Blimey, quite a lot of activity here today!
First, a proviso to what I'm about to say - my experience of the front line is limited to say the least, I do, however, have current knowledge of the current state of play with mil flying training, and that's what I base most of what I speak about on.
Secondly, for the record, the gliders were at it again yesterday, and from the view out of window, one certianly looked to be well inside the ATZ, let alone the MATZ, potentially putting it into confliction with aircraft beaking into the circuit, even bearing in mind that I'm talking about a "proper" military oval circuit.
WorkingHard:
We can indeed operate without a serviceable transponder, although there are many restrictions placed on us in the event of that are relatively severe, most notably for this debate - NO low flying (below 2000ft agl), all low flying mil ac must be squawking to enable TCAS fitted to civil traffic and our own aircraft to work. I personally have never got airborne without a serviceable one. So I'm afraid we are working to those rules. Point dismissed.
As regards airspace busting, yes it does happen. Imagine, if you will, a route planned to pass by an ATZ by 2nm, flown at 420 knots. If, owing to pilot distraction, or any other reason, the pilot allows his heading to wander off by 30 degrees or so, that 2nm cross=track error will build up in 25 seconds. Alternatively, our unlucky hero could turn 17 seconds early or late at a 90 degree turn onto the leg heading, and in doing so introduce the same error. Now, obviously, as a professional aviator, one does expect much better standards of handling of handling and airmanship from a fast-jet operator than a weekend puddlejumper joyrider, but mistakes do happen, especially in the high pressure world of an FJ cockpit at low level, complete with many other distractions. And yes, despite all the modern systems available to us, we do still train to successfully achieve a time on target +/-5 seconds using only a compass (well, HSI) and a stopwatch.
To be fair, if one reviews the airspace busting statistics, GA pilots tend to be the main culprits.
Pudknucker:
As I've just mentioned, TCAS IS slowly working it's way into the RAF, surely you don't want me to call for all GA aircraft, gliders and the like to be similarly equipped?
Doc and Mike:
Would you rather we'd flown the slow descent profile I mentioned earlier, loitering at cloudbase for longer? Or would you rather we use a procedural type service common at many civil airfields, guaranteeing separation only from those aircraft in communication with ATC? There is a level of risk in doing so, just as there is a (lower) level of risk in operating SSR only, and indeed an (even lower) level of risk even when operating with primary radar - gliders famously don't show up very well, if at all, thanks to their construction and operating speeds. Risk is inherent in aviation, better airmanship from the glider pilot who has caused all this fuss could have helped reduce this risk for everyone, surely that's a good thing? What does he lose by talking to ATC?
The glider can (thanks to it's low speed) be operating legally VFR at cloudbase, whereas faster aircraft must maintain vertical clearance, I still persist that operating at cloudbase in an environment where it's patently obvious that high energy aircraft will be descending through cloud, without telling anyone, is absolutely shocking airmanship.
gasax:
Have you actually looked at the military regulations then? Because believe me, as someone involved in both military and civil aviation, there are a great many similarities, I would most definately never describe them as 'incompatible'. If your airfield truly is as busy as you make out then procedures exist to make it a low flying avoid, just as with most glider sites, GA airfields that are actually used frequently, nature sanctuaries, hospitals, and the like. The maps of our low flying areas are very liberally sprinkled with a whole variety of avoidances. I presume you have asked for such an avoidance, which mayt well have been turned down because, despite your 30 aircraft, I suspect you actually aren't that busy movements wise. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Also please bear in mind that your idea of a "close call" may be significantly different to the military pilot's, when he's been watching for the last several miles. Just talk to a glider pilot to get an idea of how different people can have differing ideas of safe separation - it's all about what you're used to!
As regards Neptune Warrior, I'll admit the NOTAM was poorly worded, but you don't seriously think they'd be loosing off live munitions in an uncontrolled area do you? Even published danger areas must be patrolled to ensure there are no intruders before live weapons are used.