like your a civilian aircraft. Bergstrom has an Army National Guard Guard helo outfit but that’s it
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.
The main issue is the F-18's caused an RA [Resolution Advisory] in 699's cockpit which they MUST comply with. The RA announcement is an electronic pre recorded announcment in the cockpit that tells the pilot to go up. down. right or left.... It is as if it's the word of God and supersedes any instructions from the tower or other pilots.
Yeah definitely a mistake (but not an error, exactly) on the controllers part not to keep the ExecJet informed of the traffic, but regardless, if he got an RA he has to respond to it and there's nothing the controller can do at that point. From all indications, the F-18s were VFR, and had the traffic in sight, inbound on initial for the the overhead, so it was basically a non-event. 🤷♂ What I really have a problem with is the tower controller canceling the landing clearance of the ExecJet on a 5 mile final and then putting another aircraft on the runway in position. WTH?? AUS is having similar issues to SFO, the ATM should be fired and the IG should be involved, just too many incidents with runway separation and judgement.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Snake 2-1 made the request for unrestricted break but it was never approved. They never even received a response to that request. That F/A 18's flight lead is 100% responsible for this.
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.
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"
this was setup by multiple flights "getting cleared for the visual" with a 400+ kias unrestricted pattern. Austin has struggled with civilian traffic the last 10 years/so. Definitely a high threat airport. I was raised in the late 70s/80s with AUS in my "backyard," it's hardly the same operation now as then. From the amount of flying, type of flying, training of ATC, and airport itself ... it's a thing. Have flown GA into AUS, USAF fighter, and airline into the AUS local airports. Have had the most difficulty, reportable events, with AUS at "BSM" Hopefully the marines learned ... this ain't BSM (though they prob weren't even in flight school when AUS was at Robert Mueller). If you're not doing an ILS at 140KIAS, there will be conflict.
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.
I suppose Navy pilots and civilian pilots require very opposite personalities, which lends to this kind of problems. The mindset to land a jet on a ~500ft long carrier runway and the mindset to have a good career as a civilian pilot are pretty much opposite. Civilian pilot: "Hey you passed within under 1000ft of me! I'm carrying 5 people and I've shat some bricks!" Navy pilot: "Huh? I suppose you meant 100ft? Well it was way more than 100 ft but even 100ft that's plenty of space, we do much less quite routinely... But, if you're troubled - I'll buy you a beer if you'd like?" Civilian pilot: "Wha... I did mean 1'000ft but... nevermind. I guess I'll just... request 10 miles of clearance of any Navy jet going forward."
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.
It's a practice thing. I hear the F35 flights he F35s come over us in Madison before breaking to pattern and turning to final turn pointed straight at my balcony and hitting the throttle hard at times, you just hope not in panic.
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.
As an airline pilot I've had passengers ask if the pilots are military thinking those are superior pilots. Oh boy, this video pretty much explains what the commercial world thinks of these guys. Just because you got approved for unrestricted speed and altitude does NOT mean you are approved to break common sense and always applicable rules like: do not buzz another aircraft and cause a collision hazard. Hope their CO gets a hold of this.
Dont know much of air traffic But on the ground the guy ahead of you always has the right of way...And bumper kissing is a fine...In the air no one can get out and chat about whos at fault...
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.
@@Droolbaby The comment was correcting the captions, not the events.
@@adamhale6672 Correction noted...roger...thank you. G'Day
@@Droolbaby Over.
@@craftykoala Over Macho Grande?
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.
th-cam.com/video/pAnuCnEbDe0/w-d-xo.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.
Exactly
Actually, .mil pilots aren't bound by the FAA and civilian aviation rules. They can still get written up with the FAA but it doesn't affect their military flying at all. They generally do try to follow the rules 1) because it makes sense; when in Rome... and 2) because violations do follow them into a civilian career if they want to fly for the airlines after service. But some of them boys couldn't give a hoot.
@@JofoTubinthis isn’t about the reprimands, it’s about doing the proper thing
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.
America still expects military aviators to be the experts of experts. Navy you shall not let us down! This does not pass private pilot practical test, dudes!
Military pilots probably thought citation pilot was aware and would think it was cool.
People love a free flyby in almost every other scenario.
@@erickborling1302 Think the pilot was a marine, which (showing my bias) explains a lot.
... 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?
Yeah I would have been pissed too
"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!
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 TH-cam.
@@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.
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...
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.
@@jimallen8186 not at 400 KIAS. there was deconfliction problems even without the altitude separation with ExecJet.
1. Austin ain't THAT busy.
2. If they had the available airspace, they can do it. Likewise, check the FARAIM for break procedures (no, not "brake"), it's in there
@@shaark92 when you authorize "unrestricted", 400KIAS is indeed authorized
Congratulations, sir, you’re the newest star of the “how not to (foul) up” safety briefing.
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.
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
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"
the Cessna pilot basically did... lol
i mean tower also did approve unrestricted altitude for the snake soo...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh man, Ellington field. I went to school just a couple miles from there back around 2000. Was a pretty busy place for a few years there.
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".
that was to put the Cessna ahead of the Hawgs.
---former Hawg driver.
if the hornets saw the execjet, the FAA needs to talk to them, that could have been ugly.
FAA do not have any jurisdiction over military aircraft, but the Commander does. Sadly we prob won't be hearing about that.
They may have seen him late.
@@stephenhenley7452they said they had him in sight 5 miles from the airport.
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
If you're wondering what a "break" is, here's what ChatGPT told me. Please correct me if anything is incorrect:
When fighter pilots request a "break" from Air Traffic Control (ATC), they are typically asking for permission to perform a high-speed overhead break maneuver during landing. This maneuver is used in military aviation to quickly transition from high-speed flight to the landing pattern while maintaining situational awareness and tactical readiness. Here's how it works:
1. Initial Arrival: The aircraft approaches the airfield at a higher speed than standard civilian traffic, often at a low altitude.
2. Overhead Pass: The pilot flies directly over the runway (the "initial point") at high speed.
3. Break Maneuver: At the designated point, the pilot performs a sharp, banking turn (usually 180°) while reducing speed. This maneuver dissipates energy and positions the aircraft on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern.
4. Landing Sequence: After the break, the pilot transitions to a base turn and then aligns with the runway for a final approach and landing.
The "break" is a standard procedure for military aircraft, but it requires ATC approval because it differs from civilian traffic patterns and involves unique speed and altitude requirements. It is efficient for quickly integrating high-performance aircraft into the landing sequence.
**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
Maverick: "You don't have time to think up there."
Of course you have time. Snakes had all kinds of power and free fuel. They could easily spread out for their bosses THE CIVILIANS
@@erickborling1302 You aren't anywhere in their chain of command homie.
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!
Friday night fly in for the Saturday Longhorn game?
@@Skyhawks1979 ?
Austin gets military traffic all the time, especially student training from Laughlin and Sheppard flying T-6 and T-38s. That’s Air Force side. Texas is huge for flight training with Laughlin on the border, Sheppard in Wichita Falls, Lackland and Randolph both in San Antonio, Vance just across the border in Oklahoma, and the NAS at Corpus and Pensacola. Austin is no stranger to the overhead, Air Force or navy, and legally speaking it’s just a VFR pattern with a much smaller turn and greater initial speed. Legally there’s no reason a military pilot couldn’t execute an overhead anywhere under VFR and civilian pilots in GA could do it too, it would just be more unnecessary. The consideration is if the tower would be likely to be familiar or not with them and explaining in more plain terms what they wanted to do if not.
In the high volume pilot training patterns, there are multiple avenues for identifying and resolving conflicts. It’s a crazy busy pattern. It works because everyone understands the procedures for breaking out and reentry based on what position other aircraft are reporting in the pattern. In civilian fields with less procedure and control, separation becomes the primary consideration but that doesn’t mean the overhead can’t be done. And, to the max extent practical, the overhead should be done for training.
That’s not to excuse the incident in the video, there wasn’t adequate separation to execute the overhead and there are multiple ways they could’ve resolved this while still being able to recover with an overhead. I’m just saying a lot of people are blindly talking about how an overhead should never be flown in a civilian pattern when in reality it’s super common, at least at decent sized airports near air bases or stations where military traffic is frequent.
@@bigblue207 I appreciate your insight and candor. Please know that my comment is not in any way flippant. Over 8 years in the USAF, four at Nellis, I'm thankful for being able to see the best in the world in the pattern. As a civilian pilot, I've also been thumped by a pair of vipers over FL. Not cool. Sarcasm is dripping from the flight leads voice and even tries to back down the controller, as if the controller did something wrong. Common or not, inappropriate and unprofessional.
Far out, those altitude numbers ticking down was pretty scary. I thought they might have lost EJ699 under the nose.
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.
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
So, after deliberately blowing past an aircraft on short final, with mere hundreds of feet of separation, putting that aircraft directly into your wake turbulence, these meatheads then go on to completely blow the break instructions and break over the LANDING end numbers instead of the instructed DEPARTURE end.
Something else I noticed, the hornets sped up to around 350-400 knots (i’m guessing), they buzzed the citation and broke at the approach end NOT the departure end as directed! I’m also guessing this set off a TCAS / RA in the citation.
"Possible pilot deviation, let me know when you can copy a number" is such a common utterance, how in holy heck was that not ATC's first call to these buffoons? This is some of the most reckless flying of the year over US airspace. Please tell me they don't just get away with it because of their employer.
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.
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.
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.
@@FlightX101 It was, in fact, the second case.
At 5:00, ATC asked if they saw the citation. He said yes.
So they intentionally buzzed the citation.
You request discretion, but there is traffic near and you do the descending break anyway? That was a bone head maneuver.
100%.
May I ask the reasoning behind the "overhead break" and "unrestricted altitude/airspeed"? Is there a purpose for this maneuver (is it meant to simulate a carrier landing)? Honest questions, just want to know.
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.
Military training kicked in, take your lumps and move on
They didn’t say “possible pilot deviation” which tells me they just want to talk and might even think they were partially or fully to blame instead of the pilots.
The tower approved the request. Whst are smoking @FatBikeRacer
@@Maver1ck911 Means nothing when they said they saw the Execjet on its approach and did it anyway. ATC approval doesn't mean you get to be a knob head. Common sense.
Tower never told the Execjet pilot about the Hornets but told the other aircraft. He has every right to be pissed when 2 fast jets come screaming over him with no warning. I see fast jets every day do these run in breaks and they always wait for the landing aircraft to be down and taxiing before crossing him for the break.
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.
Negative Ghostrider, pattern is full.
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.
No the military pilot knew exactly what he was asking for and what he intended to do, unfortunately the controller expected discretion and instead he got thrown under the bus.
@@FlyingWildAZ Since they were VFR, it is still their responsibility to maintain separation from other traffic, so I dont think controller will be completely screwed.
@@sassyassasin2712 you're right but if you're tower and have those fighters at an altitude restriction to deconflict from your arrival then approve the fighters to descend through assigned restriction it seems a bit reckless imo
Make flight should not have asked for the unrestricted maneuvers. ATC should not have approved it.
100%
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.
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.
3:57 - I would have been on the radio immediately with "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT" ??
Also, pushing into burners on approach right next to a GA aircraft, LOL - showboating
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.
1. Using UHF with approach when VHF would have increased overall SA to other traffic.
2. Requesting an overhead recovery while other aircraft are simultaneously performing straight ins, increasing likelihood of a mishap and controller workload.
3. Requesting a special snowflake overhead recovery which isn’t defined anywhere when you could have just used the published numbers for this airfield, increasing likelihood of a mishap.
4. Going so close to another aircraft that you set off a TCAS/RA when you allegedly had the traffic in sight.
Well done Marines.
Correct me if I'm wrong but was there a jet also taking off from 180L at the same time(just before)?
After burners to fly by a civil aircraft?! Come on guys. Common sense.
And on an approach?
I am not a pilot, but have been an aircraft mechanic (F/A-18s also) for over 30 years and I cannot believe that the tower would have thought that an F/A-18 would fly slower than a slotation (Citation).
Glad every one safely landed.
Because they definitely needed to go burner prior to the break
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………….
When I was in flight school years ago at KBJC the Marines used it for a fuel stop. They would break midfield at probably 300kts or so and fly just like they were going to land on a carrier. Any Naval aviators out there correct me if I’m wrong but don’t they start the break at 800ft agl? If so they zoomed that citation. Thankfully the controllers at BJC would tell them to pound sand if traffic was an issue.
Wow, do those F-18s have an ADSB transmitter or are they invisible to other traffic?
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.
"Of note, the fighters would have had the BJ on their radar and likely in sight."
At 5:00, Snake confirms he saw the citation. And still buzzed him.
Total recklessness.
Can’t wait to see the HUD tapes on this one
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
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
You'd think they'd be unsure how the comm pilot might react to a tcam on approach.
You can hear it in all three of their voices that they were shaken after what happened. The fighter and tower were scared they fucked up and would get in trouble, the jet was scared that he almost got in a mid air. Ive been on both sides of that myself lol.
Never seen an overhead break at 3500 ft agl. Standard for a Navy break is 1000agl (800 at the carrier). Break speed normally around 300 kias. Obviously the civilian guys really didn’t understand military breaks. Lesson I’ve learned is unless it’s a Joint Use Airfield, just make out like your a civilian aircraft. Bergstrom has an Army National Guard Guard helo outfit but that’s it
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
The "doesn't matter" was with all his rage 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.
The main issue is the F-18's caused an RA [Resolution Advisory] in 699's cockpit which they MUST comply with. The RA announcement is an electronic pre recorded announcment in the cockpit that tells the pilot to go up. down. right or left.... It is as if it's the word of God and supersedes any instructions from the tower or other pilots.
Yeah definitely a mistake (but not an error, exactly) on the controllers part not to keep the ExecJet informed of the traffic, but regardless, if he got an RA he has to respond to it and there's nothing the controller can do at that point. From all indications, the F-18s were VFR, and had the traffic in sight, inbound on initial for the the overhead, so it was basically a non-event. 🤷♂ What I really have a problem with is the tower controller canceling the landing clearance of the ExecJet on a 5 mile final and then putting another aircraft on the runway in position. WTH?? AUS is having similar issues to SFO, the ATM should be fired and the IG should be involved, just too many incidents with runway separation and judgement.
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".
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.
Is it just me or does this airport seem to have a lot of close calls recently?
JEDYE and RRTOO waypoints, the force is clearly with Austin
Both controllers seemed overly excited that fighters were inbound. Just deal with the traffic.
F18's were NOT cleared to decend below 3500. 'as long as you maintain 3500, over to tower'. They were above and behind exjet cleared at 6mi final.
Watch again. They requested "unrestricted altitude and airspeed" with tower, who approved it.
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.
@@lasagnapotato3853 This was likely VMFA-323 from Miramar still flying legacy Hornets.
@@Skyhawks1979 the ultimate Chads
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
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.
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.
That must of been scary seeing to F-18's blow right past you.
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.
Snake 2-1 made the request for unrestricted break but it was never approved. They never even received a response to that request. That F/A 18's flight lead is 100% responsible for this.
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.
@themoverandgonkyshow would love a breakdown on this one
th-cam.com/video/qsarEkgl2OI/w-d-xo.html
As a former Snake, I’m embarrassed. What a dumbass.
Don’t lie we know this was you
@ It was.
Pretty unprofessional on our military right there, even if the F18 had the citation in sight, 100’ clearance is classless airmanship.
Navy doesn't understand "overhead maneuver?" Jet pilots assuming straight in priority give all pilots a bad name.
"Airport in sight, footing 1-4-5"
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.
The only failures on ATC's part was assuming the marine pilots weren't reckless fucking morons.
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.
this was setup by multiple flights "getting cleared for the visual" with a 400+ kias unrestricted pattern.
Austin has struggled with civilian traffic the last 10 years/so. Definitely a high threat airport.
I was raised in the late 70s/80s with AUS in my "backyard," it's hardly the same operation now as then. From the amount of flying, type of flying, training of ATC, and airport itself ... it's a thing. Have flown GA into AUS, USAF fighter, and airline into the AUS local airports. Have had the most difficulty, reportable events, with AUS at "BSM"
Hopefully the marines learned ... this ain't BSM (though they prob weren't even in flight school when AUS was at Robert Mueller). If you're not doing an ILS at 140KIAS, there will be conflict.
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.
@@costaricanaturephotography3027 Maybe they should work on solving the problem of Snake being cleared to fly...
Hmm. I actually heard these F18s today... they were loud.
Is there a reason they are flying right by a civilian airport?
I suppose Navy pilots and civilian pilots require very opposite personalities, which lends to this kind of problems.
The mindset to land a jet on a ~500ft long carrier runway and the mindset to have a good career as a civilian pilot are pretty much opposite.
Civilian pilot: "Hey you passed within under 1000ft of me! I'm carrying 5 people and I've shat some bricks!"
Navy pilot: "Huh? I suppose you meant 100ft? Well it was way more than 100 ft but even 100ft that's plenty of space, we do much less quite routinely... But, if you're troubled - I'll buy you a beer if you'd like?"
Civilian pilot: "Wha... I did mean 1'000ft but... nevermind. I guess I'll just... request 10 miles of clearance of any Navy jet going forward."
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.
It's a practice thing. I hear the F35 flights he F35s come over us in Madison before breaking to pattern and turning to final turn pointed straight at my balcony and hitting the throttle hard at times, you just hope not in panic.
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.
Agree that Snakes f*ed up bad. ...But also, LMAO, the look on EJ699's face was probably instant meme material. Wish we had a photo.
Maverick, request permission for a flyby 🏁 Coffee spills on shirt 😮
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.
Possible controller deviation, advise when ready to copy a number.
As an airline pilot I've had passengers ask if the pilots are military thinking those are superior pilots. Oh boy, this video pretty much explains what the commercial world thinks of these guys. Just because you got approved for unrestricted speed and altitude does NOT mean you are approved to break common sense and always applicable rules like: do not buzz another aircraft and cause a collision hazard. Hope their CO gets a hold of this.
NAVY pilots are superior. They actually land on aircraft carriers at night and in weather.
wtf is going on in Austin? This is like the fifth near miss this year
Dont know much of air traffic But on the ground the guy ahead of you always has the right of way...And bumper kissing is a fine...In the air no one can get out and chat about whos at fault...
I mean come on dude, it's Austin. It's not DFW Int'l. You guys ought to be able to figgar it out without soiling your diapers.