21st Century airborne pirates - Diego Garcia

[dessas]

Here are the facts:
We use Diego Garcia (FJDG) as ETOPS alternate. Normally we get to about 250 nm from it, which is outside its 200 nm traffic zone.
1. We never get notams - same msg "NIL" - on the paperwork. We have to accept it, but my personal opinion is that the US Gov does not want to share info about its AF base.
2. In the last 6 months my company had 4 TA/RAs and many more proxies in the vicinity of FJDG. Conflicting traffic sometimes uses non-standard altitude - 31700, 29500, 35500 etc, but also FL330, 350, 370. Often they are multiple targets at close proximity, that can only be military ac.
3. Last RA was on 26.06. Our flight had to descend at 2200 fpm to avoid the USAF pirate.
4. These occurances normaly happen in Indian airspace - so these pirates do not have any regards for international rules and regs.
5.On every single occasion our crews tried to contact the proxy traffic on Guard and Broadcast (123.45) - no response - is this ignorance or just a snub?!
Any comments from Uncle Sam's jocks are welcome!!!
:mad:

[av8boy]

Can't speak to the traffic issue, but as for the NOTAMs, I just ran them without a problem:

****************************

Data Current as of : Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:01:00 GMT
FJDG DIEGO GARCIA (SEE/VOIR/VES "KJDG")

M0034/05 NOTAMN
Q) FJDG/QNVCR
A) FJDG
B) 0505030832
C) 0508031200
E) QNVCR NKW VOR UNUSABLE TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE FIELD, REVISE NON-TACAN EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT MISSED APPROACH INSTRUCTIONS FOR ILS RWY 31, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 31, HI-VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 31 TO READ 'CLIMB TO 2000, TRACK 310 DEGREES TO JOIN AND ARC NE ON THE NKW 14.6 DME ARC TO LESLY AND HOLD.' HOLD NORTHEAST OF LESLY (NKW R-040/14.6 DME), RIGHT TURNS, 8.4 DME LEGS, 220 DEGREES INBOUND, 040 DEGREES OUTBOUND.

M0035/05 NOTAMN
Q) FJDG/QNVCR
A) FJDG
B) 0505030844
C) 0508031200
E) QNVCR NKW VOR UNUASBLE TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE FIELD, REVISE MISSED APPROACH INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOR RWY 31 AND HI-VOR RWY 31 TO READ 'CLIMB TO 2000, TRACK 302 DEGREES, THEN TURN RIGHT DIRECT VOR AND HOLD, REMAIN WITHIN 15 NM.

M0038/05 NOTAMR M0037/05
Q) FJDG/QLAAS
A) FJDG
B) 0506100200
C) 0509100200
E) QLAAS TO RWY13, REFER TO APCH PLATES FOR INCREASED MINIMUMS

M0040/05 NOTAMN
Q) FJDG/QNBCI
A) FJDG
B) 0506140649
C) 0509141200
E) QNBCI NDB IDENTIFIER IS NDG

M0044/05 NOTAMN
Q) FJDG/QXXXX
A) FJDG
B) 0506170217
C) 0507170217
E) QXXXX NDB FLIGHTCHECKED AND OPERATIONAL, NDB/DME RWY 13 AND NDB/DME RWY 31 APPROACHES AVAILABLE.


L0029/05 NOTAMN
A) FJDG
B) 0506060400
C) 0508010000
E) NDB/DME RWY 13/31: REVISE NDB COORDINATES TO SOUTH 07 DEGREES 17.56 MINUTES, EAST 72 DEGREES 23.06 MINUTES.

L0028/05 NOTAMN
A) FJDG
B) 0506011038
C) 0508291038
E) RUBBER REMOVAL IN PROGRESS. TOWER MUST BE ADVISED 45 MINUTES PRIOR TO RUNWAY OPERATIONS IN ORDER TO CLEAR THE RUNWAY OF PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT.
********************************

If I'm missing something here, please disregard.

[dessas]

Tnx a lot for the notams.
I will copy them and ask our despatch how come we do not get any...
Still waiting for comments from the USAF pirates...

[N5528P]

Waht I do not get is why MIL traffic does not avoid civilian traffic?

Neither a collision / near miss nor visual contact is in there interest. And they must see any civlian traffic easily, as I presume that no one switches its XPDR off.

Any comment would indded be appreciated by military pilots.

Regards, Bernhard

[OzExpat]

I'd hate to think that they're using civilian air traffic for targetting practice! :suspect:

[enicalyth]

Not indeed unusual for the military to use what the civil would class as non-standard levels but to them "interleaved" might be a better description. Probably to do with the fact that if every cloud has a silver lining it might just be an F-16 coming the other way.

[N5528P]

I'd hate to think that they're using civilian air traffic for targetting practice!

They do that all the time :eek:

I got my private and most of flying experience at KFFZ (Falcon Field, Mesa, AZ), the same airport where the appaches are bulit. The used us all the time for target practice... :uhoh:

Regards, Bernhard

[None]

I do not have personal experience with the situations dessas has described.

Having said that, perhaps some of the following might be of interest.

Many USAF aircraft do not have VHF (some do), so attempting to communicate on the stated VHF freqs with these aircraft would not bring a response.

The wingmen in a formation very often have their transponders turned off, depending on the particular formation.

While you might have been surprised by some of what you have seen, my guess is (I could be wrong) the other aircraft were aware of your exact location. Most military aircraft have a multitude of electronic means with which to find other aircraft beyond visual range.

The TCAS in our airliners will direct a maneuver well before a military fighter-type has approached any kind of a rules-of-engagement protective bubble. This is due to the obvious...closure from both the vertical and horizontal that the TCAS software was not designed to encounter in typical airliner environments.

It sounds like you have a concern for your safety. Perhaps you can have someone forward your points to the USAF? Maybe it would be useful to discuss what your TCAS RAs have directed, and how this affects an airliner in the cruise environment.

I am not trying to defend what you have encountered. Perhaps a little information might be worthwhile.

[dessas]

1. We carry TCAS II.
2. Latest reported incident was from 2 days ago. Our crew did broadcast on both Guard and 123.45 every 15 min in the danger area. Immediately after one of the broadcasts 2 targets with non-standard altitude appeared on TCAS - the military traffic must have switched on their xpdrs at that time...
3. 2200f/min on a pax jet in cruise (mentioned in my previous input) if seat belt signs are not on and service is going on for example, might result if not in injury, for sure in discomfort and risk of injury for pax and cabin crew. As it was an RA immediate compliance with the descend command was compulsory...
4. About 6 months ago the American consulate was contacted oficially on the issue - no reply so far.

[None]

>1. We carry TCAS II.

TCAS II is not designed to soften an encounter with a military aircraft with a closure in excess of 1,000 knots. Additionally, vertical closure of greater than 6,000 fpm, even if well outside of 1,000 feet from your altitude bubble, will cause an RA more quickly than an airliner descending toward your bubble at 2500 fpm.

>the military traffic must have switched on their xpdrs at that time...

Yes. But it is also possible that they were outside the TCAS vertical parameters before that time, or maybe they were wingmen who were not to be squawking. It depends on the situation.

>3. 2200f/min on a pax jet in cruise (mentioned in my previous input) if seat belt signs are not on and service is going on for example, might result if not in injury, for sure in discomfort and risk of injury for pax and cabin crew. As it was an RA immediate compliance with the descend command was compulsory...

Yes, RAs always require compliance. No one will disagree.

Sometimes a TA preceeding the RA would help build awareness of the potential for an RA.

As the Captain, you decide how best to deal with an RA. Boeing guidance is this:

"RA maneuvers require only small pitch attitude changes which should be accomplished smoothly and without delay. Properly executed, the RA maneuver is mild and does not require large or abrupt control movements. Remember that the passengers and flight attendants may not all be seated during this maneuver."


>4. About 6 months ago the American consulate was contacted oficially on the issue - no reply so far.

I would hope that there is dialogue going on with someone above our pay scales. I would hope the military would avoid training maneuvers near airways. I assume you were on one of the Red or Amber routes.

[dessas]

Your points are good.
But from my knowledge of Diego I believe 90% in and out of FJDG are tankers and MACs.
I do not know how often these crews fly to Diego and is it becase of their lack of experience in intl airspace that they fly like this or, like I said before, is it something else...:mad:
I know, for example that there are special corridors off Japan and Korea for US mil traffic. I have seen them myself.
But probably they should treat the IO differently...

[Bengerman]

Do Condor operate out of Diego Garcia??:= := :=

[stevemd11]

Oxexpat

Heard one time that targeting radar on military aircraft cause civilian radar to spoke.

I was rattling along one afternoon over E Texas, twisting and turning around ‘Thor squawking Indent’. A B767 filled with thrill seekers headed for Hot-lanta. The controller called a F-16 and me and said we would be crossing with Two Thousand foot separation. Not long after that my radar began to spoke so bad that I could not see any of the CBs. I asked the controller if the F-16 was using his targeting radar, because my weather radar was spoking, and I could not see any weather. Funny thing, at the same time I said that, my radar cleared up. I believe my next transmission was short and sweet. “Knock that crap off asshole”.

[None]

>I asked the controller if the F-16 was using his targeting radar

The controller would have no idea.

>Knock that crap off

So, your particular aircraft is not to be locked on to by an F-16 who is determining what the direction and altitude the traffic in his vicinity is at?

[OzExpat]

I wasn't aware that targeting radar on military aircraft can cause civilian radar to spoke. From now on, at least I'll know when I've been "locked". :uhoh: About the only time my wx radar has been useless was one day when the whole screen, on 80 miles range, was red! :eek: That was not a good day to be flying...

[dessas]

Guys,
It's almost a month since I started the topic and I believe that so far there is no answer from "d other side" involved.
Will it be poss to move my thread to the "Military Aircrew" forum, or alternatively patch a shortcut there?
Tnx

[MarkD]

(non pilot question)

is it usual to designate an alternate for whom NOTAMs cannot be obtained or is "nil" a usual return when nothing unusual is going on.

[dessas]

Moderators
Tnx a lot!

[Check 6]

NOTAMS (https://www.notams.jcs.mil/)

FJDG DIEGO GARCIA (SEE/VOIR/VES "KJDG")

L0029/05 - NDB/DME RWY 13/31: REVISE NDB COORDINATES TO SOUTH 07 DEGREES 17.56 MINUTES, EAST 72 DEGREES 23.06 MINUTES. 06 JUN 04:00 UNTIL 01 AUG 00:00

M0034/05 - VOR TEMPORARILY REPLACED BY NKW VOR UNUSABLE TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE FIELD, REVISE NON-TACAN EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT MISSED APPROACH INSTRUCTIONS FOR ILS RWY 31, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 31, HI-VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 31 TO READ 'CLIMB TO 2000, TRACK 310 DEGREES TO JOIN AND ARC NE ON THE NKW 14.6 DME ARC TO LESLY AND HOLD.' HOLD NORTHEAST OF LESLY (NKW R-040/14.6 DME), RIGHT TURNS, 8.4 DME LEGS, 220 DEGREES INBOUND, 040 DEGREES OUTBOUND. 03 MAY 08:32 UNTIL 03 AUG 12:00

M0035/05 - VOR TEMPORARILY REPLACED BY NKW VOR UNUASBLE TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE FIELD, REVISE MISSED APPROACH INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOR RWY 31 AND HI-VOR RWY 31 TO READ 'CLIMB TO 2000, TRACK 302 DEGREES, THEN TURN RIGHT DIRECT VOR AND HOLD, REMAIN WITHIN 15 NM. 03 MAY 08:44 UNTIL 03 AUG 12:00

M0038/05 - APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM UNSERVICEABLE TO RWY13, REFER TO APCH PLATES FOR INCREASED MINIMUMS 10 JUN 02:00 UNTIL 10 SEP 02:00

M0040/05 - NDB IDENTIFICATION OR RADIO CALL SIGN CHANGED TO NDB IDENTIFIER IS NDG 14 JUN 06:49 UNTIL 14 SEP 12:00

M0048/05 - FJDG/ VOR UNSERVICEABLE VOR OUT OF SERVICE 27 JUL 04:49 UNTIL 27 OCT 05:00

Check 6

[Brain Potter]

Dessarse,

Have a think about your language (as well as your flight planning).

Definition of "Pirate"


pi·rate (pī'rĭt) pronunciation
n.


1. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
2. A ship used for this purpose.
2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.
3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
4. One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.

[dessas]

This thread deals with a valid safety issue for international airline traffic.
Please refrain form slime-throwing if U cannot contribute to this discussion.
Tnx

[BEagle]

Were these TA/RAs whilst you were flying in an established airway?

Diego Garcia is on Chagos archipelago, part of the British Indian Ocean Territiories. It is not a 'USAF base' as such; however, the Americans are permitted to use the aerodrome and have a large presence there.

[dessas]

Yes. We use UA474 by Diego.
This puts us right across N/W-bound departring and S/E-bound arriving traffic at Diego.
My company has had 2 dedicated meetings on d subject with reps from Mumbai FCC, but generally they can't do much as this happens in the uncontrolled area of Mumbai FIR.
I also was told unoficially some days ago that the following a/l have encountered same problems: Emirates, SIA, SAA.:(

[Brain Potter]

If you wanted to deal with a "valid safety issue" in a sensible and professional manner, why start by calling the USAF "pirates"? Even if they have caused RAs and are at fault. it is neither the correct term (unless they were trying to rob you!) nor is such emotive language likely to promote a debate without "slime" being thrown.

You also said:

"4. These occurances normaly happen in Indian airspace - so these pirates do not have any regards for international rules and regs."

Just to clarify, at more than 12 nm from land, the airspace is not owned by any country. As long an aircraft keeps out of controlled airspace then it is simply flying above "International Waters" and can operate with "due regard" for other traffic, without requiring diplomatic clearance. To operate in the controlled airspace in that FIR/UIR, the aircraft requires clearance from the controlling authority. The problems that you have encountered may be that the USAF has not operated with "due regard" but I doubt that you are going to find any specific answers on here.

By the way, I typed "NOTAMS FJDG" into Google and the first hit was the NOTAMs that have been pasted above from the DoD source. So there is no nasty US conspiracy either.

[dessas]

Of course I can download and print d NOTAMs. But as long as they do not come on our comp brief from London it is illegal to use them as oficial paperwork.

Second, these guys are pirates to me!!! As are the Su drivers that shot down the Korean jet outside the so called 12 mile zone.

I c yr attitude does not differ from the law of the High Seas - maybe we should ask for parley for incurring a TA/RA...:mad:

[LFFC]

dessas

Just a small point but, are you sure it's legal, safe or sensible for an airline to routinely carry out extended range operations by declaring an ETOPS alternate for which it does not have any valid NOTAMS? I wouldn't let your airline's regulating authority know about that if I were you.

Have you considered that some of the activity that you witnessed might have been the subject of NOTAMs?

[BEagle]

dessas, your attitude is hardly likely to engender much in the way of sympathy.

Yes, 'due regard' over International Waters is perfectly legal. But if you received a RA whilst in a published airway, you should report it through your flight safety reporting system.

Calling people 'pirates' is childish and unnecessary. State the facts and you might get some advice; make puerile comments and people will, quite rightly, tell you to $od off.....

Your choice...

[J Urby]

Dessas, your girlfriend's name wouldn't happen to be Julie would it- as in !Me Julie! or do you TXT a lot with your mobile? ;) Furthermore, why don't you suggest that if anyone can download the NOTAMS from the internet, then why not suggest that your planning office find a way to do the same themselves and authenticate them? Job done

[dessas]

Tnx a lot!
This is the kind of response I was hoping to get!
I will give the eml address to our Safety dept.
As already mentioned before, there is still no response from the local USA Consulate on the topic.
And relations between this country and USA are not fantastic over exactly the Chagos Archipelago.
The issue about NOTAMs has already been raised with Dispatch.
I hope it does not take forever. Quite a few of our guys are using data from inet, on the side.
I’ve always been unhappy about the "Nil" on the brief about FJDG, but it seems our management was happy to burry their heads in the sand, as long as it came on the brief from the provider in London.