Bristow helicopter near miss with Tornado off Aberdeen

[Time Out]

HELICOPTER CARRYING OFFSHORE WORKERS HAS NEAR MISS WITH MILITARY AIRCRAFT

SCOTT MACNAB
09:00 - 06 February 2004

A Dozen offshore workers narrowly avoided a mid-air collision when a RAF Tornado came within feet of their helicopter yesterday.

The men were travelling back from Shell's Fulmar platform to Aberdeen on board a Su- per Puma when the near miss occurred at about 10.20am.

Passengers on the flight said the helicopter began shaking and losing altitude.

Operators Bristow's confirmed yesterday that a military aircraft was involved in the incident and that a report will be made to the Civil Aviation Authority.

One passenger who contacted the Press and Journal last night said the workers on board feared the worst. The passenger, who did not want to named, said: "I was sleeping, as most people do on board these helicopter flights, when I was woken up by this almighty roar.

"After that the helicopter started shaking violently and dropped maybe about 30 to 40 feet.

"Everyone started looking at each other and thinking we were going to go down."

The scare lasted for about 10 seconds, before the craft was eventually brought under control and resumed its journey to Aberdeen.

The man, who has been working offshore for about 15 years, added: "We were cruis- ing at about 1,000ft altitude at the time and visibility was good.

"The captain told us later that it was a Tornado and that it shouldn't have been in the airspace at the time. He said it passed about 30 to 50 feet away from us."

Its understood that there were two officers on board the flight from the Health and Safety Executive who had been investigating a separate incident on one of the platforms.

All the passengers were asked to wait behind in the Bristow's hangar at Aberdeen Airport after the incident, when the helicopter landed at 11am.

They were given a full briefing by the pilots about the incident and asked if they saw anything that the two crew might have missed.

A spokesman for Bristow's said last night that an "airprox report" had been made about the incident, the procedure pilots go through when another aircraft comes closer than it should.

He confirmed there were 12 passengers and two crew members on board at the time of the incident.

He added: "It was a military aircraft and it is standard procedure that a report goes to the Civil Aviation Authority."

An investigation would be carried out as a precaution, according to the spokesman.

He added: "There's no indication that there was any adverse effect on the helicopter."

No one from RAF Lossiemouth was unavailable for comment on the incident last night.

source (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=84092&command=displayContent&sourceNode=83929&contentPK=8744874)

[simfly]

Helicopter was actually inbound from fulmar, auk, sedco 711 and gannet. Heard that the turbulance from the tornado's wake was strong enough to knock the autopilot out, but guess all will be confirmed in the report.....

[Steve76]

How do you "knock" an autopilot out?
:confused:

[Hilico]

Wonder what the recommendations would be after an alleged incident like this?

1. Civilian operators to repaint their aircraft in special (and rather expensive) light-emitting diode paint offering luminance of up to 100 million candlepower per square foot in all directions; and

2. Civilian operators to carry four mode-S transponders in each aircraft, each set to a different squawk so that hopefully an RAF jet will pick up at least one of them; and

3. Civilian helicopter crews to be given (unfortunately rather expensive) voice coaching so if they see a fighter barrelling toward them they can shout 'pull up!' sufficiently loudly for the crew to hear and react; and

4. Civilian operators to maintain a team dedicated to phoning Uxbridge every five minutes giving latest position reports; and

5. Civilian operators to suggest ways in which this kind of thing might be avoided in future, to report by February 2009; and

6. RAF crews told to look out a bit more.

[SASless]

ah...way too shallow an approach....wait a bit and the Uniformed Mafia will all be made redundant and their function will be out-sourced to the civvies. That will then eliminate the traffic conflict and make it a CAA matter solely. In due time then, the ability for more than one aircraft to be airborne at all will go away. Problem solved through bureaucratic digression.:ok:

[simfly]

How do you "knock" an autopilot out?

Sorry, I forgot some on here like to be picky beggers, i'll try be more technically correct-

Heard that the turbulance from the tornado's wake was so strong, the autopilot was automatically DISCONNECTED.

[magbreak]

They were given a full briefing by the pilots about the incident and asked if they saw anything that the two crew might have missed.

If it got to within 30-50 ft perhaps they missed the Tornado :-)

Not the nicest of incidents but had it happen to me a few years ago with two of our chums in grey uniforms. Outcome of enquiry risk "C" as the tornado crew reported they had seen us and then went "Heads down in the cockpit to contiue their exercise". Not convinced myself as there was none of the usual wing waggling to show they'd seen us.

The recommendations weren't far off hilico's comments, other than to add we should stay out of the way of Military aircraft doing "High energy" manouvers, as it was wasting their time if they had to break off ad start over again.. still trying to work out how I get my helicopter flying at max 155 kts away from something doing 500 kts + :* :confused:

[Paracab]

Please don't view this as ignorance, its not, but how is this type if incident still occurring in this day and age ?

My parents recently bought a house from a lady who lost a son in a mid-air collision involving a military aircraft, hence my interest.

Hope its not too long before this kind of incident can be avoided altogether.

:(

[Autorotate]

Its interesting to see things from both sides. Some years ago I had a back seat flight in one of 899 Squadrons two seat Harriers, actually it was their first new model that they got. Those in the know would know it as the Navy's first black two seat Harrier. Was flying with an Aussie guy called Gavin Phillips. We were out somewhere around Devon/Cornwall area (sorry if area is not exact as it was some time ago) and were cruising around low level and next minute a Bell 206B popped up over a hill doing a nice big hammerhead in front of a farm house.

We were coming up the hill and the only option we had, as we were going quite quickly, was to stay extremely low as if we had climbed we probably would have hit him square on. Needless to say nerves were a little tense, at least on our side. After we got back it was interesting that no near miss report was ever filed, as according to ATC they never had any record of him and after a few expletives from Gavin we carried on our merry way. I asked him if this was a regular thing and he said from time to time they will come close to helos that pop up unannounced. So it does happen to both sides.

Saying that with the types of radars the fast movers have in them these days they should be able to pick up targets at least a hundred miles away and from what I have seen in the US they are almost always aware that the helo is there before the helo ever sees them.

Anyway just my two cents worth.

Autorotate.

[Power Up]

No disrespect to either side, but Isn't this happening a little too often?

In the case of the North Sea, the military crews should be aware of the high intesity helicopter operation in that sector after the number of years that they have been there. And unfortunatley the helicopters will be sitting ducks if the mil guy is too busy looking inside and on course for a collision.

With respect to helicopters in uncontrolled airspace, by speaking to no-one, they only cause an unessicary risk to all operating in that area.

Unfortunatley there is not enough awarness from both sides, but I do also find it concerning that the military guys continue to have air prox in the same sector with the north sea boys - isn't part of flying the constant learning?

[M609]

The system of not allowing crossing of helicopter routes below 4000ft without contacting the relevant ATC unit has worked quite well over here, at least until the Italian Air Force come on a visit..... :E

[Helisell]

Little bird told me that these miltary fast jets adjust their radar to exclude any traffic travelling less than about 80mph so as to avoid clutter with high speed cars on motorways etc.

I've no idea if this is true but it does concern me slightly when I am out sightseeing and tootling around at 65kts in my r22.

I fly privately in Scotland and wouldn't dream of moving around in uncontrolled airspace without speaking to somebody, preferably MATZ (since they usually know about the 'low and fast' stuff.)

Herbie.

[simfly]

Agree that civvies can also give the military stuff a scare and come out of the blue, but this latest incident happened in perfect VMC. Even if the tornado's crew knew about the 332 from radar there would surely have to be questions asked as to how it could fly so close infront, knowing that there might be just a tad of turbulent air left behind! What ever the reasons for the extremely close proximity, I hope something constructive will come of this.

[magbreak]

With respect to helicopters in uncontrolled airspace, by speaking to no-one, they only cause an unessicary risk to all operating in that area.

Power Up. On the North Sea it tends to be the other way round with the Military talking to their Number 2 for a flight watch and not to ATC at all.

The helicopters tend to talk to air traffic, assuming the radio works in their patch of the North Sea. Haven't flown there for a while but there were areas where you couldn't talk to air traffic due to your range from their receivers.

If you meant onshore, again there are areas where you cannot talk to someone even if you wanted to.

[MD900 Explorer]

Shouldn't that TCAS system be available to civillian aircraft soon, or is it just soooo expensive that your man "pootling in his R22 at 65 kts" just cant afford it?? :{

There seems to be too many of these Airprox's going on. I seem to remember that in air law that priority went along the lines of :-

1) Balloons
2) Gliders
3) Airships
4) Heavier than air, power driven craft

No mention of lunatic Tornado's doing 500 kts. :E

Next time you fly through a MATZ or the odd low flying training area, i.e. where a Tornado should pop up, pre-empt the encounter by setting 7700 Mode C on your transponder, At least then ATC will know you are "Distressed" :E

Keep your eyes open guys and safe flying

MD :ok:

[The Nr Fairy]

MD900:

Not only is it a question of cost, but light helicopters haven't got too much spare payload for a TCAS system - I would think however that a twin turbojet pointy nosed thing would have a few kilos spare, and if not then a few less pies for the drivers.

But of course that means a 5 year procurement cycle, spending taxpayers' money on something useful instead of pensions for civil servants . . .

[MD900 Explorer]

What about systems like Garmin 1000, they don't weigh a tonne or two, i believe they have a built in TCAS and a terrain identifying system and Mode S.

I know that Robinson are offering this bitr of kit from March this year. An R22 with TCAS built in. Never thought i would see an R22 with a glass cockpit.

MD :ok:

[bondu]

With regard to the post made by Power Up reference to "helicopters in uncontrolled airspace not talking to anyone". If he is refering to the North Sea, he is completely wrong!
With the rebro system now in place, N. Sea helos can speak to Aberdeen ATC anywhere within the Helicopter Main Route structure. The HMRs are published in the RAF books and charts as well as all the civil ones. There is no excuse for military aircraft not to know where the helicopters are likely to be!
As an ex army driver, I can remember a few occasions when helos were almost knocked out of the sky by 'over exuberant' jet jockeys: I know, I was one of them!
Bet your bottom dollar/euro that the 'official' report will deny the Tornado was even there; and if they admit that it was, 'there was no danger of collision!'
Call me a cynic, but the Hutton Report is not the only whitewash around. :mad:

[Weasel Watcher]

Some thoughts on the above:

1. The near miss occurred in the open FIR Class G airspace so both parties had a perfect right to be there.

2. The UK Airprox Board will invariably discount the perception of miss distance and altitude separation offered by the helicopter crew as inaccurate, presumably because of the preponderance of military representatives on the Board.

3. The Tornado crew will no doubt report seeing the helicopter at 5 kms and took avoiding action, so if 4g at 420 knots still took them too close, so sorry.

4. The Board will only consider testimony from the crews involved, so no matter how many frightened passengers write to Gordon McRobbie at The UK Airprox Board, Hillingdon House, RAF Uxbridge, Middlesex, their views will count for nought!

5.The view persists among many of the military, that any UK airspace below 2000 feet should be regarded as fast jet playground and other users venturing in there can expect a bloody nose.

6. Bristows should be encouraged to publicise this incident to the wider world in the hope of getting the military to adopt a sensible attitude to the fitting of collision avoidance equipment to fast jets.

Beware of weasels!

[[email protected]]

Lets put some of the whingers here at 250 feet and 500 kts and see just how good your lookout is!

[Power Up]

Sorry for the lack of clarity guys.

Bondu
The reference to uncontrolled airspace was reponse to the jetranger in autorotates comment prior to mine, and the lack of comms from the helo pilot.

Mag break
I understand even onshore there are times that it is not possible to speak to someone, in that case wasn't Auto's jet jockey pal acting in an unsafe manner - high speed, low level, no comms?

As already noted in this thread - my only concern is that these incidents are becomiing all too common, and airproxes are one thing, but it can easily be worse.

We live in dangerous times

[Autorotate]

Power Up,

Actually the route that we were following was along an established fast mover low level route so it wasnt that we were somewhere we shouldnt have been.

The SHARS from 899 and the other Fleet Air Arm squadrons use the route all the time. Hope this clarifies that.

Autorotate.

[Power Up]

Cheers auto, it does.

But one question though (and please understand I am not trying to pinpoint fault on any one as I praise the mil guys as well as civvies), is the area uncontrolled? if it is, is there no way of making the flying safer? Some comm is better than none, and may help save some lives (possibly london FIR). It just seems bazarre that there is such a safety compromise in such a high intensity low level route.

If I make no sense, please just tell me to shut up (but not too harsh!!):ouch:

[GJB]

quote: "Little bird told me that these miltary fast jets adjust their radar to exclude any traffic travelling less than about 80mph so as to avoid clutter with high speed cars on motorways etc."

the pumas cruise with an IAS of 125-140ks, so unless the helo crew were punching into a hefty headwind, then that excuse wont stand.

[Autorotate]

They can exclude whatever they fit into specific parameters but out of every jet I have flown in the back seat, I would say probably one had the radar switched off and thats because we were out over the ocean (not in Europe).

They keep the radar on all the time and it is always painting quite a few miles ahead so I would presume that the Tornado crew knew the helo was there and was having fun, bit too serious though, and thats only my opinion.

Autorotate.

[Woolf]

crab:

Excactly! If a good enough lookout at 250ft and 500kts can not be maintained then they shouldn't be flying through the busy heli routes!!!

[cyclic]

Crab

I've been on both sides of the fence and now as a civilian operator I can understand why some are "whinging". I spend 7-8hrs per day between GL and 500', single pilot often with underslung loads that require a good deal of attention. I CANP all the sites we work at even though the booking system is a farce. This still does not prevent the sharp pointy ones coming too close. I have even been infringed by a military helo (heaven forbid eh!). Some of the crews are quite enlightened and are providing info calls to local ATCs which is always appreciated.

So, I think that who has the better lookout between 250' and 500' argument wears a little thin.

[MD900 Explorer]

Yeah but guys,

It only takes 7 seconds to be off the scope on the sharp end to be woefully unadapted to the future surroundings, just to say to your co-jo that you want him to do x-y and z.

Only do the maths. At 500 knots and 7 seconds a-glance. A few things could have entered airspace that you have covered. FRIGHTNING :{

And then when you have scanned and re-adjusted your brain it's 20 seconds, and by that time you have gone all too far. :{ :{

You have to give it to them, it is hard work, yet for your lowly R22 pilot travelling at 65 kts it will scare the **** out of him and the average Puma pilot (With more anti-collision lights than piccadilly circus on it) should'nt be suprised if the Tornado gives it a pass.

Without defending the Tornado pilot, how don't you know that he recogonised the fact that he was coming close to the "Vector Zone" at Aberdeen, turned briefly and asked the co jo to confirm the location, by which time he had to take avoiding action. (20 secs at 500 kts = Disaster distance).

Instead of planting blame, why not try to understand the other persons ####-up. We are all to keen to pass the buck, but not keen to accept the others situation..

The radar point that is being discussed has to be pants, By definition, it cant wind up the sensitivity due to fast road vehicles. The R22's of this world would never stand a chance

GJB and Woolf are on ther nose here. Crab -your fighting a losing battle. Autorotate - i thought you were on the helo side too?


MD :oh:

[Autorotate]

MD900 - I am on the helo side as well. All I was doing was telling of a story where, in our case, the helo was in the wrong. Not saying it is the same in every case. I spend more of my time in helos than I do in the military toys and would hate to be skewered on the end of an F3s probe.

I have actually got my UK editor to start looking into doing a feature on this very subject. He is an ex Tornado nav and helo dude so he will be able to give a good account of both sides.

My opinion, anything we can do to educate people, on both sides of the coin, to stop what happened with the Tornado/Helo midair about five years ago, I am all for it.

Autorotate.

P.S. Just got some feedback from my UK ed that whenever the fast movers are going low level radars are actually ineffective as the ground clutter makes identifying anything impossible.

[simfly]

I've heard a rumour (here we go....... somebody shoot me down for putting this on a rumour forum!!!!) that there maybe a tornado having it's structure checked after pulling up at high G trying to avoid a helicotper :ooh: Heard this through fellow VRT officers but unsure where rumour eminated from. Maybe this thread should be copied on military forum, then someone may confirm.... (simfly now rushes to military forum incase it's already there!!!!!!!) :mad:

[wish2bflying]

Ground clutter? Over the ocean? Eh??? :confused: :p

--
Michael.

[fidae]

Perhaps a more appropiate thread would be Helicopter scares living daylights out of Tornado!!

[Hard Bernard]

You think radar doesn't reflect off water????!

[MD900 Explorer]

Point taken :ok:

MD

[cyclic]

I'm sure the F3 can actually interrogate mode 3, so they can see your squawk without having to use primary.

[S76Heavy]

In any case, the offshore routes used by offshore helicopters are not exactly secret, are they? Nor are the operating altitudes.
It would make a lot of sense if people would talk to each other or better still, some sort of coordinator to keep everyone else in the loop.
After all, avoiding an accident is better than discussing afterwards who had the right of way..

[Hummingfrog]

This was a potentially very serious near miss but let us look at the facts as we know them before slagging off either side.

The facts as reported are that this was a near miss between a Tornado and a Superpuma returning to Aberdeen.

The Mark of the Tornado is not known. If it was an F3 then it would have AI radar if it was a GR4 it would not.

If the Superpuma was operating on the designated Helicopter Main Route structure then it would have been at 2000ft on the Aberdeen QNH as we operate generally 3000ft outbound and 2000ft inbound in that area. This is not hard and fast as we may be higher to take advantage of a tail wind or lower to avoid icing so the height band you could expect to see a Northern N Sea helicopter is 1000ft QNH to FL80.

The airspace this happened is class G ie totally uncontrolled so the principal of see and be seen operates. Aberdeen offers a restricted RAS out to 80miles from the ADN VOR on 134.10 and a FIS on 135.175.

What can be learned from this incident.

1. If you are a fast jet pilot operating in this area then if possible avoid the height band 1000ft to FL80 and definitely don't hang around the 2000ft-3000ft band as that is where most of the helicopter traffic is.

2. If you are a helicopter pilot then don't assume that Aberdeen RAS is going to protect you. In between eating the sticky buns and coffee lookout. It is amazing what you may see!!!

3. The times I have seen Tornadoes they have been GR4s and have been below me.


HF

[Crashondeck]

The prospect of meeting fast jet traffic is, IMHO, the scariest thing about being a helicopter pilot.

Here we have a situation where a Superpuma and maybe 20 people were nearly wiped out. Not to mention a Tornado's worth of taxpayers money and two highly valuable RAF(?) crew. When will the MOD act on this HINT and fit some form of TCAS on their a/c? I know that current forms of TCAS have limitations in this application, but surely that can be sorted out. We can after all manage to get missiles to wonder around cities as if they were reading an A to Z.

Do these fast jet crews realise that most of the time NS helos are IMC with only a FIS? yes at the time of this incident it was good VMC, but should the FJ crew have planned to be in that part of the world at that altitude?

Alot of play is made on tv documentaries about how carefully military sorties are planned. Call me cynical but.......

[Fox_4]

lunatic tornados at 500kts

no such thing as ground clutter over the sea


If only such comments had an ounce of common sense, or knowledge they might scare the truth.

Do you think the tornado crew deliberately dusted the helo off. Come on! You are trying to do a job the same as us.

If you fly in class g airspace get your eyes out! put your papers and cups of coffee down (yes i have flown jump seat on a super puma out of aberdeen) and look out. I realise you cant avoid/run as easily as us but surprisingly enough at 500kts a helo 8 miles away on a collision will be in our face in less than 60 secs. a few seconds scanning the radar, a lookout in the wrong sector, instrument scan, weapon scan etc all adds up.
as for ground clutter over the sea, of course its there and its down to the quality of radar as to how much it affects the radar in question. if you are on the beam with no doppler then thats the best way to defeat any AI radar hence helo cloaking device. 65kts for an r22 doesnt have much doppler whatever way you are travelling does it. having a radar doesnt necesarrily mean we will see you on it.

yes the easiest way to avoid this unfortunate event is to avoid this airspace but if we avoided everywhere then all we would be good at is circuits!

rant over

[Autorotate]

Fox 4 - In ref to my comment re ground clutter I never referenced feet wet ops, was referring only to feet dry, thats all.

Autorotate.

[Experienced Bloke]

HummingFrog.

Good points, all well made.

This area of airspace definitely does not get enough visibility in the flying community and needs some form of proper control/discussion. I just know that the topic will be flavour of the month now, but it needs constant pressure.

All FJ operators I know make a mandatory call to Aberdeen when they transit the coast, and ALL of them are below 1000ft. I know, I taught most of them.

If it had been an F3 there is no guarantee he had his radar on (or even that it was servicable). Even the GR4 has a limited Air-to-Air capability (if the radar is on and it is servicable). However, no matter what mark of Tornado, there is no substitute for good airmanship and an RT call.

We are all aware of the height band of the Helicopters, but also aware of their changes, especially for icing. This puts you right into our height bracket though (and normally when the weather is at its worst).

Points for the Helicopter guys:

Never assume that there isn't some fly boy out there somewhere in his Swing Wing Arrow of Death. Be VERY aware that his lookout is probably considerably more restricted by large chunks of iron work than yours. Also, even though he is probably looking out, he is more used to the sight of other 500 mph aircraft rather than a 120 knot helicopter. Points about the Aberdeen RAS are well made.

Points for the FJ. LOOKOUT, LOOKOUT, LOOKOUT. Never assume that Aberdeen will be able to see you at 250 feet, or that he is even that interested in your VFR transit, south to north, not above 1000 feet. He has more than enought Civvy and helicopter traffic to worry about.

Hope I DONT see you soon. Save a sticky bun and a coffee for me.

[Hilico]

At least one operator's aircraft, engaged on low-ish level patrol, have been fitted with the Skywatch TCAS system. I don't know offhand whether that just lets the heli identify the military traffic or the jet jock gets a beep in his cockpit. In any case, the kit that fits in a 206 would be barely noticeable in a 332.

You might have heard a rumour that after picking up an approaching jet same level at 1000ft, the heli started a descent and the jet followed it down, passing quite close over the top of the 'target', which was by that time in full auto. But I couldn't possibly comment.

[SirToppamHat]

Crashondeck Said:
Do these fast jet crews realise that most of the time NS helos are IMC with only a FIS?

IMC on a FIS? See and be seen? How? At least an F3 (assuming it was an F3) has an AI radar. I doubt whether a FJ would continue the mission in IMC.



In the reported position of the incident, neither the civvies nor the military have good radar cover at low level - something to do with the curvature of the earth I believe!

One other point here, and it is not intended to score points, but my understanding of the way the F3/SHAR crews operate when practising intercepts at Low Level (LL) is that they work in pairs (or more), with one (group) acting as targets for the other as fighter(s).

For a target at LL (250-1000ft) to be seen by an opposing fighter, the fighter must have some additional height (say 5000ft+). This is again a function of radar physics but also because they have their own inter-formation sanctuaries. The fighter will look to descend to the target's height only if/when they get and can maintain radar contact or tally on the target.

The idea that F3s practising low-level interception techniques can 'stay clear' of the height bands within which the helos operate is misguided.

The tornado GR4, and other interdictor types can stay at LL for extended periods, but there is always a possibility that any FJ may need to LL abort and climb for weather reasons.

Finally, because I've banged on enough already, I think it may be worth noting that the MDAs to the south and east of Aberdeen (D613A/B/C) are often NOTAM'd as active from FL100 up, but I understand that this does not mean that aircraft operating in these areas are limited to not going below that FL. A planned sortie operating in the height block Sea Level to FL350 in 613C, for example, would, if entitled to segregation, result in a NOTAM for 613C from FL100 to FL350; this can give the wrong impression. It is also worth noting that when a sortie operates entirely within an MDA, it is possible for another to be height-stacked beneath it.

[Bomber ARIS]

The UK´s oil reserves are serviced by helicopter fleets operating with poor radio coverage, nothing but a FIS beyond the 80nm point, inclement weather, with feeble management (irresistible,isn't it!) If that's not enough, they're expected to have to put up with Johny Jet Jockey and his clan!!

I honestly don't give a flying f**k what they're trying to achieve -when they're doing it where I'm working, I just want them gone! Surely we could syphon a little off the North Sea Oil revenue and pack them all off to the Canadian praries. Or why not try the west coast?

Having flown in the UK, both onshore and off, my abiding memories are of having had a complete guts full of fast jets.

I dutifully submitted AIRPROX forms for all of my close encounters with military hardware, only to have my account of matters watered down on the account of the Hawk/Tornado/Jaguar/etc pilots testimonies. The resulting conclusions never did seem to tally with the experiences of by my crew and I, and all I was able to learn from the reports was that "everything was fine, it wasn't as bad as you had imagined and by the way you're obviously unable to judge distance/height/percieved danger".

I understand why people have little faith in these Hutton-esque charades, but am saddened because I believe that yet another fatal jet vs. helicopter airprox is just around the corner :(

I had not intended to become animated on this issue, but I have just had far too many jets thrown at me in peacetime Britain.:uhoh:

[Power Up]

So these jet jocks admit to struggling with to complete a good lookout at 500kts LL, yet they can give a better judgement of distance than a 2 pilot helicopter operating at approx a quarter of the speed?

Is it me or does that not seem right?

[incubus]

Hmmm. Perhaps they are more accustomed to flying close to aircraft, for whatever reason, than your typical helicopter crew.

[whoateallthepies]

The Aberdeen helo routes are well promulgated so if Mr Fox 4 and his/her pals intend to fly through or near them then they should be keeping a damn good look out and not scanning weapons/radar/bandits at 6 0'clock:hmm:

[GJB]

If the FJ's can't maintain a good look-out at 500ks, then why are they operating within such busy classG where potentially conflicting traffic is known to exist, and where that traffic is known not to have TCAS, or operating with a RAS/RIS, and is far less manouverable? Okay, so the heli-crew are operating with a FIS because there is no radar coverage..........what's stopping the FJ calling up on for a FIS? Too busy playing with their nobs?

I'm sorry to come down heavy on the FJ crew here, but it's appalling flight planning for them to take their aircraft into such busy ClassG. I tend not to fly below 500' as that is where the FJ's tend to operate. If I had an airprox by doing so, then I'd probably end up in the sh*t (even though I'd have as much right to be there as them.)

Perhaps the FJ's should extend the same courtsesy, keeping out of the way of NS heli routes, so the crews can get on with reading the Times and eating their sticky buns

:rolleyes:

[AllyPally]

I agree with you GJB that it is questionable airmanship to operate within the N Sea helicopter route structure without due consideration to where the helicopters will be, but why would a helicopter crew be prosecuted for flying to the Beatrice at 500ft if they had an Airpox?:confused:

AP

[Hummingfrog]

Ex B

Thanks for that. You never know you may see me soon but not know!! I had to hold, in my Tutor, over 27 at Leuchars for 25mins last week while the pointy things practised their landings. If you’re ever in 12 AEF the coffee is on me!! (What anonymity).


HF

[gadgetbent]

As far as I am aware the ac variant was an F3, from 56 Sqn at RAF Leuchars. They were supposedly under the control of FC at the time, but as the F3 was low level, they were not painting on any radar that the FC had access too, nor was the helo. The first that the FC knew about it was when the F3 climbed and had also appeared to **** himself. Apparently the ac tapes indicate less that 60ft sep. The pilot RTB'd immediately as he had maxed the airframe in avoiding the helo.
Due to the trg requirements of 56 Sqn they need to operate at low level on occassions and unfortunately due to fuel constraints need to operate in that area. Ideally, they would operate to the south of the HMRs but this is not practical.
I agree that this was a serious incident, and that they only way to avoid it in the future would be to establish a helicopter corridor around the HMRs. At the mo with it being Class G, it is everyman for himself. Keep a good look out for arrows of death.

[RobinXe]

Can anyone tell me what it says in the blue boxes scattered liberally over the half mil civil charts, captioned "Military Low Flying System"?

[Crashondeck]

So they maxed the airframe? Does that mean that the airframe will have to be used as a gate guardian now?

It seems crazy to me that the MOD still wont put money into some form of TCAS. Maybe if it saved the occasional maxed airframe, then payback would be swift.

Gadget - how do you mean fuel constraints? That the Tornado has only a poxy short range when doing operational training, or is it the MOD penny pinching and stopping you guys from getting the training that you want and the tax payers expect?

[RobinXe]

Tax payers expect? Just how do they expect it to be payed for, would they rather pay more tax, or sacrifice some spending on schools or hospitals?

[GJB]

Certainly Robin, in fact you answered your own question.

By the same token can you tell me what the array of lines, emanating from ABZ and drawn out over the North Sea represent?

[RobinXe]

Certainly not non-UK airspace, therefore the liberally distributed caveat I mentioned applies.

[GJB]

I would suggest my "warning" also applies

[keithl]

Most of the comments on this have been refreshingly well-balanced and recognise that this is a very difficult business. I don’t have the solution, but I want to point out how evenly balanced the problem is, and by doing so, quiet some of the more outrageous views, particularly “Bomber Aris” whose chosen name does at least indicate some admiration for the RAF!

Bristow people will recognise me and know I have some interest in airspace and IFR matters.

1. It’s Class G airspace and no-one has more right to be there than anyone else.
2. Both crews were equally frightened and are (presumably) equally anxious to solve this problem.
3. The military started using the North Sea for training way before there were any oil rigs there. That was in response to complaints from the populace to “send them away somewhere”. Now, the “newcomers” want the military to move on again. Do we want to turn them into unwanted “travellers”?
4. Someone makes the point that there are lots of obstructions to lookout in a Tornado. Not as much as in a 332 where most of the helicopter is in the way!
5. The HMR structure occupies a huge area. Given that not all HMRs are occupied all the time, and that the helos could be anywhere from 500ft to FL85, and that the HMRs themselves carry no kind of protection (as airspace), is it reasonable to close it all off to military a/c?
6. If the traffic density warrants it, the airspace could be redesignated (Class F perhaps. It’s not an advisory route, but the rules for Class F would appear to fit the bill). Have the helo operators explored this? But I suspect that traffic density, being much lower than on airways, would not actually win the case.

I said I didn’t have the answer, and BHL folk know where to find me if they disagree, but lets not allow this to turn into “we’re Goodies, they’re Baddies”. It's a difficult problem and we need to work together to solve it.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

My understanding is that this particularly nasty incident happened on HMR 117 (the most Southerly Aberdeen radial) at about 130nm. As a matter of fact (from the F3 pilot's report) he was flying at 300kts at the time of the airprox. Some good comments here, not least the fact that the HMR structure covers a very extensive piece of sky. If it was made Class F, this would pose the following problems:

a. Who would provide the mandated ATC service? There is no point in providing CAS if you cannot control within it! The rig operators would have to stump-up a significant amount of money; how willing are they to do this? Right now, even the RT infrastructure isn't that brilliant!

b. Under the current regs for Class F, only participating ac would be involved. Consequently, without the introduction of additional systems such as radar, ADS-B, ACAS etc, the only risk reduction would be between helos flying the routes.

Finally, and somewhat emotively, why do these arguments always come down against "cowboy and uncaring" FJ operators. It seems to me that they are equally keen to avoid bumping into other aircraft. The title of this thread could have easily been:

"Bristows Puma has near miss on Tornado 130nm from Aberdeen"

[keithl]

Point well made, Mr SATCO. I meant to include in my list, "Both parties are trying to do their daily work, There are no 'cowboys' in this".

[cyclic]

WBS

I think you make a fair point about Class F airspace on the HMRs, in particular it would hinder FJs from free play up the East coast.

However, there is a balance to be had and I know the HRA applies really to the mud movers but this restricted area hinders commercial traffic on a daily basis particularly during the summer months when the heli routes can't be used beyond 1730. This is just an example of how it works both ways.

Yes, the FJs don't want to bump into anyone as much as the next man but there is a distinct feeling of unease in the rotary world about FJs as there has been so many incidents. We only hear about the reported happenings which I think just scratches the surface. There has been plenty of miltary v military incidents (one that I can remember under a military RAS) that never see the light of day. If you have worked commercially as a helo operator you would be very aware of the risk.

There is a balance to be struck and we will never be without risk while we have a reasonable sized military but I do honestly feel that another FJ v helo collision is on the cards. As commercial operators we could all get TCAS but that is just not going to happen and its use to a slow moving helo may be limited. If the FJ fleet were to be fitted then I think it would be a big leap forward. It is based on cost of course but jets started to get GPWS when there were lots of CFIT incidents.

I agree with your point re. "cowboys" and I know that is not the case. There may be some element of being immortal though as to strap a rocket on your back and go up't up-up takes a different kind of person to that who is sat with 500 000 moving parts made by a Euro committee!

[M609]

Have the relevant air traffic services in the UK started using M-ADS, ADS-B or similar equipment?

[Flying Lawyer]

A North Sea pilot tells me the Netherlands CAA has formed a Task Force specifically to deal with the risk of airprox incidents.
The Task Force, which includes representatives from the CAA, ATC, Military, Police, civvy operators, the two pilot unions and Dutch Oil companies, has made a number of proposals suggesting redesignating Dutch NS airspace, and is pushing for Class F and RAS specifically to avoid airproxes.
The oil companies are paying for extended RTF coverage, and are apparently prepared to fund the cost of onshore, and even offshore, radar.
Members of the task force will visit each other's operations in order to improve understanding of each operation's requirements and constraints.

The parties have reached a consensus that whilst they all wish to continue their operations, the danger of a mid-air is such that they each have to compromise and can use the same airspace safely provided there is good situational awareness. They hope that in due course they will be able to cooperate with the UK and all the other NS states.

[Weasel Watcher]

It is very good to see so much informed comment from those directly involved in the low level confliction between helicopters and fast jets. One of the problems over the past years has been apathy on the part of those directly in the firing line -eg power line and pipeline inspections, police and emergency services. The attitude amongst some has been," Why should I bother when I know it will come back as Risk C no conflict and by the way you got the miss distance wrong."

The RAF attitude has always been "No paperwork, no problem." In order to convince the fast jet community that this is a potentially serious problem, pilots experiencing near misses must file Airproxes.

As well as the question of airspace designation, there are some measures that the military should consider. Prime amongst these is the equipping of fast jets with collision avoidance kit. This has been promised for several years but has always been shelved as inconvenient. Time to change the priorities perhaps.

Also serious consideration to adherence to the ICAO speed limit of 250 knots below 10,000 feet and in response to those prima donnas who say a Tornado cannot fly at 250 knots I would recommend the increased use of flight simulators for low level combat mission simulation.

To put this particular Airprox into perspective, I had a couple of near misses off Aberdeen as long ago as 1976. Why has no progress been made in nearly 30 years?

Beware back stabbing weasels!

[Fox_4]

icao speed limit below 10000` is all very well if you are flying in coordinated airspace, or in atz`s etc.

You cant be seriously suggesting that the military train at 250kts at low level can you. Why dont we just shoot ils approaches all day and be done with it.

Train how you fight - fight how you train. Where is the realism of a low level ingress at 250kts or an air-air intercept flown at 250kts well below the performance curve of any jet. Would you want to start with a disadvantage over the guy trying to kill you - I doubt it!

And just out of interest where is the ability to zoom climb from low level if you hit a bird and need to divert or maybe have any number of problems where speed in the bank = surviving.

I agree better sims all round please!! But sims are exactly that, a sim. No sense of realism bundled together with all the associated feelings of actually flying the intercept/mission againt a real opponent.

we didnt get to be the best air force in the world by sitting in the crew room playing combat flight sim 2. Mil fast jets at low level dont deliberately hunt down helos but with the intensity of flying over the north sea these days due to upper air space changes over land(more airways than you can shake a stick at) it is here to stay for the forseeable future. Reality is cramming more aircraft into smaller space means everyone gets closer together.

My suggestion would be to open your eyes and look out, dont rely on RIS/RAS especially 130nm out at 2000ft. It is class g after all. And us "Prima Donas" will keep looking out as we always do, unfortunately I cant eat a sticky bun through the mask.

There seem to be a couple of posters on here that have very narrow minded views about mil flying and alleged cowboy attitudes. Unfortunately this is exactly what is NOT needed in arguments such as this and only alienates both sides to each other. The RAF dont just gaff off incidents because of paperwork any less than a civil operator and I cant believe some people on here think that way. If your not happy flying helos because there is an inherent risk get a crossover and go scooting down airways doing the telegraph crossword. You do a difficult job in crap weather - respect. We live with the risks and get paid less than you guys, but we do go upside down most days too!

[The Nr Fairy]

Fox_4:

I don't know what you're doing behind the scenes with other airspace users, and to some extent I agree with the "train hard, fight easy" way of thinking but I'm not a believer in thinking that discussion on an Internet bulletin board can change things on its own.

Any chance ALL the agencies involved could do something along the lines of the Cloggies, as detailed above ? And perhaps if the military took the initiative they may win some brownie points (not what it's all about in the end, but useful none the less).

[Fox_4]

Agreed. Just putting forward a point of view thats all.

;)

[Weasel Watcher]

Fox 4`s gung-ho attitude is exactly what is standing in the way of progress in seeking deconfliction at low level. He should be aware that this is not a matter of Us and Them in terms of helicopters versus fast jets because there is an innocent unsuspecting third party involved, namely the travelling public. Those workers travelling to their employment on offshore installations are expecting similar safety standards to Fox 4 on his annual package holiday to Ibiza.

By the same token, those involved in powerline and pipe line inspections are carrying out tasks mandated by the Health and Safety Executive. Military low flying is TRAINING when all is said and done. I believe the military should be looking at ways of removing their training areas from those likely to conflict and equipping their aircraft with collision avoidance sets to minimise the prospect of unexpected encounters. So far, all initiatives for deconfliction have fallen on the civil operator.

[Autorotate]

Weasel - Couple of important points. First off the area in question was actually being used by military aircraft before the oil rigs ended up there (from what i was told), so why should the military have to move. Its like people moving next to an airport and then trying to shut it down because of the noise. It should be a compromise, plain and simple.

Secondly would you really want someone to go to war to protect your country if they didnt have the adequate training. I could just imagine your comments back in the WWII days, basically means if the fighter pilots of those days couldnt train then everyone in the UK would be speaking German (no offence intended to anyone). Training is a very important part of any service or company. Same as HUET training if you have to ditch. My two cents worth they can train as much as they want, it just means everyone needs to work on putting a plan into place where everyone comes home at the end of the day.

Just my two cents worth.

Autorotate.

[fidae]

Has anyone got any news on the conclusions of the airprox report yet?

[Artifical Horizon]

Perhaps it is just me but there does seem to be a lacking of mutual respect in some of the posts on this thread. All of the aircrew involved were professionals doing what they were told by their respective employers. None of them wanted to have an accident or indeed a near miss. Slagging off the fast jet crew does not further a case for the helos. The FJ guys job is difficult as indeed can the job of the helo crews be. There should be an effort to learn from mishaps, that is good for everyone. It will not be served by puerile attacks on any of the participants from either side.

[Thomas coupling]

Glad to see this chestnut resurrected>

Interestingly, we at this Unit did a 3 year project for BHAB regarding aerial conflict between GAT and FJ. This was some 2 years ago now and made for interesting reading. The bias was towards emergency services helos and mil FW to be honest, though some puddle jumper flying did creep in.

Result: We were then (2 years ago) overdue a fatal collision by 1 year, currently that stands at overdue by 3 years :ooh:

The mil needs to find the money to equip its a/c with TCAS, plain and simple. An earlier report form another force in discussion with the then minister for defence (Mr Portillo) stated the same. On both ocassions, money was allocated for TCAS but has/had been siphoned off for Gulf War I and II.

There is perhaps a misunderstanding between the mil and civvy mindset. In the civvy world we do not have the word 'attrition' in our vocabulary. I am certain a mil pilot doesn't want to die either, but it comes with the territory when you join. It doesn't outside :sad:
My wife and kids don't want to hear that their dad was wiped out by a low flying tornado because he has to 'hone' his low flying skills ready for war????? What sort of sense is this?

Times are a changing and the mil, as ever is on average about 5-10yrs behind the civvy way of thinking. Mass training in readiness for mass aerial combat might now be considered redundant, atleast on the scale seen by history. If there is a pressing need to 'do it for real' then go visit another country that hasn't caught the 'nanny' bug yet.

In May of this year, our helo took avoiding action to 'miss' a jaguar. Our TCAS picked it up at 3 miles conflicting. It then dissappeared only to re-appear at 400 yards at same height. The pilot rolled the cab on its back and dived - the jag flew right thru the airspace previously occupied by the helo.
All of this was monitored by the Great Dunn Fell radar which shows echoes corresponding to the helo pilots' statement.
The AIRPROX board commented thus:
(a) There were in fact 2 x jaguars
(b) Neither Jag ever saw the helo
(c ) Radar returns from Dunn Fell show the helo taking avoiding action and the Jag passing within the same occupied space as the helo, seconds later.
(d) The jag was flying at 480kts (550mph), at 760' in 4-5Km viz.
(e) In summary the mil FW "probably" passed within 200' of the helos position.

The AIRPROX board therefore classified this incident as CAT C -
NO RISK OF COLLISION

This is the third time we have reported to AIRPROX. And every time we have been told: No collision Risk.

What do you think we feel about this toothless authority?????

We now fly NOE to atleast secure us some defence against these reckless few who think N Wales is a playground for derelict professional behaviour.

[keithl]

First, can anyone answer fidae 's question, which was the reason for resurrecting the topic? I'd like to know the result, too.

Second, this business of TCAS. Surely that can't give you a solution against constantly manoeuvring traffic, which the FJs mostly are. I gather that TCAS 2 is being seriously considered for North Sea helos, but I can't see how it would help.

[Weasel Watcher]

Fidae - Call the UK Airprox Board 0n 44 (0)1895 815125, they will be able to say whether the report has been closed.

Autorotate - On that basis you are in favour of motorways ( or highways) being built around cows in open fields. It should be re-emphasised that the military are TRAINING, ie practising. It is quite ridiculous to encourage confliction with aircraft undertaking essential tasks such as oil installation support or powerline/pipeline inspection.

Thomas Coupling - a number of points neatly phrased. The composition of the UK Airprox Board has historically always resulted in a less than balanced view of any helicopter/fast jet event at low level. The heli pilot`s account is invariably regarded as inaccurate or distorted.

The first step towards a saner approach to the problem must be the equiping of fast jets with some form of TCAS. This has been promised for at least the last 8 years but somehow has never materialised. The fault lies not with those unfortunates who regularly confront each other at low level on a daily basis but with the operating authorities who turn a blind eye to the potential hazards.