Originally Posted by Mike Cross
Fournicator
The answer to your question to me is no.
What would be sensible is to think about the risk before you do something. If you want to do your 4000fpm descents in Class G and there's cloud in the way and your primary radar is inop and the use of transponders is not mandatory in the airspace and it's not CAS then you have a few choices.
1. Go ahead and do it anyway
2. Defer doing it until you have serviceable primary radar
3. Defer doing it until you have good vis and can achieve separation by visual means.
4. Stick someone outside the tower with a pair of binoculars to watch out for traffic underneath the clouds and make sure it's all clear before initiating the descent.
There are probably other choices as well but of the ones listed I suggest No 1 carries more risk than the others. It's up to you to make the decision.
And that fournicator is the crux of the whole issue.
We have a notified airstrip, we've had 15 years of communications with the RAF who on many occasions have said "we are an avoid", "we cannot be an avoid" - it depends on who you speak to and how much complaining we have done. You say we cann't be THAT busy. So how busy is THAT busy? Here you have a place where there is some certainty that low flying jets will encounter light aircraft, how often one is sure. So naturally the RAF approach is to ignore the issue - you're not THAT busy, so the risk whilst substantially higher than it should be, is simply ignored.
As to the idea that someone is a military jet has a better idea of how close a 'close call' - nice idea, the steely eyed superman said it was obvious it was going to miss him by XX metres ,so it was OK. Believe me when a Tornado flies underneath you on final approach that remark is pretty contemptible.
As to no live firing in the open FIR - I was quoting the NOTAM, so either it was true or some interesting exercise in 'black ops' or military mis-information - very handy in the NOTAM system.
You are at the end of the day defending 'custom and practice', which pretty much ignores any real risk assessment. In that sense you are completely typical of what is wrong with the system and why one day something very bad will happen and things will then change.
In the meantime I have no problem in talking to anyone who has a radar system (preferably that is actually working!) or any airfield I'm close to. Strangely I don't want anymore close calls.
But when I see this rubbish being trotted out as an acceptable way of operating, where we are all facing having transponders but the military will not. Where 'see and avoid' is not possible and you rely on big sky, don't tell me that is acting responsibly.