Iran air traffic control error: Pilots prevent two PIA flights from colliding

Iran air traffic control error: Pilots prevent two PIA flights from colliding

Advertising

Two Pakistan International Airlines airliners have come dangerously close in Iranian airspace. Due to an air traffic control error, the two planes converged to a distance of just 1.000 feet. Both the local ATC and the carrier confirmed the incident on Tuesday.

Iran's air traffic control assigned PIA Flight 268, which was en route to Peshawar, an altitude of 20.000 feet. The machine was previously at an altitude of 36.000 feet. However, at the same time, PIA Flight 211, on its way to Dubai, was at an altitude of 35.000 feet and therefore in the immediate vicinity. The distance was at times just 1.000 feet, as Pakistan International Airlines officially confirmed.

The crews and passengers owe the fact that there was no catastrophe to the attentiveness of the pilots and the collision avoidance system. After this had been triggered, the pilots of the higher-flying PIA aircraft refused to follow the instructions from air traffic control. Those of the lower flight also reacted and lowered their flight altitude immediately.

This has again shown that attentive pilots are absolutely necessary for air traffic control, because they can compensate for errors in air traffic control. Only recently there was a comparable incident in the airspace of Turkey, which only did not become a catastrophe because the pilots reacted correctly and refused an instruction from the ATC. This was the only way to prevent a mid-air crash.

However, Pakistan International Airlines is pissed off at Iran's air traffic control. A spokesman explained, among other things, that from the airline's point of view, ATC should under no circumstances have given the Peshawar flight a descent instruction. The distance between the two machines would also have been specified far too small, regardless of this. The airline concerned now wants to send a protest note to the Iranian authorities and demands that the incident be fully clarified.

Leave a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked with * marked

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.

Editor of this article:

[ssba buttons]

Nobody likes paywalls
- not even Aviation.Direct!

Information should be free for everyone, but good journalism costs a lot of money.

If you enjoyed this article, you can check Aviation.Direct voluntary for a cup of coffee Coffee trail (for them it's free to use).

In doing so, you support the journalistic work of our independent specialist portal for aviation, travel and tourism with a focus on the DA-CH region voluntarily without a paywall requirement.

If you did not like the article, we look forward to your constructive criticism and / or your suggestions for improvement, either directly to the editor or to the team at with this link or alternatively via the comments.

Your
Aviation.Direct team
paywalls
nobody likes!

About the editor

[ssba buttons]

Nobody likes paywalls
- not even Aviation.Direct!

Information should be free for everyone, but good journalism costs a lot of money.

If you enjoyed this article, you can check Aviation.Direct voluntary for a cup of coffee Coffee trail (for them it's free to use).

In doing so, you support the journalistic work of our independent specialist portal for aviation, travel and tourism with a focus on the DA-CH region voluntarily without a paywall requirement.

If you did not like the article, we look forward to your constructive criticism and / or your suggestions for improvement, either directly to the editor or to the team at with this link or alternatively via the comments.

Your
Aviation.Direct team
paywalls
nobody likes!

Leave a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked with * marked

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.

Advertising