Humanities desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 28[edit]

"Excuse me, Mr pilot of a spy plane... This is (civilian) Air traffic control!"[edit]

I'm wondering, what is the de facto accepted rules around international law/practice, and flying spy planes... vis-à-vis this "little problem" of Air traffic control rules.

I'm talking more about civilian air traffic control rules, not military airspace defense. Nobody's being invaded. I'm referring to spying which does not infringe the "target country's" sovereignty... i.e. flights which skirt the target country's airspace, but do not enter it. I'm also limiting my question to situations where the spying plane's country and the target country are at least technically at peace, but are rivals.

Like, if you're flying a spy plane, do you still keep the air traffic controller of the airspace you're flying through aware of your plans, so he can make sure you don't hit another plane?

If yes, aren't you alerting the "target" of your spying of your intentions, thus allowing them to take countermeasures against your aerial espionage?

If not, isn't there a real risk that your spy plane will collide with some "innocent" plane? Air traffic control rules exist for good reason, and breaching them would appear to put other airplanes' safety at risk.

I've read of acts by Russia which involve skirting (but not entering) U.K. airspace, to test the U.K's response (which usually involves summoning Quick Reaction Alert). Is Russia breaching international law by violating air-traffic control conventions? (The airspace in question is not over the U.K. itself, but within the U.K.'s "area of responsibility" for air traffic control).

I'm also aware of the Hainan Island incident, where this exact problem occurred - a collision between a spy plane and another airplane. Had the U.S. spy plane kept air traffic control "in the loop" about their presence and flight plans?

So, what's the de facto jus cogens practice regarding spy planes and international civilian air traffic regulations/conventions/treaties? Any insights? Eliyohub (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"isn't there a real risk that your spy plane will collide with some "innocent" plane?" No, not really. Except for airports, their environs, and the holding patterns pertaining to them, aircraft are generally really far apart. A military aircraft is likely to want to operate at a high altitude, where it likely to encounter only larger jet aircraft. These are fitted with squawk transponders which will report an airliner's position when illuminated by ATC radar, and often with weather radars. Military aircraft are able to passively detect and position other aircraft based on such information - that's a necessary capability when faced with enemy fighter aircraft looking for you, or radar-guided missiles actively seeking you. Bombers and night-fighters had some rudimentary radar-detection equipment even before the end of WW2. Moreover, the spy plane (which presumably has its own active radar and transponder turned off) may be able to integrate radar data from other friendly assets (e.g. Beriev A-50, surface warships, or maybe radar satellites) which can locate aircraft hundreds of miles away. And civil airliners talk with ATC in the open, in English, on shared channels - enough for someone on the spy plane (assuming it has a decent sized crew) to keep tabs on all the aircraft in the airspace. So even a perfectly stealthy spy plane, operating with no radar or transponder, outside the range of ATC radar, should still be able to avoid routes airliners are likely to take, and to detect any that it encounters. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimur: you're a pilot, so I assume that you have some familiarity with air-traffic control procedures. This kind of cloak-and-dagger stuff is probably way beyond your pay grade, but still, $0.01 for your thoughts on this question? Eliyohub (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are generally-agreed-upon rules for airspace outside of any nation's airspace. This is "generally" uncontrolled airspace, which (broadly) means that there is no air traffic controller. It is the opinion (and official policy) of the United States, (and an opinion shared by ICAO, codified by the Freedoms of the Air policy, agreed to by nearly every single major nation, including many nations who are actively at war with each other): one does not specifically require any permission from anybody to operate an aircraft in these uncontrolled areas, but one must still operate safely, conforming to the normal procedures codified in various ICAO "Concept of Operations" documents.

When a military aircraft is in the vicinity of a civil aircraft, both airplanes are responsible for maintaining separation - but it is "almost always" the case that the military aircraft is better at both seeing and avoiding (...these are the two key-words in basic pilot training and these words show up a lot in regulatory legal-ese). Military aircraft have extra capabilities - compared to civil aircraft, many military aircraft are more capable to "see" (visually) and also to detect using other-than-visual-means. They are also (often) more maneuverable, and therefore more able to "avoid" any collision or conflict.

My thoughts immediately spring to a few stories - one not so very far in the distant past:

U-2 Pilot Helps GA Pilot In Distress - (AvWeb, February 13, 2022).

When you're flying in a civil aircraft, you can't always see them, but they can often see you.

Two Dead In F-16-Cessna Collision - in this case, the military aircraft was unable to see and/or avoid. The civil accident investigation docket is quite thorough. "Contributing to the accident were the inherent limitations of the see- and-avoid concept, resulting in both pilots' inability to take evasive action in time to avert the collision." (emphasis added). Scary stuff for anybody who puts a lot of faith in the coherence of our technology/policy stack-up, even in controlled airspace. At least we might say that things are quite different "in uncontrolled airspace," "outside the terminal area," "during the cruise phase of flight," or any of the other factors that might make such a collision "less likely" at the flight-levels over the open ocean.

AWACS - "airborne warning and control" aircraft - are military aircraft equipped with military RADAR. They are designed to look for, find, and track anything that's in the air - even things that would prefer not to be spotted.

Terminal area air traffic control, in a combat zone, is a very special kind of thing. I would propose that the Combat Controller is probably the most terrifying kind of commando in the world: these special forces operators will almost surely be the first pair of boots on the ground in any combat zone, because every other boot needs to be dropped off by an airplane or helicopter that received control vectors from this character. One may only imagine what incredible technology they carry in their backpack...

Nimur (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a partial list of mid-air collisions at the Wikipedia article which is titled Mid-air collision. Maybe that can help the OP with their research. --Jayron 32 13:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Estonian news site (that I can't access) has an article entitled Ministry: Over 200 Russian international aviation violations in 2020, which says: Military planes from the Russian Federation were involved in a total of 228 violations of international aviation norms close to, ... (presumably Estonian airspace. This indicates that the Russians probably don't ask nicely. Alansplodge (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My internet connection is behaving rather better today. The article continues:

Undersecretary for Legal and Administrative Affairs at the Ministry of Defense, told ERR News Tuesday that: "The persistent disregard of established aviation norms and rules by Russian military aircraft we have witnessed is just one example of Russia's aggressive posture towards NATO, and their total disrespect for internationally established norms in aviation safety. This does not create any confidence that Russia even tries to behave in a responsible manner internationally." Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always "mid-air". How come we never hear about collisions near the edge of the air? Who's covering them up? —Tamfang (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC (it's been a few years, and I only worked with civilian ATC), in most countries civilian and military ATC are independent. The military has dedicated (temporary or permanent) spaces for exercises, and the military controller have to make sure that their aircraft stay away from civilian traffic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Within the continental United States, military air traffic control is completely integrated into the National Airspace System: it is very common for a civil aircraft to speak to (and receive clearance from) a military controller; it is even more common for a military aircraft to speak to (and receive clearance from) a civil controller. There are a few extra caveats to be aware of: the military often operates in "special use airspace"; civil pilots are not always allowed in all of the military-controlled or other special-use airspaces; and the military pilots are commonly speaking on (UHF) radios that are not easily heard by pilots of (most) civil airplanes. It is quite common for a civil pilot to hear one half of a conversation - e.g. a civil controller speaking on dual-broadcast (UHF/VHF) to a military pilot who answers back on UHF-only.

Nimur (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]