That makes 3 near collisions with military aircraft in 5 days, all in ATC airspace.
Wheeee
You’d almost think the military has forgotten to notify when they enter civilian ATC airspace….
Or maybe a dumbass came in and fired all of the air traffic controllers?
That’s why you’d only almost think it.
This wasn't a military aircraft, it was a privately owned 70 year old jet.
The Hawker Hunter is a WWII-era fighter jet. And the specific jet involved here seems to be registered to Hawker Hunter Aviation, a British defense contractor. So it's a "military jet" both by design and use. It's just not the US military.
The question here was whether it was subject to civilian or military aviation ATC - from every report released thus far, it was under civilian authority. Obviously, yes, a fighter jet was originally a military aircraft - but that isn't relevant at the moment, since it's registered to an organization independent of the US military.
That is the real question. It's not a current military jet, that model was never used by the US military it was built for the British RAF..., but It is currently owned and operated by a British defense contractor, and by some reports was flying to a US Air Force base. So it is very relevant.
It's actually worse than that. I don't think they're necessarily trained to, unless they have to.
And they have entirely different rules since they follow compared to civilian aviation and they don't generally understand, like, the zoning or the air traffic lanes, which has resulted in really catastrophic accidents in the past.
Could be wrong about this. It's off the top of my dome.
Can someone explain to me how an individual manages to own a fighter jet??
...a privately owned Hawker Hunter fighter jet
It's owned by a company, a British Defense Contractor in this case. Pretty common for outdated military jets actually.
But why? To show off to clients?
Not an industry that I work in, but I know that older jets are often used for general training purposes.
For instance, NASA astronauts still train in T-38 Talons, originally built between 1961-1972. The Space Shuttle Trainers were a modified Gulfstream II, introduced in 1967, before they were retired in 2012 with the Shuttle program.
The first civilian orbital mission, the Inspiration4 crew trained in a MiG-29 which is privately owned by Jared Isaacman, who led the private mission launched by SpaceX back in 2021. The mission was a fundraiser for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, raising over $243 Million in donations. They also performed a number of experiments while in orbit for SpaceX, the Translational Research Institute for Space Health (TRISH) at Baylor College of Medicine and investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine. Studies specifically intended to see the effects of orbital flight on ordinary citizens that weren't previously screened and exhaustively trained as professional astronauts.
Older fighter jets are still good for training things at supersonic speeds, real world G forces, etc. that simulators can't reproduce perfectly.
That's the thing that really stood out to me the 1st time I saw this story. A fighter plane registered to a Delaware based company, that was flying to an Air Force base. Real weird.
Maybe it was this one…
It’s probably rented out for events like air shows, maybe film and tv use too.
Delaware based company means nothing. Something like 90+% of companies in the US on paper are based in Delaware because of very corporate-friendly laws, and they can do business in the rest of the country just fine.
This particular company is the US portion of a British Defense Contractor.
It is a classic 50's era fighter. Some are sold relatively cheaply, https://historicandclassicaircraftsales.com/hawker-hunter-ga-11, but it really depends. Airworthy ones with engines are more expensive by a lot. Still, they are not in the tens of millions like you might expect.
Remember competent governance?
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.