question for guys at mildenhall/lake

[UAV689]

Hi All

I have recently come back from a gliding comp near to where you guys fly, we got frequently tasked in the competition to fly very close to your zones and on many times over them. On one occasion I remember I could see 3 tankers in the circuit and could swear they where weaving in and out to avoid the gliders, were you getting guidance from ground rader of glider positions, as some of us doubted that we would be visible on a radar.

And how come the american AWACS are so smokey!!

Cheers

UAV

[TheInquisitor]

we got frequently tasked in the competition to fly very close to your zones and on many times over them.

That's NOT very sensible. YES, you are visible to radar, and you will be called as a "slow-moving contact, no height, possible glider" since you don't (to my knowledge) carry transponders, let alone one with mode C. A controller giving a Radar Advisory service is therefore duty bound to issue avoiding action if you are not sighted.

Like I said, not very sensible.

[UAV689]

apologies for any inconvience, points got raised to the task director at the time about this, but to my knowlegde in the comp no one busted any zones and we always went around the zones where possible.

We did have a few laughs in flight watching the tanker circuits fly over 3 counties (Cambridge, Norfolk and Suffolk) but they understandably have to be big.

[Spugford]

UAV.
TheInquisitor is being very polite.
Gliding around such hugely busy, joint CTZs/MATZs is not only a huge pain the a@$e for ATC and aircrew alike; it's down right irresponsible. Whilst being acutely aware of the rules of the air (i.e. powered aircraft are to give way to/avoid unpowered), to expect large transport aircraft full of people and/or fuel and, in our case, fast jets possibly flying in and out of iffy weather and in close formation with little fuel to spare during recovery to be vectored around 'multiple unknown contacts' within or close to base control zones, often approach lanes, is simply bad airmanship.
Most of this could be overcome by:
1. Not planning such competitions around the busiest clutch of military airfields in the country. (I saw a NOTAM last week for one which wound it's way between Marham and the US bases, don't know if that was you.)
2. Investing in a transponder. I don't know how expensive, or not, these are but believe me, it would be worth it to avoid the inevitably looming air-to-air.
I've been close a few times myself and begrudge the lost heartbeats on those individuals in the other ac, even though I think we all know which party would come off best.

Phew, rant over. Until the next dodgy NOTAM.:ugh:

[MightyGem]

Hmm...last time I looked, the airspace around a CTZ/MATZ was class G, so people can fly right up to the edge if they want. How far away from the boundary would you like people to stay? Might be inconvenient for the MATZ operators...but such is life.

[TheInquisitor]

The airspace WITHIN a MATZ is class G as far as an aircraft on the civil register is concerned, but that doesn't mean flying in one is a good idea. (although Mildenhall / Lakenheath zones are Controlled Airspace (NOT class G) as far as I'm aware.

Neither is flying OVER one without a mode C transponder.

This argument has been had many times in here before with regards to the UKLFS. Just because civvy pilots CAN do something, does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea.

[Pontius Navigator]

Without checking the regs, a civilian pilot may ignore, with impunity, military control zones, restricted areas, prohibited areas and danger areas. No problem.

A civilian pilot may, however, be prosectuted for hazarding himself, his passengers and and other persons through recklessly ignoring military control zones, restricted areas, prohibited areas and danger areas.

Just a questions of rules and application. As the jetwash from a C5 blows you out of the sky, just reflect that YOU had right of way.

[UAV689]

Spugford - investing in transponders is a proposal the CAA is looking into at the moment and it is likely to kill off much of GA, but that is another thread..it is also unfeasable in gliders as we have no power source other than a 12V battery.

It is true that it was however a poor call having to fly over/near your zones but as we are at an airfield very close to you and the other side of us being the sea we had not much of a choice but to come your way! And don't worry if the weather is iffy for you guys it would have been far to bad for us!!

To our credit I have flown military/civvy and gliding and glider pilots tend to have there heads out of the cockpit the most, touching a large piece of wood we normally spot other a/c a long way off...

[TheInquisitor]

investing in transponders is a proposal the CAA is looking into at the moment and it is likely to kill off much of GA, but that is another thread..it is also unfeasable in gliders as we have no power source other than a 12V battery.
I appreciate the difficulties the GA community face and it would be a crying shame if draconian restrictions were imposed. But appreciate that Mil acft (particularly heavies) being vectored left, right and centre because of swarms of gliders is no small matter!

Could your 12v battery power a small radio, thus allowing a courtesy call to a Mil unit that you are operating near / over? This would go a long way.

[trap one]

Different engines the USAF like NATO use the old TF33 engines with water injection. The Brit, French and Saudi use CFM56, whilst the re-engining of the KC135 has produced a lot of KC135R models with the CFM56 there are still a few KC135E models that still use the TF33 also. The USAF E3's have had the re-engining of CFM56 proposed a couple of times but always turned down on cost. Maybe when the KC135/RJ135 program re-engine program is complete they will be re-engined also.

[London Mil]

Without checking the regs, a civilian pilot may ignore, with impunity, military control zones, restricted areas, prohibited areas and danger areas. No problem.
A civilian pilot may, however, be prosectuted for hazarding himself, his passengers and and other persons through recklessly ignoring military control zones, restricted areas, prohibited areas and danger areas.
Just a questions of rules and application. As the jetwash from a C5 blows you out of the sky, just reflect that YOU had right of way.

Pontious Navigator, a couple of extra points for clarity.

There are some military control Zones/areas that are in fact Class D airspace (eg. Brize and Lyneham). A civil pilot cannot ignore these. Furthermore, an EGP or EGR cannot be ignored (ENR 1.1.5 paras 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 refer). There are also a large number of Danger Areas also have an accompanying Byelaw (Statutory Instrument) that would make it illegal for a civilian to be within the area (ENR 1.1.5 para 1.3.1.3).

Your second point is most accurate and far more relevant.:D

[UAV689]

we do have radios, and many pilots do call, trouble is some do not have RT licences and not in thery permitted to use them. Others see radios as disturbing the peace of gliding and some do not have the confidence to use them.

We called up any how, don't know how many others did.

Would like to thank you guys for letting us cross, as we have to follow lines of energy in the sky which never goes in the direction of track. When we lose the energy and then have to land in fields it is a nightmare as well as a potenial accident everytime we do it.

[Carbide Finger]

Is it Mar 2008 that all A/C have to have Mode S (of some variety or other)? I'm sure this will bring all kinds of crys from the BGA but it will, without a doubt, make things safer. If you read the AAIB reports, the amount of gliders in confliction with mil traffic is staggering. This competition is evidence for the fitting of transponders to A/C. I realise that said traffic might not be getting any kind of service, but it will make a difference. You'll make life easier for the zone/LARS controllers out there. Hey, they might even give you a service if you ask nicely.

CF

[airborne_artist]

UAV

I'm amazed that someone who takes to the sky without an engine does not have the confidence to use RT to prevent accidents. Was that tongue in cheek, perhaps? An RT licence really is not expensive or difficult to obtain, surely, compared to the cost of a midair?

[ATCO17]

Pontius Navigator was correct in most of what he said. I believe it can be quite difficult to actually prove that a pilot may have endangered himself, aircraft or passengers by flying into an active Danger Area and therefore get a successful prosecution under the Air Navigation Order. I'm certain that Salisbury Ops, the controlling authority for the Salisbury Plain Danger Areas had some success in pursuing prosecutions of pilots for tresspass, under the Military Lands act of 1892. Interesting when you think that the areas are sometimes active up to 35000 feet.:ok:

[whowhenwhy]

Yes I remember hearing about the competition. On one of the days in question the Lakenheath F15s were departing LKH under RAS and weren't getting VMC until passing FL170 some 25nm north of the airfield. I remember thinking at the time 'what wonderful gliding weather.' The problem is that last week all those gliders (I seem to remember the notice that AUS faxed us said 40 gliders) weren't painting at all on our nice NATS area radars. Great for us, we didn't have anything to avoid. Not so great for the airfields at all.

The only positive to come out of this is UAVs frank and honest post and sensible attitude. Your pseudonim however leads me to suspect some military glider training at some stage? Stude or instructor?

[Fournicator]

Oh dear, thought this old chestnut had finally died.

UAV:
From what I hear of you around the bazaars, I find your claim to have 'military' flying experience somewhat amusing.

[mystic_meg]

From what I hear of you around the bazaars, I find your claim to have 'military' flying experience somewhat amusing.
Oh dear indeed - here we go again! Any chance you 2 girls could take your petty bitch-fest somewhere else? What is it with you gliding types? I thought we'd seen the last of the childish exchanges - clearly we haven't. :ugh:

[MightyGem]

The airspace WITHIN a MATZ is class G as far as an aircraft on the civil register is concerned, but that doesn't mean flying in one is a good idea.
Nobody mentioned flying inside one.

[LXGB]

Gliders = pain in the arse for ATC.

Especially when you're working RAS traffic! When they find a thermal on your final approach it's great :ugh:

All part of the joy of class G "Bandit Territory" really though. ;)

Cheers,
LXGB

[Vifferpilot]

Hmm...last time I looked, the airspace around a CTZ/MATZ was class G, so people can fly right up to the edge if they want. How far away from the boundary would you like people to stay? Might be inconvenient for the MATZ operators...but such is life.

So is the teaching of 'airmanship' restricted to the military?

I was tangled up in the convoy of gliders...PITA!

[chevvron]

Situation: busy LARS frequency. Civil bizjet freecalls giving his position in an area where I can see a large number of gliders on a notified competiton task. Before identifying bizjet, I warn him of the possibilty of large numbers of gliders in his vicinity; he agrees saying he is aware and has seen many of them. 5 minutes later, a glider pilot calls, and without knowing the exact situation, accuses me of deliberately vectoring the bizjet through the gaggle!(NB I made it clear to the bizjet pilot I could only provide FIS initially)
Bizjet pilot is naturally irate; I simply tell glider pilot to phone me if he has a problem, don't do it on RTF (where literally anyone can hear).
I then phone the competion organisers, who say that this particular pilot (personal callsign)is not even in their competiton!
OK this glider pilot is probably in a minority, but it does make you wonder about the mental 'set' of glider pilots in general, UAV689 being one of the more sensible ones.

[meag197]

The prejudice against glider pilots always amazes me. It is possible for all types of pilots to exist happily together and even to fly in the same bit of airspace - shock, horror! All it takes is the ability to look up and out of the cockpit on a very regular basis. After all, shouldn't we all be flying by attitude and not by instruments. (Unless you are in IMC and to be honest, in that case you aren't particularly likely to bump into a glider coming the other way!)

I will admit that perhaps having a competition close to a military airfield can be viewed with some trepidation but as long as people in the organisation talk to each other, there should not be any problem. I was involved in the organisation last year of a gliding competition held at an airfield in East Anglia very close to our American friends and by establishing a basis of co-operation between us, there were no incidents and everyone was very happy. It can be done and will be done again next year.:)

The proposed changes which mentioned a bit earlier will not make the skies safer thanks to eliminating the "threat" from gliders. The number of accidents caused by a mid-air with a glider are minute.

It is not just gliders who use the sky. By introducing compulsory transponders across GA, all the little puddle jumpers will also have to have them fitted. There will be a massive increase in radar traffic and for what? So that the CAA can bring in through the backdoor the means to start charging for the privilege of using airspace in the UK.

The BGA is naturally concerned about this, not only because of the fact that a large proportion of the glider fleet in the UK will end up not flying again as it will not be economically viable to fit the transponders but also because of the way the CAA seem to be moving towards charging everyone for the privilege of flying.:= If you want to read more, go the BGA website at www.gliding.co.uk (http://www.gliding.co.uk)

[Flatus Veteranus]

Having flown military jets and light aircraft (Chipmunks) all around the UK in the 1950s/60s I just cannot understand what all the fuss is about. In those days of limited VHF frequencies and range it really was a problem sometimes to plot a cross-country track avoiding all controlled airspace and MATZs - or in carrying enough VHF crystals if you needed to communicate with the latter.
A glance at the military ORBAT these days does not suggest that the problem has become more acute! :confused:

[Pontius Navigator]

Having flown military jets and light aircraft (Chipmunks) all around the UK in the 1950s/60s I just cannot understand what all the fuss is about. In those days of limited VHF frequencies and range it really was a problem sometimes to plot a cross-country track avoiding all controlled airspace and MATZs - or in carrying enough VHF crystals if you needed to communicate with the latter.
A glance at the military ORBAT these days does not suggest that the problem has become more acute! :confused:

117.9 RAF Common, 115.56 Flying Training Command Common, 139.95 Bomber Common 2

To name but 3 that are imprinted on the brain.

The real challenge was NavyAir as they used Box 1 whereas the RAF used VHF 1 and 3. Also flying to the Med when you needed to change the VHF box in flight and re-crystalize the STR18.

[UAV689]

it was'nt military gliding!! faier enough my experience is limited to UAS....there it is I have owned up!!

[Vifferpilot]

I see there is another cross-country glider competition today - guess where it routes?

Yup, very close to a large military transport base (turning point on the extended centreline of the runway in use) and through the ATZ of a small but busy military training base. :ugh:

No, of course there is no law against it. Yes of course you can do it just for fun. Yes of course those with a job to do in the air will get out of your way, if they can see you. Please, can we do this again tomorrow? :ok: