MDAs

[Controller Monkey]

I may be opening myself up to major abuse hear but what do people think about the MDA system in the UK? From a Fighter Control point of view, the system seems to have worked since it is giving us more freedom to maneouvre without conflicting with civilian strangers. However, I believe that the airlines are up in arms about having to route around. What do people think?

[The Jaguar Fan Club]

In theory MDA's should help to deconflict by providing designated "playgrounds" for military a/c to operate in.

However, from an Air Traffic point of view they are not much good when an MDA with a notified base of FL100 is "active" from SFC to FL330!!!!!! No surprise that you are going to come into contact with strangers when operating in that sort of block!!! Nothing beats GOOD co-ordination............! Sure there are mission objectives to achieve...but having spoken to an F3 mate about this...the MDA's were designed solely for Eurofighter ops and dont really help for the F3 task/training. :hmmm:

I am sure that the airlines are up in arms as some routings have been significantly extented. However both the military and the airlines have a case for using the airspace but not both can have exclusive rights to ALL of it! A case of money against training for the Nation's defence perhaps?


Back to "Catch 22"! :confused:

TJFC

[Iron City]

In the UK who "owns" the airspace? Legally. In the US the country (the public) owns the airspace and the FAA has the responsibility of managing it. Some of it is loaned to the military in the form of Military Operating Areas and routes, but it is still owned by the FAA.

[Controller Monkey]

In the UK the airspace is controlled by the CAA but as for who 'owns' it, I don't think anyone does. However, since we have such a small airspace and such high levels of traffic, meeting the needs of OAT/GAT as well as the DAT can be a real nightmare, so a compromise of the MDA system was brought in not long ago. Having the ability to book certain areas and have them in a large height block has, in my opinion, made operating in UK airspace much safer for all involved. We still need to coordinate when transitting to and from the airspace (the area to the west of D613 where the Aberdeen in-bounds transit is a prime example), however, it appears to be working. As expected, there are teething problems, however, it does seem to be a much better system.

[spekesoftly]

MDAs = Master Diversion Airfields?

Damn good idea - bring 'em back I say! ;)

[LostThePicture]

MDAs = Managed Danger Areas :p

Certainly a good idea for those on North Sea sectors 10 and 11, who no longer have to contend with fast jets welding with Fokker 50's at FL150/160!! :uhoh: :uhoh:

[Cuddles]

As my colleague TJFC has said, it's all well and good, but when you're providing a RAS underneath them, as we are contractually obliged to do, when the base is down to 5000 ft, it would really be rather helpful if the aircraft didn't drop out of the bottom of the MDA without us even getting a heads up about it. :eek: With an unknown aircraft descending through 5000ft unexpectedly, and a heli at 2000 ft we've got, erm, precisely no seconds until we have a loss of separation.

After all, they've got 50000 feet of airspace available, to use 55000 is just a mite greedy,and it doesn't really integrate too well with all the other (legitimate) users of the little bit of class G underneath. ;)

As I've said before, with a heli at 135 kts, and an F3 at 450 - 500 kts, giving avoiding action instructions to the helicopter means that you've essentially got the helicopter in the same place, just pointing in a different direction by the time the F3 or whatever it is gets there. With the EFA, the heli won't even have time to finish its turn!

Having said that, it doesn't seem to be happening with 3223C any more than it ever did with D316, D317. It does happen though, but the shairspace thang is having an effect, we are being told more and more about what's going on. :ok:

Another thing, as they're ostensibly activated with 24 hours notice, does that mean that if I get a notification at 1400 on Monday, telling me that it'll be active from 0830 on Tuesday, I can just ignore it?:D

[letMfly]

MDAs = MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDES

I've never had a problem with them!

[Scott Voigt]

Probably one of the big differences with our MOA's and the UK MDA's is that in the US we know when most of the areas are really in use and have control of many of the areas altitudes in real time. The US controllers control many of the MOA's in the country and are in direct contact with the military users using them. We clear them in and clear them out as well as work them to and from the area. It keeps down the surprises that I read about here from time to time.

All that said, we do indeed have some areas that are run by the military, but these areas normally don't have to worry about civil traffic for the most part. There are of course always exceptions <G>. There are also those lovely areas that are designed for the ground pounders. You just keep folks away from those during the designated times due to artillary and you know what the Army says, "shoot them all down and let God sort them out later <G>".

regards

Scott

[Findo]

Controller monkey -

However, I believe that the airlines are up in arms about having to route around.


Which airlines are complaining and to whom ?

At least 5 days per week they route direct because the MDAs are not active. As far as I can see punctuality will have improved because of fewer ATC restrictions. In the case of the airspace now controlled by Scottish there have been no restrictions.

[Controller Monkey]

Findo,

I am only going on what I was told when I was up at ScATCC not long ago. I plugged in next to both Tyne and Humber listened to aircraft check in and push for direct-track to a cetain reporting point rather than routing around the MDAs. I am aware that they will routinely do this to save as much fuel as possible and they were obviously 'chancing it' becuse they weren't too worried when the controller told them to route around. However, I heard that amongst others, KLM had expressed huge displeasure about the MDAs. It is only heresay so we'll have to see what happens.

Regards

[whowhenwhy]

I realise that KLM own more aircraft than F50s and F100s but they really shouldn't be complaining. If they are silly enough to want to route through class G airspace, including the Vale of York which is a notified area of intense aerial activity, under RAS, then they will have to put up with being given avoiding action. Us poor put upon mil ATCOs in the pit are fed up with doing the 'old Penine task', especially when Penine used to get away with imposing RIS!! I had one KLM captain the other day who, while I was working my ar*e off trying to get him through the VoY, and 2 other high intensity tracks, asked why it was that it seemed impossible for the military to coordinate his passage through the VoY, thereby allowing him to stop having to take his passengers on a roller coaster ride. I politely reminded the gentleman that it was his choice to fly RAS through the VoY on a gin clear day, whilst there were approximately 40 ac flying VFR all around him, from surface up to FL240. He can take the turns which will give him 5nms and 3000' separation, or he could say 'happy to continue.' Or I suppose he could fly to the EGNT/EGNV overhead at FL250 and then do a spiral descent or a Khe Sanh approach, a la C130. His passengers will all get off 2 foot shorter with baggy trousers(as someone once said) but they won't be given hard left and right turns to avoid stuff doing twice their speed!!

Nuff said :* :*

[Hippy]

I think, WWW, that CM was refering to some more substantial additional track miles further up North, on the the Scottish routes. But seeing as the VOY situation has been brought up, why are crews not being encouraged to avoid additional vectoring/increased risk of collision, by using the FAMBO route? The Southern MDA was specifically designed (Lower limit of D323 D&E of 25,000ft) to allow GAT to arrive & depart NT/NV whilst avoiding the Vale of York AIAA. Are crews aware of the FAMBO route?
Are the ATCOs (Mil/NT/NV) aware of the FAMBO route?
Could more be done to publicise the FAMBO route?
Is the FAMBO route more trouble than it's worth?

[MATZ]

Do you mean the OLD FAMBO route, which routed along the coast (to FAMBO!!), or the NEW FAMBO route which now goes straight through the middle of D323 (and now turns about 30nm NE of FAMBO)

At ScATCC we are still having difficulties with the new FAMBO route used by the USAF. The few we have worked since the MDAs became active have all routed straight through the middle of D323. This is to avoid the confluence of routes known as Newcastle.

Anyway, another annoyance is:

When the MDAs are published as active, but no one is in there, why does it take up to 20mins to get clearance through?? The FCs use the excuse that the sqn have booked it, but are late and still coming etc.. In one instance the F3's booked in were still on the ground at EGQL, and I wanted a transit thought D613A at FL 270 with a EGQS inbound. It took 17 mins of phone calls to Neatishead and Buchan to eventually be told "the squadron has approved it". Why can't the FC's have overall control of the MDAs and then it would be a simple yes/no ?

[whowhenwhy]

The FCs do have control over the MDAs, unfortunately they're FCs and can't possible give a straight answer to anyone unless you've been routed through to at least 5 different assistants, controllers and back again, only to be told that they'll ring you back. Sometimes I swear they're ringing up their mums and asking their advice they take so long!

As far as the FAMBO route is concerned, no we've never heard of it; however as we're enterprising and clever mil atco's (no honestly we are) we do suggest that the ac turn right for FAMBO to go around. There are, however, 2 problems. NV inbounds and pilots who say, no matter what you tell them, that they want to route direct! Many is the time I've sat there and told the pilot as he calls me at OTR that there are approximately 40 radar contacts north west of him flying VFR up to FL 200-ish. Would he require a re-route? Would he like to stay at FL250 (if he's going to NT) and descend on the other side? No! I'd like to go direct and begin descent now please, just keep me in the picture! So we give them stepped descents to levels that are 5000' ish above the highest ac in the area, but we ALWAYS end up giving harsh avoiding actions because the nature of the AS in the VoY is that there are LOTS of mil ac engaged in high energy manoeuvering. They can be tracking west at 400kts one second, do a loop and come back east the next. All I'm saying is that the KLM guys, and everyone else going through the area, can either a) accept the wisdom and advice of their controller and route around, or, b) not whinge at us if we spill your passengers tea!
Anyone see the latest air prox report from the end of last year? Notice the amount of reports filed for mil ac vs NT/NV inbounds in the VoY? Sorry guys, I just don't think that it makes sense for you to be routing through the VoY. Especially with the holiday season fast approaching and the increasing number of civ aircrew flying through the area that think they are still en-route in an airway!!

Rant over!

[Samwise]

Yes, we are aware of the option of routeing aircraft in/out via FAMBO. However, the problems are;

1) HQ Strike Command (I think) kindly repositioning AARA 6 so that it's western end is right over FAMBO FL100-240. this was done without any coordination/consultation, as far as I am aware, with the relevant agencies, certainly not with NV/NT. So when we do inform London Mil that we are routeing via FAMBO, we have had the response "you can't do that, it's an active fuelling area":mad:

2)When KLM crews have been instructed to route via FAMBO to avoid VoY traffic, they've told us "sorry, FAMBO is not in our database". I suppose looking at a map is out of the question.

What I've started doing is giving the a/c a radar heading until it's above the VoY traffic, and then clearing it own nav UMBEL. But, as has been stated before, this VoY traffic is very unpredictable and separation can be lost very quickly.

[Magic Mushroom]

From an AWACS point of view, MDA's have been a backwards step. Their main purpose has been to facilitate flexible airspace for future Typhoon trg. However, the multi's were largely forgotten during the initial MDA definition.

Thankfully, flexibility from the ATC community has so far largely avoided many of the problems. This is particularly true of the continued use of the old UK 4 Lobe 1. The removal of this and the alteration of many of the other orbits has greatly reduced the trg available in the UK for ourselves, particularly in regards to EW work with Spadeadm.

So ScATCC types...if an E-3D asks to use the old UK4 Lobe 1, PLEASE look upon the request favourably! It doesn't particularly matter what altitude, fuel permitting, we'll take anything up to FL390!

Regards,M2

[contact_tower]

Having read this tread, I got hold of a DoD IFR map of the UK, and one thing puzzeld me and my assistant.

Why in the h..... do you have so much class G airspace on in the lower airspace structure? Surely your customers would appreciate the ability to go on more direct tracks in CAS on lower altitudes as well?
Is it still because the military flat out refuses to have training areas/ fly in CAS in general? (We had the same problem, but that was back in the late 70th's)

(The concept of MATZ's is another enigma for many foreign observers ;) , but that's a different story)

[nats]

M2,
Thanks for the helpful tip on your ability to fly at higher than FL310,does this apply to all the E-3's?.I ask because we still get aircraft requesting lobe1 at levels 290-310 that are non-rvsm compliant,the ScACC Montrose sector has been given a difficult task as we did not expect to see the 'old' lobe 1 after the resectorisation of the airspace,it cuts across the realigned UL602 in an area where we have a fair bit of climbing/descending/crossing traffic.On saying that,I believe you know that we accomodate your requests each day,regardless of level requested,but higher is better.

[ayrprox]

MM
are all awacs going to be rvsm equipped eventually, because the unequipped ones can be a right pain in the :mad: at 290/310. Can they accept 350/370/390 as well?

[Magic Mushroom]

Nats and Ayrprox,
As far as E-3 RVSM goes, all RAF E-3D's and NATO E-3A's are now compliant. French E-3F's (according to our exchange officer)should be following suit over the next year or so. Although you'll rarely see a USAF E-3B/C orbiting in the UK, they are not as yet RVSM compliant. Additionally, E-3A's already have TCAS, with RAF jets getting it imminently.
With regards to altitudes, Brit E-3D's and French E-3F's both have CFM-56 donks and should almost immediately be able to get up to FL 350 from the outset. Once we've burned off some fuel, a D or an F should often be able to get up to FL 370 or 390. We can't go higher due to surveillance radar limitations.
However, NATO and USAF E-3's still have the old PW engines, which means that they struggle to get much higher than FL330, and almost never over FL 350.
How can you tell which is which apart from the accents? Generally, NATO (multinational crews) E-3A's use the front end callsigns of NATO 10-29, Brit E-3D's (RAF crewed) use NATO 30-49, and the Frenchies use Roxanne or a FAF callsign. If this info is on your strips and/or you're already aware, then I apologise for the egg sucking tuition!
The reason that we like the old UK4 Lobe 1 so much is that it enables good sensor, data link and comms coverage of most of the UK. Additionally however, the limitations of the Spadeadm threat emitters means that anywhere other than the old UK4 Lobe 1 means that ESM trg with that unit is virtually prevented. This has very big implications for our crew trg stats, and is particularly important for OCU missions which can sometimes DNCO if they don't get the old Lobe 1.
We are acutely aware of how much hassle the old UK4 Lobe 1 creates, and will only go there if there are no other options. Although everyone seems to expect us to orbit at 290-310, we do have other options. I would suggest that you ask an E-3 if he can accept a climb, on the basis that 'if you don't ask, you don't get'. Additionally, Spadeadm trg is so important for ourselves that I would even consider descending out of the upper air if that enabled us to stay in the old Lobe 1!!
Out of interest as I know that it doesn't affect your control obligations to ourselves, whenever the IFF or radar is active on an E-3, one of the mission crew will be acting as 'AWACS monitor'. This secondary task entails passing traffic info to the flt deck on any contacts of interest that will pass roughly within 5000ft and 10 miles of us. Additionally, we employ a 'JTIDS monitor' (who can be the same person as the AWACS monitor), to ensure that CAA JTIDS restrictions are not encroached. JTIDS monitor is particularly important with the advent of RVSM, and will often result in us ceasing some or all of our JTIDS transmissions for a short period as an aircraft passes by.
We have in the past taken the odd (some were very odd!!:D :D ) CAA controller flying so that they can better appreciate what we do. Military ATCO's are certainly no problem. At the very least, we could show any of you the mission sim! PM me if anyone is interested.
Hope the info was of use, and TVM again for the patience with our UK4 old Lobe 1 fetish!!
Regards,
M2

[Controller Monkey]

In response to a previous comment about the length of time it takes to get clearance through an active but not in use MDA, the quickest way to get this is to speak to the Fighter Allocator. When you use your direct dial line to either Buchan or Neatishead, 9 times out of ten you will get through to the Fighter Marshal or Fighter Marshal Assistant. Rather than explaining your situation and the FMA probably not understanding what you are asking (and certainly not qualified to reply), just ask to speak to the FA. They will transfer you and you should get an answer more quickly. Alternatively, instead of using your direct dial, use the ATOTN for Buchan or Neat with the extension 8006. This will get you directly through to the FA01 console and you should get a quicker response.

I hope this helps but we are aware of the number of people you have to speak to before you get who you want. We try to reduce this but it is a factor of the old comms set-up we have (a new one is on the way).

Regards

CM