(DEFENCE SECURITY ASIA) — Four Philippine Air Force (PAF) pilots were killed when two SF-260 trainer aircraft collided during a training flight at Fernando Air Base in Lipa City, Batangas, on Friday, October 23, prompting the service to temporarily ground its remaining aircraft of the type.

The Air Force confirmed the fatalities on Saturday, saying both aircraft crashed within the base perimeter at approximately 3:51 p.m., with no casualties reported on the ground.

“An investigation is underway to determine the cause of the accident, while all SF-260 aircraft have been temporarily grounded as a precautionary safety measure,” the PAF said in a statement.

The service has not released the pilots’ identities and said their families had requested privacy.

It said assistance was being coordinated with the bereaved families as authorities continued investigating the circumstances surrounding the collision.

“The PAF honours the service and sacrifice of our fallen aviators,” the statement said.

The SF-260 is a light, single-engine aircraft used for basic military pilot training, helping prepare aircrew before they progress to more advanced aircraft.

Fernando Air Base, located south of Manila, is a principal centre for the Air Force’s flying training and education activities.

PAF spokesperson Colonel Alvin Jay Capinguian earlier confirmed that two SF-260 aircraft had been involved in an aviation incident during a training flight at the installation.

He said emergency procedures were activated immediately, with response teams deployed to secure the crash site and carry out initial assessments.

Capinguian said the immediate priority was protecting personnel involved in the accident and people near the crash site.

Video footage circulating on social media appeared to show the aircraft making contact before falling, although the PAF has not released an official explanation of the collision sequence.

Reports described the flight as a flyby rehearsal involving seven aircraft, with the other five landing safely, but those details were not included in the initial formal PAF statement.

The accident occurred roughly five months after another fatal SF-260 crash killed an instructor and a student pilot during a navigation-training flight.

First Lieutenant Ruth Angelique Pasos and Second Lieutenant Cherky Embudo died when their aircraft crashed in Tuba, Benguet, on May 20, 2026.

Following that accident, the Air Force temporarily grounded its remaining SF-260 trainers, reportedly numbering 16 at the time, disrupting the final phase of military pilot training.

The latest grounding again interrupts SF-260 flying operations, although the Air Force has not announced how long the suspension will last or quantified its effect on training schedules.

Investigators had announced no cause, and no evidence had established a connection between the circumstances of the May crash and Friday’s collision.

(READ) Philippine Air Force FA-50 Fighter Jet Vanishes Mid-Mission, Massive Search Underway

SF-260 Technical Profile and Pilot-Training Role

The SIAI-Marchetti SF-260, also associated with the Aermacchi name, is a light, single-engine military aircraft used by the Philippine Air Force for basic pilot training before aircrew progress to more advanced aircraft and increasingly demanding operational qualifications.

It describes the aircraft involved as two-seat trainers, a configuration that supports instruction with two aircrew aboard, although the PAF has not disclosed the individual cockpit responsibilities of the four pilots killed in Friday’s collision.

Its single-engine configuration makes propulsion reliability an important consideration in training operations, but investigators have released no evidence identifying an engine malfunction, and the aircraft’s general design cannot explain why the two trainers collided during the reported activity.

The precise variants of the two aircraft have not been officially established in the supplied statement, preventing reliable identification of their engine models, power output, cockpit equipment or other configuration details specific to the airframes involved in the collision.

Consequently, maximum speed, operating range, service ceiling and takeoff performance should not be assigned to these particular aircraft without confirming their variants, because specifications drawn from another SF-260 configuration could produce a misleading technical description of the accident aircraft.

The SF-260’s basic-training role places it near the beginning of the military flying pipeline, where aircraft availability supports the development of foundational skills before pilots undertake specialised instruction and qualify for operational assignments elsewhere within the air force.

The aircraft family has also served in a secondary light-attack role, although the two aircraft lost at Fernando Air Base were conducting training, and the information does not identify their weapons configuration or establish that either carried armament.

Reported tail numbers 032 and 037 could help establish the aircraft’s individual technical histories, but those identifiers remain details from local reporting and do not independently reveal variant, maintenance condition, accumulated operating hours or serviceability before the fatal flight.

Recent fleet holdings are described as approximately 14–16 aircraft, but this estimate does not establish how many were serviceable immediately before the collision, making any precise calculation of the proportion of available training capacity lost unreliable without further official clarification.

The technical questions therefore extend beyond the aircraft’s published specifications to its actual operating condition, with the investigation needed to establish whether any aircraft-related factor contributed rather than assuming that design characteristics or fleet history explain the collision.

(READ) President Marcos Approves MRCA Fighter Jet Acquisition Plan for Philippine Air Force

Fleet Grounding Raises Questions Over Pilot-Training Continuity

The temporary grounding of all remaining SF-260 aircraft broadens the operational consequences beyond the destruction of two trainers, suspending flying on the type while the Philippine Air Force investigates the accident and assesses the conditions required for safe operations.

Because Fernando Air Base is a principal centre for military flying instruction, the interruption affects an important training function, although the PAF has not disclosed how many students, instructors, courses or scheduled sorties are covered by the suspension.

Basic training is an upstream requirement for more advanced flying qualifications, meaning that an extended pause could delay subsequent instruction, but the available information does not establish that Friday’s accident has already affected the staffing of operational combat units.

The duration of the grounding will therefore be central to its eventual impact, because a brief suspension and a prolonged interruption create different scheduling pressures, while the air force has announced neither a return-to-flight date nor a revised training programme.

Aircraft availability alone will not determine recovery, as flying instruction also requires qualified personnel and maintenance support, although the identities and duties of the deceased remain undisclosed and their specific contribution to the training establishment cannot yet be assessed.

The reported seven-aircraft activity makes formation procedures relevant to the investigation, including aircraft positioning and coordination, but the PAF has not released findings that would justify attributing the collision to inadequate separation, communication failures or any particular crew action.

Likewise, the reported low-altitude flight profile may be relevant when investigators reconstruct the time available after contact, but the supplied information provides no confirmed altitude, speed or control data from which to assess whether recovery was physically possible.

The May accident provides context because the subsequent SF-260 grounding disrupted military pilot training, although its different reported flight circumstances mean that investigators must establish any connection rather than treating repeated losses as proof of a common underlying problem.

No alternative training arrangements have been announced in the supplied material, leaving uncertainty over whether the PAF can resequence instruction or redistribute flying requirements without affecting qualification standards, available resources or the timetable for students already progressing through their courses.

DSA’s assessment is that the immediate consequence is uncertainty within the pilot-training pipeline, while any broader effect on force readiness will depend on the investigation’s findings, the length of the grounding and the resources available to restore flying operations.