file photo

 

A nerve-wracking incident unfolded as a JetBlue flight narrowly avoided a collision with a US Air Force refuelling tanker near Venezuela. The commercial passenger plane, flying from Curaçao to New York's JFK airport, was forced to halt its ascent to evade the military aircraft. The JetBlue pilot, captured on a recording, expressed frustration over the close encounter, citing the Air Force plane's failure to activate its transponder.

 

US Southern Command is now reviewing the near collision, although the exact distance between the aircraft remains unclear due to the inactive transponder on the military plane. JetBlue confirmed the incident and said its flight crew reported it immediately, vowing cooperation in any ensuing investigation. The Air Force has acknowledged awareness of the event and is examining the details, stressing that their teams maintain strict adherence to safety protocols.

 

The incident gained more attention due to rising tensions in the region, as the Federal Aviation Administration had previously warned US carriers to exercise caution over Venezuelan airspace. This advice followed reports of increased security concerns and elevated military activity in and around Venezuela. The JetBlue plane had to quickly respond as the Air Force refuelling tanker unexpectedly crossed its flight path.

 

Looking ahead, the findings of the investigation will be crucial in determining accountability and preventing future occurrences. Both JetBlue and the US Military have emphasised the importance of safety and are committed to uncovering any procedural lapses. Travellers and industry experts alike watch closely, waiting for answers that can assure safety in international airspace, reported the BBC.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• A JetBlue plane narrowly avoided a collision with a US Air Force tanker near Venezuela.
• The absence of a transponder signal from the military plane complicates the investigation.
• The incident follows FAA warnings about heightened military activity in Venezuelan airspace.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-12-16

 

 

 

There was one more near collision in the same area the following day. This time a small civilian craft, transponder of the tanker again switched off.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

There was one more near collision in the same area the following day. This time a small civilian craft, transponder of the tanker again switched off.

 

Do they switch off the transponder because otherwise Venezuela rightfully shoots them out of the sky?

This kind of incursion has happened thousands of times, and for decades.

 

It's only being reported and amplified now because Trump Bad.

38 minutes ago, impulse said:

This kind of incursion has happened thousands of times, and for decades.

 

It's only being reported and amplified now because Trump Bad.

They are reported when they happen. But do they happen frequently? https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=19070160&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=2-AIR-S Mid-Air Collision Risk and Areas of High Benefit for Traffic Alerting-Rel.pdf
Now they're happening because of Trumps threats to Venezuela. You think they should not be reported?

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

 

Do they switch off the transponder because otherwise Venezuela rightfully shoots them out of the sky?

I don't think Venezuela would shoot them out of the air. I think the reason is secrecy, don't let anyone see what we're doing.

I wonder how long it'll be before there's a disaster.  The military needs to be able to do what they are ordered to do, but there's something massively lacking when two aircraft get too close, especially when one of them is flying a published track with a working transponder.

If the tanker plane can't detect a passenger plane , 

should be easy to shoot a missile and hit it.

Pilot sounds woke 

Civilian aircraft rely heavily on transponders for systems like TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) and ATC radar displays, which is why the JetBlue pilot called it "outrageous"—the military plane was invisible to those tools until visual sighting forced evasive action.

However, military crews are trained to maintain separation visually or via other means in such scenarios.The incident is under review by U.S. Southern Command, and no official explanation for this specific flight has been released beyond general policy. Safety remains a priority, but military flexibility in transponder use is permitted and often exercised.

USA interfering with international air space? Hmm, I thought the USA was one of the countries opposing China doing likewise in the South China Sea air space?

20 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

but military flexibility in transponder use is permitted and often exercised.

In international airspace?

49 minutes ago, stevenl said:

In international airspace?

Yes, U.S. military aircraft (and those of other nations) are permitted to operate with transponders turned off in international airspace under international aviation rules, particularly the ICAO's "due regard" principle for state aircraft.

This allows them to prioritize operational security during missions, such as surveillance or refueling near sensitive areas like Venezuela, while relying on onboard systems (e.g., radar) or visual separation to avoid civilian traffic—though it can lead to incidents like the JetBlue near-miss on December 12, 2025

U.S. officials and experts have confirmed this is routine and legal:

For instance, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) stated post-incident that the tanker was conducting "standard operations" and complied with "due regard" protocols, even without an active transponder or ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, a transponder-linked system).

41 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes, U.S. military aircraft (and those of other nations) are permitted to operate with transponders turned off in international airspace under international aviation rules, particularly the ICAO's "due regard" principle for state aircraft.

This allows them to prioritize operational security during missions, such as surveillance or refueling near sensitive areas like Venezuela, while relying on onboard systems (e.g., radar) or visual separation to avoid civilian traffic—though it can lead to incidents like the JetBlue near-miss on December 12, 2025

U.S. officials and experts have confirmed this is routine and legal:

For instance, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) stated post-incident that the tanker was conducting "standard operations" and complied with "due regard" protocols, even without an active transponder or ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, a transponder-linked system).

So the military says it was ok what the military did, therefore it is ok.

Strongly disagree, but nothing will be done about this.

USA military aircraft cannot be relied upon to avoid civilian aircraft - think Black hawk and the Bombardier aircraft which crashed into the Potomac earlier this year.

While military aircraft may routinely fly without transponders in order to avoid detection and carry out missions, it would seem to be a no-brainer that they should fly well clear of commecial avation routes - especially the commercial airlines' climb-out and landing approach routes. I mean the aviation authorities get their panties in a twist over anyone flying a small drone near an airport... yet here we have yet another military aircraft nearly colliding with a commercial flight.

Let's wait and see just how close they were. The airspace would have been being monitored by AWACS. As for

On 12/16/2025 at 10:40 AM, CallumWK said:

 

Do they switch off the transponder because otherwise Venezuela rightfully shoots them out of the sky?

are you saying Venezuela has the right to shoot down aircraft in international airspace?

12 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

are you saying Venezuela has the right to shoot down aircraft in international airspace?

 

Are you saying Trump has the right to seize Venezuelan tankers in international waters?

Are you saying Trump has the right to kill Venezuelan citizens in international waters?

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Are you saying Trump has the right to seize Venezuelan tankers in international waters?

Are you saying Trump has the right to kill Venezuelan citizens in international waters?

Under sanctions yes and if by Venezuelan citizens you mean drug runners that's also a yes. 

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Under sanctions yes and if by Venezuelan citizens you mean drug runners that's also a yes. 

 

You mean sanctions that Trump invents himself, and Venezuelan citizens that Trump labels drug runners. So no.

 

But FYI, since Trump has made it public that he is gonna invade Venezuela, that means he has declared war on that country, so yes they have the right to shoot enemy war planes out of the air.

On 12/17/2025 at 8:32 AM, Watawattana said:

 The military needs to be able to do what they are ordered to do

Only if the order is legal.

Congress has not declared war against Venezuela.

On 12/17/2025 at 8:32 AM, Watawattana said:

The military needs to be able to do what they are ordered to do, 

No, they need to stay out of countries who don't want them there.