Civil vs Military vs Civil Debate (Was part of RAF Role in Norway Airliner Crash)

[captplaystation]

Well the military lied about shooting down an Italian DC9 and a TWA 747 so this is only a little porkey-pie by their jaundiced standards of honesty;they think b*gger all of busting into controlled airspace in c*cked-up terrain avoidance manouveres and horse around class g airspace with u/s (or switched off )tpndrs, what do you expect? professionalism/consideration or honesty? . . .look elsewhere.

[16 blades]

Do not denigrate that which you obviously do not understand.

they think b*gger all of busting into controlled airspace in c*cked-up terrain avoidance manouveres
Perhaps you are referring to low-level weather aborts, an emergency, for which we squawk 7700 if penetrating controlled airspace. It is always the last option used when the weather closes in at low level and there is nowhere else to go. It is better than flying into cumulo-granite.

and horse around class g airspace with u/s (or switched off )tpndrs
Transponders are not mandatory in class G. But then, if you had any
professionalism/consideration or honesty
then you would know this. Perhaps by "Horse around", you meant "conduct essential operational training", again something seemingly beyond your comprehension.

You obviously have no knowledge of military operations. I'd stick to your playstation if I were you.

16B

[BoeingMEL]

Could this be the same MOD and Air Force whose impeccable integrity permeated the Kintyre Chinook enquiry? How tragic. bm

[N380UA]

Which shooting down an Italian DC9 and a TWA 747 are your actually referring to?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Transponders are not mandatory in class G. But then, if you had any quote: professionalism/consideration or honesty then you would know this.

SSR carriage and operation is mandatory for civil aircraft in all UK airspace above FL100, except gliders.

Perhaps applying the same rule to military aircraft may have averted a recent well publicised Airprox between a pair of Hawks and a Dash 8. Purely conjecture of course ;)

[ORAC]

N380UA, Itavia Flight 870 (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Itavia_Flight_870), see here (http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_355.shtml)

"All this facts would still perhaps be declared for fantasy, if there was not a group of Sicilian shepherds, which, almost a month after the crash, on 18 July 1980, found a wreckage of an unknown military jet on the northern side of the 1929 meter high Mount Sila, in the middle of the Italian province of Calabria. The body of the pilot was still tied on his ejection seat, and on his helmet, the name of the pilot was written: Ezedin Koal. The investigators found out, that Koal flew a MiG-23 of the Libyan Arab Republic Air Force. According to the following autopsy he was dead for at least 15 to 20 days. The investigation of the wreckage showed, that the crash was most probably caused by an air-to-air missile, which exploded in close proximity of the plane and damaged fuel tanks. Immediately, there were evident attempts from Italian military authorities to clear all the links between this accident and the downing of the DC-9. It was explained, that the plane crashed while the pilot tried to defect to Italy. However, nobody tried to explain officially how could a Libyan MiG-23 fly so deep into the Italian airspace, without being detected by any of Italian and NATO-radars in the vicinity or why would a damaged Libyan MiG-23 hit the northern side of a mountain on Calabria, if the pilot tried to defect from Libya?"

[Archimedes]

I presume the reference to the TWA 747 is to TWA flight 800, which was brought down by US Navy missiles/little green men/terrorists depending upon who you happen to be reading.

Google 'TWA Flight 800' then spend hours trying to sort plausible theory from wild speculation.

[captplaystation]

ORAC and Archimedes,yep thats the ones;in my absence thanks for that.16 Blades,call it what you like but a "professional pilot" should be capable of levelling off at MSA ie below or at the base of controlled airspace rather than blundering several thousand feet into it,not an unreasonable request assuming in the heat of the moment our steely eyed ace can remember MSA. . surely!As for mandatory fitment /usage of Tpndr in Class G,I believe it was fitted, but off or u/s in the Hawk- Dash 8 encounter;as I said professionalism / consideration(for those without the option to eject)from military pilots and their employer would go a long way to prevent these things. . .along with basic flying skills and a moral view of the big picture. . one day mate you will either be a civil pilot, or sitting in high office explaining why one of your lads wiped me and 194 other civvies out, better you have a more convincing explanation than "but the poor lad flew into a cloud". . eh?

[Widger]

Pprune Radar,

As I posted in another thread, you can use Airprox Reports to assist whatever argument you wish to push on here. I could quote a whole host of Civil versus Civil reports if I wanted to but that would be peurile. The particular airprox you refer to, had a whole host of factors (like most incidents) that led to the incident. Not just the "loss of SSR data" from the hawks. These factors are discussed in full and published in context, in the report.


Now if you want to discuss the mandatory carriage of SSR for ALL aircraft in the entire UK, then I am with you on that one. Although, I bet there would be a very strong GA and gliding lobby against it.

[Tourist]

Capt Playwithyourself.

Ignoramus to55er!

:mad:

[Bob Viking]

Please tell me you are winding us up, or trying to fish for responses. If you truly believe what you are writing then you are cordially invited to come and follow us through a planning cycle and see just how much effort we put into avoiding all of those things you have just ridiculously accused us mil pilots of doing.

Once I can be certain of how genuine you are I may get round to telling you what I really think of you and your opinions.
BV

PS. B@ll end.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Widger

I don't recall saying anything here about blame on either party so have no axe to grind there. So it's not a civil good guy, military bad guy argument I am making. My point was that at least two of the civil safety nets which would have stopped the Swiss cheese lining up and causing this Airprox were disabled because of a difference in the rules for carraige of equipment between civil and military aircraft. No doubt if we have a midair one day where this is found to be a factor which could have saved the day. then the stable door will shut with an incredible bang swiftly followed by all sorts of draconian procedures and equipment requirements which might encroach on essential operational freedoms currently enjoyed by the military.

You may think it peurile, but if you can point me to a report on any civil air transport aircraft involved in an Airprox where the other party was a non transponding civil aircraft operating above FL100, I'd gladly read it and make comments on it.

As for the thread topic, I go along with those who think any military involvement in this tragic Norwegian accident is a fanciful conspiracy theory.

[iccarus]

Captain dickf@ck
Please tell me you are baiting!!

I have lost track of the times that i have been on the receiving end of an astoudingly bad airmanship decision which appears to have been made by people such as yourself for purely financial reasons, rather than for anything resembling flight safety.

The organisation I work for prides itself on the way it deals with all aspects of aviation, non more so than accident prevention!! That means if i f@ck up, I can be given a bolly, be grounded or much worse. Question for you then, what consequences are there for you when you f@ck it? What institutuion monitors some of the increasingly dangerous decisions that some of your brethren take?

You want examples??

How about the airline crew who lost an engine shortly after take off, but decided to press to their final destination, purely because that is where the companys servicing/repairs were based? A financial decision rather than flight safety decision if ever i saw it!

How about the airline crew who refused to take a 20 degree heading change, or refused to maintain a FL to blunder through the middle of an 8 ship working night, lights out PI's because, and i quote" Its class g airspace eand we are entitled to use it."

Well yes fella, you are. But flight safety should be the responsibility of all aircrew and shouldn't rely solely on me getting contact with a stranger on my scope, 30 secs from merge and having to call a knock it off. Bottom line, the crew of that airline wantede to take the shortest route possible for fuel and they didn't care a damn about flight safety.

What about the numerous crews who seem unable to either a./ change to the correct frquency, b./ go back to the previous frequency if nothing is heard or c./ monitor guard. I've lost track of the times i have raced from my bed because your superior airmanship skills still seem to prevent you from doing something which one would assume to be a basic skill of even a PPL, let alone a ATPL.

Its already been commented on in the national press, i wonder how long it is until joe public starts to realize that some companys are more professional than others.
I wonder how long it is before the insurance companys realize that certain companys seem to make flagrant breaches of common sense, airmanship and flight safety on a regular basis.

Fella, suggest you start looking closer to home if you want to make comments about peoples professionalism.

Tw:mad: t

[FJ2ME]

Captain Pilchard,

What on earth makes you think that Mil crews are not professional enough to avoid airproxes of the nature you describe?! Do you not think that the military crew would be doing everything possible to avoid an airprox or do you think we're all suicidal!

The planning of low-level sorties in any military aircraft is meticulous and far-reaching and every effort is made to avoid flying in areas where safety altitude is higher than the base of controlled air space. The low-level abort is an emergency manoeuvre and is only flown in anger if it absolutely necessary. Not only would it be flown for real in an intensely stressful situation (going IMC at low-level is not nice), its not in itself a manoeuvre without its own complications. As far as levelling at MSA is concerned, that would indeed be the ideal but may not always be the priortity. You are going up at max possible climb rate after all, and in a hawk that is pretty damn quick.

Please don't tar the military with the 'unprofessional' brush- I have seen far more indefenceable breaches of airmanship from your brethren in the pursuit of a fast buck. And while we're on the subject, perish the thought you chaps could actually execute a good lookout scan now and again.

[plebby 1st tourist]

Engage flagrant bias...

Mil chaps - spot on.
Catplaystation - do F*** off.

As an Air Tragicker in the VoY I have seen poor airmanship on the civvy side that can almost make you cry, and equivalent from civ controllers (bad scopemanship?), all in the name of cash. The inevitable proxes are then rigourously filed and rather cynically leaked to the press, who unfailingly adopt badly researched "Mil cowboys ar5ing around endanger lives of innocent civillians, heroic civ captain saves the day" type storylines.
Their grand scheme is, we believe, an extra bit of CAS that would effectively knacker us for fixed wing ops.

My point is we all make mistakes, but I think we all know who makes most... A bit of tolerance and understanding from both sides is needed.

A while ago...

Civ controller at neighbouring unit
"Are your XXXXXs flying today? It cost us about £20000 yesterday avoiding them"

Mil Sup in reply
"Seeing as the RAF built your airport, that doesn't seem unreasonable!"

[captplaystation]

Well well I seem to have touched a nerve here;unfortunately the rather rugby-club level of insult you have to resort to rather reinforces my belief that a large number of you are cocky,trigger-happy,"I'm the best"ego-tistical immature bigots that seem ideal material to shoot down/ collide with whatever happens to be in the way,but then again your aggresive I know best response rather confirms why they hired you in the first place!As for the original subject do you honestly trust your political masters to allow your superiors to admit to such an error in a sensitive location or indeed the Italians/Americans to have like-wise owned up?No, far easier to close ranks and blame it on these dumbies in civvie-land.Maybe if you see so many errors from us it has something to do with how many times a week we have the chance to err;if I spent as long on planning/practising as you guys I'd damn well hope to get it right.Your "we military guys can teach you civvies how to fly professionaly"attitude bodes well for your integration into a multi-crew cockpit .For the record in 28yrs flying I've seen as many turkeys as eagles from your side,just like my team.

[16 blades]

along with basic flying skills

I think you'll find, my dear chap, that our 'basic flying skills' are far and away more than you could even dream of achieving, involving much, much more than being an FMS manager, flying straight & level for several hours, then taking the A/P out at 500ft for a manual landing twice a month. So pull your head out of your arse and stop being a c**t. You are a perfect example of the kind of ignorant civvy tw@t who is causing the vast majority of these airprox incidents.

,"I'm the best"
Correct, we are. Just accept it. And stay out of the way. If you want protected airspace, use the airways structure - that's what it's there for.

"we military guys can teach you civvies how to fly professionaly"attitude bodes well for your integration into a multi-crew cockpit
I'm already in one, as are the majority of Mil pilots who post here. Yet again you expose your ignorance.

16B

[Pontius Navigator]

Captplaystation's litterary skills are not up to much either. Obviously far too professional an aviator to spend much time on the ground learning writing skills too.

[cazatou]

Captplaystation,

A minor point; but have you ever heard of "PUNCTUATION" ?

[captplaystation]

Flew once with a Belgian C130 captain who happened to think he was ace of the base.Hired by a military-sympathetic management ,I couldn't have sent him solo as a PPL student.On a slightly bumpy day this "pilot" who was hired amazingly as a Captain, gave such an amazing display of PIO that I had to take control to avoid either making all aboard puke or actually witnessing loss of control;amazingly inept piloting from someone who was so sure he was so ready for command in civvy street.Like I said 28 years of eagles and turkeys in about the same proportion civil/military and I have plenty of non UK company experience, and surprise surprise, the above still holds true.Sorry but that is harsh reality,ask your civvy mates. . .if you have any;you guys should get out more.(incidentally its quite an eye opener to end up by way of a moved post in the military forum, you guys are very,how can I put it . . .defensive Hmn.Looking at the other"contributions"that have appeared since I entered this posting I am so unsurprised by the usual arrogance and agressiveness associated with your clan; no wonder you are so detested when you run out of war games to play and come cap-in-hand to teach us sub-standards how to fly (oh, and reed & WrIGht too thanks guys) next time you want to go somewhere for the weekend I'll try and keep my crab terrain avoidance TA RA manouvere smooth to avoid waking up the young lady you have just sent to sleep with your war-stories.Toodle-pip,back to civvy forums for me I think(good-night and good-riddance he heard echoing from the mess)

[captplaystation]

Dont expect a reply TIMTS they have all had an early night to psyche themselves up for tomorrows "sortie",or. . .getting sloshed in the bar .And I know/knew enough ex mil guys/gals to know the validity level of that urban myth.Bottoms up chaps!

[Send Clowns]

playstation

A hint: when you find you're in a hole, stop digging.

You seem to admit now you are basing your judgement of RAF/RN fast jet pilots (and some of my friends will be amused at me defending crabs) at least in part on the skills of a Belgian C-130 pilot, and some various worldwide airforces. Another hint: that isn't what we're talking about here. No disrespect to the Herc guys, I know some great pilots from that world, but your mate not only probably failed to get fast jet recommend, but he was Belgian too. Not noted for their military achievements. They are a bunch of pacifists so it is unlikely the military is a respected career choice or a high priority, or that operational training is as good as it is in a country where some still respect our military (bloody hell, me talking about respect for the RAF! ;) )

So when you've no idea what your talking about, wind your neck in mate.

TIMTS

He was. To question the fact shows complete underestimate of how a Harrier is flown and operated, and of how the services select and train their crews. I know the guys that have failed the course to fly the FA2, and they are rather better handling pilots than I am and have shown better airmanship, and I assure you that I ain't too shabby myself (fixed-wing I mean. Never really got the hang of rotary).

I have a lot of respect for pilots who fly Twotters as they are designed to be flown, my ambition is to do so myself.

However single-crew jet pilots are the top pilots in the RAF and RN. The fast jet world is the top of the tree, single-crew above that. All those that slipped through selection are weeded out, either out of the service or into the roles that include all you have to do and much more besides. Even they are trained and tested to higher standards than civvies.

Such training is simply not available outside the military. No pure civvy is as good as a decent military pilot, although a competition aerobatic pilot flying for airlines (liek the Brit who won the first round of the Red Bull Air Race in Longleat) might come close.

I accept that they might not make the best pilots in a civilian environment, but that is not their world and CRM counts for exactly zero. They are certainly better pilots overall.

[An Teallach]

.getting sloshed in the bar .
I'm a civvy, Capt PishedStation. I sincerely hope you're sloshed this evening.

To be frank, if you're sober and you can't operate a space bar on a keyboard, punctuate or write the Queen's English when you have time to think and edit; my confidence in your ability to operate an airliner, think on your feet and communicate with ATC etc. is negligible.

Please tell us which airline you fly for, so that I may retain my confidence in civil air travel by avoiding it like the plague! :ugh:

[Send Clowns]

TIMTS

I know they were civvies, and did not have access to the training required by the RN and RAF. They cannot become as good as Harrier pilots have to be.

You have flown with them in rotary, and they haven't impressed you? But we are talking about them flying a Harrier, and about them being better pilots than the Twotter pilots. Swap them over. Who will crash the aircraft, who will complete the flight?

I have flown rotary. I was not very good at it (by RN standards - I could fly a helicopter and operate it to the standards equivalent to those required by my civilian CPL/IR(A)), despite having been near top of my class in the fixed-wing training - hence my return to fixed-wing. I am sorry but how people fly an R-44 is not a strong indication of how good they were as fixed-wing pilots. It takes a rather different skill.

You also cannot judge RN pilots (or, I concede, RAF single-seat) by reference to foreign fast-jet pilots. They have shown time and again that they can fly better than most pilots from most other nations, and operate their aircraft more effectively with better situational awareness. They do make errors in that demanding environment, I never said that was not possible, but they are certainly better pilots than any civvy has the chance to become.

Exactly how many ex-RN or RAF fast-jet crews have you flown with, in fixed-wing aircraft? How much do you know about the skill required to fly a Harrier (a uniquely demnding aircraft)?

[Days Like These]

Well this is definitely the most chortle-inspiring debate of recent times on PPrune with the usual host of humour-merchants and idiots. Alas, my less than perfect-eyesight resulted in me joining the RAF as a ground branch member. I chose not to become a civilian pilot because it didn't interest me but I respect those that perform a vital service flying me to places exotic for a modest fee.

Today's Moron Of The Day Prize has to go to CaptainAmstrad who mocked what he perceives to be a "binge-drinking before sorties" culture that he's been told all about by his "many mil aircrew friends". I have to say there is a hell of a lot of drinking undertaken in the Officers mess, I myself am not a big drinker :) but what would mess life be without it! However, witnessing aircrew in the bar, I can honestly say that 99.99% of the time, mil aircrew are always sensible enough not to get wasted the night before a sortie. Of course there's always a very small minority who might but I'm yet to see it and for the most part I'm proud of the professionalism exuded by my aircrew chums. But Monsieur Playstation you must surely be able to criticise from your ivory tower...I mean there's definitely no drinking culture within the civilian fleets whatsoever! And the following aren't examples of this being true that I managed to find in a quick 30-second google search:

1. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4167161.stm

2. www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/08/pilots.trial/ (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/08/pilots.trial/)

3. www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-2-2005_pg7_8 (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-2-2005_pg7_8)

On to the more serious subject at hand. TIMTS is upset by statements made that mil aircrew are better than their civilian counterparts (not that you can easily compare a Harrier to a 747). My views side with those of Send Clowns in all honesty but I think it's important to differentiate between a pilot's potential and his actual ability. I think you can honestly say that the majority of fast jet pilots are the best in the world. Why? Because they have had millions of pounds worth of investment in them. They have been trained by the best and more is demanded of them than any other type of pilot. Their chop and success rates are quite remarkable! Do the civilian trg companies fail as many students? Do they even come close? We all know for a fact that they don't and that if you throw enough money at it, all but the absolute dregs will gain an ATPL.

The same is true of multi-engine and rotary pilots too. How many civilian multi-engined prop pilots can conduct TALOs, Air Drops, RALs, Tac Approaches? Yet in contrast mil multi-engined pilots can/are far more likely to be able to do the same as their civ counterparts.

This is where I believe the potential ability aspect comes in. At this point I can sympathise in a fashion with TIMTS. Mil pilots do make mistakes like their civilian counterparts, they too are human and yes some are arrogant but I've met a few civil pilots too and modest wasn't the first word that sprang to mind! Military pilots are the best because they have had superior trg because they are expected to go above and beyond ferrying people from London to Rome. This does not mean to say that those many civilian pilots out there whom, for whatever reason didn't join the Air Force, aren't capable of being just as good as their mil counterparts. However, at the end of the day, they haven't had the training and until they do, they will never be able to prove that they are just as good!

[Widger]

PPrune Radar,

Not wishing to creep this thread but, wrong again.

3. SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR.
3.1 Equipment. Mode A and C with altitude reporting are mandatory for all flights within the whole of the United Kingdom
airspace when:
a. Operating at and above FL100.
b. Operating below FL100 under Instrument Flight Rules in controlled airspace.
c. operating within the Scottish TMA between 6000ft alt and FL100.

Straight out of the MIL AIP. There is no difference. The only community that seems to operate outside these rules are the gliding fraternity.

In the incident you refer to, the highly professional mil pilots fully intended to use SSR. They thought they were squawking, but, because they were not talking to an ATC unit, they were unaware of the status of their equipment. The civil airliner was routeing through Class G, not looking out of the window, receiving a RIS from a civil controller (because the unit refuses to provide a RAS) (Another SAFETY NET) and the controller did nothing about the confliction, because he ASSUMED it was below FL100 (NOT VERY SAFE). In his R/T he stated it was "pop-up" traffic when in fact it was showing on radar all the time (NOT VERY SAFE)
And finally, it was the MILITARY pilots who saw the airliner. The civil crew saw nothing at all. (All of this is published in the public domain)

So as you can see, there were many CIVIL factors in this incident. So, it is totally unfair to lump all the blame on the military pilots. Yes two of the final safety nets (TCAS and STCA) were negated by no SSR but even before that, several of the holes in the cheese were also lined up by a rediculous regulation (No provision of RAS. A regulation imposed just to save the ar*es of the fully paid up union members, that gives NO protection to the travelling public), the aircrew not looking out the window and very late TI by the civil controller.

You asked for an example of a civil aircraft not squaking, well it did not involve two airliners what about a certain glider that strayed into CAS SW of Newcastle some time ago. No military involvement at all, but I do not hear you all jumping up and down about that!

Have a safe day everyone:ok: :ok:

[garp]

***You seem to admit now you are basing your judgement of RAF/RN fast jet pilots (and some of my friends will be amused at me defending crabs) at least in part on the skills of a Belgian C-130 pilot, and some various worldwide airforces. Another hint: that isn't what we're talking about here. No disrespect to the Herc guys, I know some great pilots from that world, but your mate not only probably failed to get fast jet recommend, but he was Belgian too. Not noted for their military achievements. They are a bunch of pacifists so it is unlikely the military is a respected career choice or a high priority, or that operational training is as good as it is in a country where some still respect our military (bloody hell, me talking about respect for the RAF! )***

Send Clowns, you're way out of line here. How on earth can you make such a statement? We all know that in all disciplines everywhere in the world there are people who wouldn't be able to organize a piss-up in a brewery. BAF herkies have been flying humanitarian missions all over the world in some of the most remote and dangerous areas, their pilots have tons of experience in operating their planes under difficult circumstances.Have a look at this guy's CV http://www.astronautix.com/astros/dewinne.htm and tell me if that changes your idea about Belgian military pilots. Note the training at the Empire Test Pilots School in Boscombe Down, the Tornado license, the first non-American to receive the Semper Viper Award for demonstrating exceptional skill during flight etc.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Widger

Semantics seems to float your boat, so let's do it ;)

The UK Civil AIP is not the instrument I was thinking of when talking about civil requirements for the carraige of SSR. Indeed, the AIP is not the law of the land. You will have to tell me whether the Mil AIP which you refer to holds a similar status or not, since I am not au fait with how it relates to Queens Regulations and military 'law' and how it is 'legislated' by the military that the military aircraft must have certain equipment in certain airspaces.

The law for the carraige of equipment for aircraft in the UK is the CAP 393 Air Navigation Order. As I am sure you are aware, it is a legally binding document which details the legislation applicable and to whom it is applicable. The Order does not apply to military aircraft except for 4 articles, none of which are applicable to equipment carriage. This is stated up front, in black and white, in the document itself. Therefore a military aircraft is quite legally entitled to operate with a transponder above FL100 .... or indeed anywhere else for that matter. That is the 'civil' legality aspect of our debate. You allude that the military follow the same rules as the civilian world. That is a good thing. However, any civilian agency knows that the ANO does not apply to military aircraft and so cannot assume that they will comply with it. Civilian agencies do not generally have access to the rules by which the military are bound, nor do they need to. So unless they are told then they can't know which rules you are going to comply with in any given situation.

In the incident you refer to, the highly professional mil pilots fully intended to use SSR. They thought they were squawking, but, because they were not talking to an ATC unit, they were unaware of the status of their equipment.

'Highly professional' is a subjective benchmark, which others are 'debating' on this thread and I won't be drawn in to. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the pilot believed he was squawking and was not. Presumably the technical snag on that specific box was identified and fixed on landing :ok:

The civil airliner was routeing through Class G, not looking out of the window,

Worryingly common, even although it never guarantees you will spot conflicting traffic. :(

receiving a RIS from a civil controller (because the unit refuses to provide a RAS) (Another SAFETY NET)

Mmmm, my sources say you are wrong on this one. The unit does provide RAS in specific circumstances such as on Advisory Routes, to specific flights by local agreement with specific operators, and with a blanket approval for controllers to immediately raise the service from RIS to RAS where necessary for flight safety reasons. The procedure even says that the controllers can issue the required Avoiding Action without having to go through the dialogue of changing service with the pilot, on the common sense basis that the 30 or seconds that might take would be better spent avoiding a collision. The service change would be made once the immediate danger has been dealt with. (Please note that civil Avoiding Action is one with a degree of urgency to prevent a collision, whereas the military seem to use it as standard phraseology when issuing any vector to aircraft on RAS [just a personal observation]).

and the controller did nothing about the confliction, because he ASSUMED it was below FL100 (NOT VERY SAFE).

I don't have the benefit of the report in front of me, but agree with you if that's exactly what happened.

In his R/T he stated it was "pop-up" traffic when in fact it was showing on radar all the time (NOT VERY SAFE)

Again, as I understand it from sources, the provision of ATSOCA was not the primary task of the controller involved, it was the provision of a Radar Control service to aircraft also on his frequency within Controlled Airspace. I would interpret that 'pop up' is a poor choice of words on the controllers part and more likely to actually mean that his scan only picked it up at the last moment because he was paying attention to his priority tasks. Not an ideal situation I grant you, but a limitation of the service which NATS can provide. Personally speaking, I would get NATS to junk all en route ATSOCA except on defined routes or within defined Radar Service Areas where dedicated resource can be provided. Give it all to military units, remove such flights from the NATS en route charging system, and let the Mil try and collect any cash they wish to charge :ok: Then we could get our NATS controllers to concentrate on solving the capacity problems we have with our prime customers.

And finally, it was the MILITARY pilots who saw the airliner. The civil crew saw nothing at all. (All of this is published in the public domain)

So 'see and be seen' worked on this occasion then. It doesn't state that both parties need to always be part of the equation anywhere does it ? But in an ideal world would happen all the time.

So as you can see, there were many CIVIL factors in this incident.

I never said there weren't any. The point made by an earlier poster was about SSR and that's the point I was addressing. But your thread creep has been good for raising more issues and debate :ok:

So, it is totally unfair to lump all the blame on the military pilots.

Blame ?? Stated where .... and by whom ?

Yes two of the final safety nets (TCAS and STCA) were negated by no SSR but even before that, several of the holes in the cheese were also lined up by a rediculous regulation (No provision of RAS. A regulation imposed just to save the ar*es of the fully paid up union members, that gives NO protection to the travelling public),

With respect, that's bollocks of course. Civil controllers have a duty of care under RIS or RAS regardless. The civil controller involved (putting aside the fact that he didn't spot this specific confliction for a moment) had the 'regulation' available to give avoiding action even under a RIS if he deemed it was necessary to avoid a collision. To all intents and purposes, the same actions would be taken in spotting a last minute confliction regardless of the actual level of service. You are just trying to muddy the waters. The controller involved appeared not to have spotted the confliction therefore even if he had been giving a RAS then no action would have been undertaken. That was the crux of this incident, not the level of service. But let's beat the emotion drum ... RIS equals NO protection to the travelling public. Not worth anyone providing it then, or pilots asking for it. Let's ask the authorities to scrap it. Mind you ... talking of protection to the public neither does no light, non transponding, non NOTAM'ed mil ops in Class G at night I suppose ;) (Top marks to HQ Strike though for dealing with that one in 24 hours and getting the 'highly professional' squadrons to do so in future - see, the system of civil/mil co-operation can work !!)

the aircrew not looking out the window and very late TI by the civil controller.

Both points I agree with. Causal factors.

You asked for an example of a civil aircraft not squaking, well it did not involve two airliners what about a certain glider that strayed into CAS SW of Newcastle some time ago. No military involvement at all, but I do not hear you all jumping up and down about that!

Give me the number and I'll go and read up on it before jumping up and down. Of course to be a totally valid rant, I'd need to know that the other aircraft involved was mandated to carry TCAS and the level of ATC service being provided .. as well as the flight level of the encounter ;) And to be fair, this topic was about military stuff, a glider argument can be seen from time to time on the Private Flying forum.

Have a safe day everyone

Amen !!