Civil airspace infringements [Archive]

SirToppamHat

26th Mar 2008, 16:25

throw a dyce

If you are what you claim to be....

I have just witnessed infringement of the Pprune website by someone who should have known better. The PROFESSIONAL thing for the controller to do would be to go through the proper channels, as Pure Pursuit suggests. Of course this would require you to stick to facts and have some balls ... oh and actually do some work instead of bleating on here!

The last CivATCO to submit an AIR(C) on my watch turned out to be talking utter bolleux - having seen a Typhoon heading towards, but well above, his aircraft, the ATCO concerned took his eye off the ball and when he next looked the Typhoon was below the ac on the other side. His conclusion was that the Typhoon must have infringed separation. A rapid review of the 'tapes' showed that the Typhoon had descended so quickly that it had been outside 5000' before it even reached 10nm from the civ ac. Yes it was a bit embarassing for the CIV ATCO, BUT at least it brought the issue out into the open and meant everyone involved learnt from it.

If you think your way works best, I would suggest you need to visit your training officer to have a chat about Functional Safety Management.

Oh and by the way, didn't you get into the RAF? Your attitiude, and the comment about the 'subsidised beer' just shows you have a chip on your shoulder - TW@T.

Sorry, to everyone else, I bit there didn't I?

STH

splitbrain

26th Mar 2008, 16:26

Is it a jolly old thing round the subsidised beer in the mess...

Not that you've come here with any prejudices, preconceptions or axes to grind or anything :rolleyes:

Edit- Was obviously typing this at the same time as Sir Toppam.

ZH875

26th Mar 2008, 16:26

Free housing, subsidised beer, free food and no tax.....

We've never had it so good.

airborne_artist

26th Mar 2008, 16:40

Free housing, subsidised beer, free food and no tax.....

You forgot the free overseas travel to interesting places that tourists can't get to....;)

Mad_Mark

26th Mar 2008, 16:59

No AA,

I don't think he intended to include the actuality of military life in his list of Joe Public's perception of what we really get :ugh:

MadMark!!! :mad:

Gnd

26th Mar 2008, 17:05

Thats the one for me, i'm off, Oh I am but at least I don't have to pay.

Lurking123

26th Mar 2008, 18:00

TAD, maybe a liaison trip to Lossie would allow you to discuss in a more constructive fashion.

throw a dyce

26th Mar 2008, 18:51

I am certainly no jurno.Civil ATCO with 28 years experience and never even tried to get into the RAF.Not my cup of tea :p.
I did the trace action on these pilots.They were not from QS,or QL.The incident is being processed through proper channels yet again:=.If the radar controller had not taken avoiding action,then there would have been an airprox.We have had liasion with local military units in the past,but how many years of infringements does it take.
The ''reaction'' is what I expected.Having had a file of past zone infringements from the military about 3 inches thick,then it's pretty clear it doesn't seem to make any difference.Well we will keep filing if the military come into Aberdeen Controlled Airspace without clearance,R/T or listening until YOU get the message.I just hope there is no mid-air in the meantime.:}

Bob Viking

26th Mar 2008, 18:57

Just how many of those 28 years experience were spent operating fast jets?
Oh that's right.
Stick to talking about things you DO have a clue about.
You are doing yourself and your colleagues no favours by bleating in such a manner on here!
BV:rolleyes:
I was going to write some things that were far more derogatory, but my damned inner-monologue kicked in just in the nick of time!

PPRuNeUser0172

26th Mar 2008, 18:59

Throw a wobbly

I am a civilian Atco Good for you

I have just witnessed 2 separate Class D CTA infringements by the military OK, so are you filing an airprox? or just writing antagonistic threads on a public forum??:mad:

This is a common occurance around the Aberdeen CTA/CTR Is that like an occurrence, just less often?:E:} Come on then, give us dates and tail numbers.........

I am curious to how military pilots regard this unprofessional flying I bet you are, I suspect that you aren't a journo as you can't spell, so you must be who you say you are, so why don't you pick up the phone and speak to someone about it, rather than winge on here, maybe then you will get a serious answer to your 'curiosity'.

Is it a jolly old thing round the subsidised beer in the mess,
hmmmm, words fail me:mad:

Damn it I bit too, however, if you look at the other posts from this b£ll £nd , it is pretty true to form.:ugh:

green granite

26th Mar 2008, 19:07

If the radar controller had not taken avoiding action

Ducked under the desk did he? :E

Jackonicko

26th Mar 2008, 19:15

"I am certainly no jurno.Civil ATCO with 28 years experience and never even tried to get into the RAF.Not my cup of tea."

[amateur shrink mode]Great. Another moaning jockistani f*ckwit with chips on both shoulders - not good enough to fly, not good enough to serve in the forces (civil ATCO isn't a first choice career for anyone), and without enough character to get over it and enjoy being a supporting player in the aviation world. Thus brimming with petty resentment against both pilots and servicemen, and against service pilots most of all.[/amateur shrink mode]

And no, you're clearly not a journalist. You're patently not articulate or educated enough, and you lack any creativity or charm.

ATC are there to serve. Stop bleating and do something to make things better.

Airing your prejudices and petty problems in quite such a stupidly confrontational manner does not count.

As Sir T says:

Tw@t!

zkdli

26th Mar 2008, 19:19

Okay Chaps,
Throw a Dyce probably should have been a little more tactful in his posts. But he has a genuine concern and there is a problem with fast jets infringing the Aberdeen zone.
When civil airliners are operating in class G they are fair game (if that is what you think) because they are operating in the open FIR and everyone is entitled to be there. When they are operating in Controlled Airspace they are entitled to expect that aircraft that are not under the control of the appropriate control agency will not be endangering their flight.

Speaking as a controller who has experience in both the military and civil worlds, Infringments of CAS are the biggest danger at the moment for NATS and civil airline operators (Yes really). A fast jet coming into conflict in the control zone becomes a very difficult aircraft to avoid and please don't say that you are able to avoid the civil aircraft. The stats show that see and avoid is not a particularly safe resolution:) TCAS and aircraft performance in these situations gives a very bare separation when trying to avoid a fast jet with high amounts of energy.:)

GunkyTom

26th Mar 2008, 19:29

I am ex mil ATCO now civil so excuse the interruption to this 'club' but-

Maybe TAD is posting here to give the mil a chance to explain how/why it happens. That was certainly the way we preferred to operate in my day, discuss it informally rather than going down the telling tales route without giving a right to reply. One day, many of you will be flying a civil a/c and I can assure you that if any a/c gets too close, paperwork flies around the place.What is achieved is a 'cover your 6' exercise instead of something constructive. All that has been acheived here IMHO is alienating someone who posed a genuine question, albeit with some sarcasm but you're big boys - deal with it.

Also, when I left the RAF,I chose to become a Civvy ATCO as I enjoyed the work and doubled my salary so it was my first choice.

Widger

26th Mar 2008, 19:30

Oh dear, oh dear. Whilst he has probably been a bit too quick to hit the keyboard, don't be too harsh on him. The controllers at some of the east coast civilian units are a good bunch and regularly try to be helpful to military traffic.

He has a valid point, if put across in a bizarre way but this should not be the place to vent his spleen. There is a tried and trusted method for reporting and investigating these occurrences.

Now will the two winged-master race and Jackonory just calm down please!

minigundiplomat

26th Mar 2008, 20:06

Jacko.

I have a notorious low journo threshold, but youe post made me laugh so much. You are more military then we are.

Cheers Mate

MGD

SammySu

26th Mar 2008, 20:09

We're not coming across very well here. The initial post may have been confrontational/naive in tone but there's a major issue at stake. Whether the infringements were understandable through other factors that we don't know about, or down to a dissapointing lapse in our normal exceptionally high professional standards they are still concerning. Taking out an airliner would be disastrous. If we continue to infringe such airspace we risk such an event and make it increasingly difficult to defend the rest of our free airspace from the ongoing encroachment of civvy airspace - Robin Hood / Humberside / Norwich / Inverness and so it goes on. My task priority changes to avoid at all costs when my fast jet is near such airspace, whatever else I'm trying to achieve at the time, after all it's in everyones best interest both short and long term. I'm not throwing spears at those who infringed, everyone mucks up once in a while, but at those who have shown such a blase attitude to the issue through their replies.

StopStart

26th Mar 2008, 20:10

Whilst the thread starter needs a lot of work of his presentational skills he does have a point. At the end of the day CAS is what it is and you don't just fly into it willy nilly. Mistakes are made however and people should 'fess up, apologise and have a firm understanding up what their actions/mistakes could ultimately lead to.

Talk of defending the nation, hordes of filthy russians pouring over the border or how terrible it all is on det are of little or no relevance here. It is not beyond the wit of man to know the rules of the airspace and abide them. Sure, Fred Bloggs pings CAS every day in his puddle jumper but he's not claiming to be the professional aviator that we, rightly, consider ourselves to be.

The evidence in this case is pretty incontrovertible really - how about some constructive discussion (sarcastic ATCOs not withstanding) rather than some of the peurile and witless comments seen above?

Pure Pursuit

26th Mar 2008, 20:22

Another area of concern within the FC world is the number of times RAS traffic takes avoiding action against OTA E operators.

It is understandable that the FJ mates are reluctant to accept coordination whilst in OTA E as it can be very restrictive and cause an issue with presentations. However, in order to meet the civvies half way, we often try to get the to keep their Newc - Abz RAS traffic east of P18 & in return, we try to keep the FJ mates west of the route. Unfortunately, sod's law seems to kick in far too often and will cause the merge to occur somewhere around the Boulmer area, feet wet and a little too close to Easyjet.

Avoiding actions are taken & the phones go mental. Easy if you're on the E3 as there are no phones!:ok:

I have to say that the guys at Newcastle are very, very helpful & SCATCC do try to keep their RAS traffic well out of the way. Unfortunately, the civvy operators want to travel A-B in a straight a line as possible for fuel conservation & are sometimes reluctant to comply.

Bottom line is that there is a lack of understanding amongst aircrew, or a different interpretation at least, of radar services & the restrictions that are put on us, both as aircrew & controllers.

Our worry, is that should this become a little too common, P18 will turn into Class A. Not a good solution for anyone other than the civvies.:hmm:

Farfrompuken

26th Mar 2008, 21:12

Err,

I feel we're all a bit hasty in attacking TAD for his complaint. I agree he's got some info wrong (Subsidized beer:rolleyes:) and this is NOT the medium to voice a complaint, BUT we're all professionals and maybe he's had enough of halfwits crashing his Class D.

For Christ's sake, I'm sure we're all able to avoid CAS aren't we? If you're not, then maybe a bit of remedial is in order.

Anyway, who's off to the mess for a cheap pint then?;)

iccarus

26th Mar 2008, 21:15

If anybody has ever bothered to get the ruler out on their UKL2 and measure the distance saved by budget airliners transiting New-Abd direct, instead of going through the airways structure, they will probably be astonished.

I have been operating in OTA E on numerous occasions when the FC chaps give us a heads up about stranger traffic. The conversation is normally something along the lines of:-

FC - "Traffic transiting south to north, x posn, x height"

FJ - "No probs - can we sort out some deconfliction"

FC - "We've tried but the airliner point blank refuses to change heading or height"

Typically, this will occur on a clear blue day, when the airliner insists on a RAS in class G airspace - essentially expecting everyone to avoid him by the limits which RAS provides. Essentially, the civvy airline captain appears to be relying on the good airmanship of the military pilot to avoid him!!
Airmanship dictates that this should be a two way process!!Airmanship also dictates that he should be proactive in avoiding a mege with a FJ, particularly when he has 300 people on board.

The relentess pursuit of cost saving measures by airlines has been reported in the major press several times. I can only sumise that the captains of these civvy ac have pressure put on them to fly in a manner which displays poor airmanship, in an attempt to save money.

Bottom line, if i make a poor airmanship decision, their is a chain of command in place to punish me for these mistakes.

On the other hand, if a civvy pilot makes a poor airmanship decision (and i suggest that flying through Class G airspace sticking 2 fingers up to all other airspace users, then having the audacity to file a TCAS report when they have a close aboard, is a prime example of poor airmanship) - he has noone to answer to, and who cares so long as he saves money!

SirToppamHat

26th Mar 2008, 21:25

Pure Pursuit
SCATCC do try to keep their RAS traffic well out of the way.

That'll be ScATCC Mil providing RAS then will it? Or have the civvies now learned how to do RAS? ;)

Pure Pursuit is quite correct regarding the long-term aims of the civvies - I attended a day of discussions in London about changes to radar services (which thankfully all seems to have gone quiet); the civvies there (ATC/Aircrew/NATS Management/CAA etc etc) were quite open about their preferred option for UK airspace - they wanted it all to be Controlled whereas the military want significant parts of it to be Class G open FIR (and so do the vast majority of the GA community - also represented). Any solution is bound to be a compromise, but the civvies are continually looking to set-up new routes and P18 is a good example; first they will go for anairwar, then there will be fillets in the north and south and gradually what little space is left over Northumberland will reduce to the point that it is effectively unusable.

Getting back to the thread, it's throw a dyce's attitude that irks. I wonder what NATS management would make of his using PPRUNE instead of an ATCOR:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1602.pdf

Sorry did I bite again?

STH

Redcarpet

26th Mar 2008, 21:25

Maybe the civvy captain has a duty of care to his 300 pax? A RAS is probably the best way of achieving this rather than relying on a chance sighting and then trying to manouvre a cumbersome airliner out of the way at the last minute.

CrazyMonkey

26th Mar 2008, 21:31

If safety was the priority of an airliner capt then he would keep his pax safely in an airway. Unfortunately, by flying off route his priority is to save a few pounds - 5 mins of time, a bit of fuel and airways charges. Airliners need to stick to CAS for the safety of their pax and to avoid overloading ATC/GCI.

iccarus

26th Mar 2008, 21:35

Yeah maybe flying RAS in busy class G airspace is the best way of providing duty of care.

Or maybe flying the extra 20 miles and using the controlled airspace structure is the best way of doing this.

As a passenger, i know where i would feel safer!!!

Although maybe you could charge extra for the class G route by filling the jets full of spotters.

Pure Pursuit

26th Mar 2008, 21:43

Apologies STH, I did mean ScATCC Mil.

It is indeed a difficult situation however, I'm a firm believer that it comes down to how you ask aircrew to adjust their plans. For example, if I was to say, "Export, 1 stranger xxx xx tracks south indicating FL190" whilst Export are very busy in the targeting phase of a PI, then I would not expect too much back. I do not mean that in a negative manner, I just see it as my job to offer a solution to a problem without maxing out the crews.

Phrased as, "Export, 1 stranger, possible RAS, traffic xxx xx tracks south indicating FL190. If you flow no further east he will not be a factor" then I'm offering a no brainer solution & bingo, biggles stays out of the way without even having to think about it & the stranger calls stop.

ScATCC Mil are very good at convincing Civ Air to stay out of the way, the issue is when the a/c are under civvy control. They often seem reluctant to even ask the crews.

On the other side of the coin, I've had a civvy controller phone me and inform me that she could see I had a lot of traffic (tanker & rxs) & offered to turn her ( I think she wanted me:E) traffic so that I could get on with it. Never did call her back...

Iccarus,

I believe that civvy traffic, under ScATCC Mil control have to do so under a RAS for insurance purposes. I may be wrong, perhaps a Mil ATC guy or STH could confirm?

Gnd

26th Mar 2008, 21:45

How about we do something really radical and reduce the size of the class D? Keep the jets and their fantastic nav kit (I have a map and doppler) to a smaller usable area and we can flit about at will.

Then pin heads like the poster can be really busy and not have enough time to enter this pit of sarcasm as all the commercial money grabbers will be so close s/he will be scared!!!

How silly is all that, well as silly as the original .:D

Widger

26th Mar 2008, 22:21

This is really sad and shows a lack of understanding from many of the posters on here. TAD was not talking about RAS in class G, he was talking about penetrations of Class D by aircraft without authority.

We have a very limited commodity in the UK and that is our airspace. There is not enough of it for the military to do what they want or the amount of civil traffic to flow without restriction. The whole system is bursting at the seams and the attitude of "well it's class G so it's fair game" does no-one any good.

sticking 2 fingers up to all other airspace users, then having the audacity to file a TCAS report when they have a close aboard, is a prime example of poor airmanship)

A TCAS requires a MANDATORY report to be filed, they are not being audacious. A TCAS manouevre is not a gentle climb/descent but quite significant in an airliner where crew and passengers may not be secured. In this thread, there is very much an air of us and them from both sides of the community here. The civvies are not "out to get" the military, they just want to get aircraft en-route, on time without delay. There are many military personnel who use LO-COs so criticism of them is a bit perverse. On the other hand, the civvies see a few military jets (in comparison) using up vast expanses of airspace, especially when there are MDAs etc available for use, all of which have been established with their full agreement.

TAD's initial post obviously got some hackles up and I understand that, but some of the subsequent posts have shown an extreme lack of understanding of the bigger picture. Be careful, methinks sir doth complain too much!

zkdli

26th Mar 2008, 22:29

Hello again Chaps!
A little thread creep here. It was all going really well with some very constructive points and then GND lowers the tone:)

To answer some of the points. A lot of the aircraft operating outside CAS can only do so when they are in reciept of RAS - it is the usually the airline's requirement rather than the controllers.

There seems to be a feeling that the civil airlines should not be in class G - they have the same rights as everyone else. but if you are flying around the FIR and you see an airliner it does not give you a right to fly closer to it than any other type of aircraft operating in the same piece of airspace. Remember almost any military aircraft will have greater manouverability and power available than the civil aircraft.
All airline SOPs require their pilots to comply with TCAS resolutions. If the pilot recieves a TCAS RA they are required to file a report. There is no option. The systems on the aircraft record the event.

A large number of those aircraft are crewed by exmilitary pilots, they have not had brain transplants, they just know that the limitations on their airframes do not give them the ability to act as fast jets, so they are understandably very nervous when they are told about fast jets making high energy manouveres close to them.

Anyway back to the thread on infringements in the control areas/zones, iccarus does have a point. Currently we have over 500 infrignments of CAS, the vast majority by GA. The zones have been in place at ABZ for decades, you are all professionals, we would all like to think that you would not be deliberately infringing this CAS:)

sonicstomp

26th Mar 2008, 22:32

As a mate that operates a large military jet in Class G airspace not infrequently, I see no reason why one ought to be on a RAS for safety - I am quite happy to take a RIS, indeed often to operate VFR not talking to anyone! (god forbid) .... Using a combination of TCAS and looking out of the ******* window in good flying conditions is more than sufficient to 'see and avoid' and therefore cause the least embuggerance to others and enable me and my crew to operate more effectively either to/from upper air or to/from a tanker etc...

See absolutely no reason why the civvy mates can't do the same - if not happy with 'see and avoid' based on a radar picture that requires on-board interpretation in good vmc with a tcas then perhaps they ought to be sticking to CAS...

<rant over>

As for our dear ATCO chappie - he may well have a good point about a specific recurrence of incidents relating to his Class D however that was all lost in a deliberately provocative and loaded approach to his post - I am happy to reciprocate with the same tone - kn*b off!

wiggy

26th Mar 2008, 22:49

Well this is all very grown up...A civvy SATCO askes a question and immediately gets trashed by Maverick and his mates.

Come on guys, if you can't answer the ATCO's question without resorting to the see you in the "Stan" C**p ,don't bother
(FWIW ex FJ/QFI, now definitely blunt and not wanting an Airprox with 300+ souls onboard ..and I bet in 10 years most of the Mavericks/ "I'll never be a Trucky" guys here will be thinking exactly the same way I now do :sad::sad: )

ShyTorque

26th Mar 2008, 22:51

In Class D, ALL pilots, mil or civvy, must stay out unless in receipt of a clearance.

Any aircraft in Class G must operate on a see and avoid basis. If any pilot does not do so and has a TCAS alert, it's an occupational hazard. No pilot can expect all other aircraft to move, or be moved out of his way.

What's so difficult about that?

And no, of course military pilots don't get subsidised beer (to suggest that they do, shows a lack of either intelligence or social understanding). But at the moment, many of them bloody well deserve to get a few free ones.

And I'm a civvy these days.

Pure Pursuit

26th Mar 2008, 22:56

Widger,

The mentioning of RAS in class G was ANOTHER example of airspace issues that are out there at the moment. Perhaps you should read the thread again, slowly.;)

The MDAs are all very well, they are an excellent facility & are used sensibly, in line with the FUA policy which is heavily encouraged. Unfortunately, some training has to be done oustside & that is where we have the problems.

The MDAs have actually caused an issue in that aircrew are rarely having to carry out tactical bits & bobs in class C. When the do have to, some of the guys seem to forget that they are not in the MDA bubble & there have been a few run ins between FC & aircrew due to them refusing to comply with a radar control instruction. I've seen it at least 3 times recently. A Typhoon refused a turn because it as going to make him late for his IP. Absolutely p*ss poor airmanship. :ugh:

That is a none starter & if it had been me, I'd have descend the offender out of the upper air & kept him in class G. I dare say he wouldn't have done it again!

Thankfully, most of our aircrew are all over it & use the airspace in a flexible manner.

I cannot remember the last time I saw a mil jet infringe class D in OTA E, the trouble is always out the the east.

TAD,

Perhaps the issue with the ABZ zone is the proximity of D613A? It's very small & jets often spill out of it.

1.4G

26th Mar 2008, 22:57

Wiggy I think it was his "you lot are a bunch of unprofessional subsidised beer drinking jolly roger officers" attitude that has got on peoples nerves. His questions about how this is dealt with have been answered.

wiggy

26th Mar 2008, 23:33

Ah yes, I see what you mean...I do remember getting my ar*** kicked ( quite rightly) over infringing a certain Northern Airport's TMA many years ago, eee.... never did me any harm though, probably lucky that in those days Controlled Airspace was muuh less busy than it is now, even so I did have to make a grovelling apology....

Repeat after me - "do not continue at Low Level into c**p weather under the base of a TMA, do not continue at Low Level into c**p weather under the base of a TMA.."

Rgds
Wiggy

throw a dyce

27th Mar 2008, 07:39

It is a major safety concern around Aberdeen Airspace.It has been like this for as long as I can remember,and it seems like nothing changes despite the paperwork.Maybe things will change sometime,but I fear it will take a real nasty one for that to happen.

Jacko,
Your post made me laugh as well.My late old man served in the RAF during WW2,against a real nasty enemy.He warned me about people like you in the mob.Nice to see they still exist.As for the rest of your S:mad:ite,then just remember that in Civil ATC land you do as I say in CAS.That is not an option.Just remember that next time you're PDing into PD.:=

Diddley Dee

27th Mar 2008, 09:12

TAD

As a Mil ATCO at an an area Radar Unit, I have read this thread with intrest and some understanding of where you are coming from....Your last post though exposed the attitude the guys on here have referred to and you lost me completely. Working at an Area Radr unit means I work closely with civil controllers and thankfully have met precious few with your attitude to Mil aircrew.

I agree with you about Class D infiringements, they should not be happening. I am sure that all the FJ drivers on here would be well pi$$ed off if they were IMC 7 miles final on PAR & some GA driver flew through the MATZ stub (legally I might add) and said FJ was broken off... Now transferr that to an Airliner having to go around into a large extened pattern....

My advice would be perhaps next time you have an issue you might take a chill pill before kicking the doors in on Mil Aircrew forum.

DD

StopStart

27th Mar 2008, 09:27

TAD, whilst I stand by my earlier post that maybe some mil pilots do need a little more thought, care and respect when operating around CAS your last post has confirmed what many others thought from the outset. Namely that you are a sad, bitter, chippy little man. Lets all hope that the "real nasty" you refer to is you choking on your own self importance.

To all the other civvy ATCOs out there, keep up the good work - if only you knew what a delight it was to hear a brit voice over the airwaves after many long weeks away wrestling with inflexible capacity-less foreigners! :ok:

Roland Pulfrew

27th Mar 2008, 09:38

TAD

You are of course right about the CAS infringements; it shouldn't be happening. However I think what has pi**ed people off on here is your childish, or maybe that should be naive, attitude.

Firstly the oft quoted and totally wrong viewpoint that we get "subsidised" drinks. Secondly you leave yourself open to further criticism with posts about "your old man and a really nasty enemy". Well I think that there are plenty of current RAF who are flying against an equally nasty enemy. Even the 'blunties' are getting rocketed and mortared on a daily basis in Iraq.

Next you berate Jackonicko who isn't actually "in the mob" but is a journalist. And then you go on about pilots "having to do what you say in CAS". Actually they don't. They would have to have a VERY VERY good reason for NOT doing so, but ultimately the captain has responsibility for safety of his aircraft. I have been turned in towards a mountain when a controller became temporarily uncertain of his position and gave me a left turn not a right IIRC. It can happen to all of us.

If it's happening regularly at Aberdeen have you tried to instigate a liaison with, say, Lossie and Leuchars to discuss these issues (not a slight on crews from Lossie and Leuchars as it may not be them that are the "culprits")?

Lurking123

27th Mar 2008, 10:26

Alternatively, have a chat with your contemporaries at Newcastle. They had a similar problem some years back and, having engaged with the military & CAA in a positive manner, safety (and this is all about safety regardless of the way your cloth is cut) has significantly improved. If we resort to employing the invisible wall in the sky mentality (which you have implied), then nothing much will be achieved.

NATS (your employer) has realised this in the London area. By engaging with GA and extending FBO LARS they have prevented CAS infringements. I'm not saying LARS is the answer up your way but, at very least, have a look and see how others have addressed the problem. Sounding off on a forum such as PPRuNe is merely antagonistic and achieves the square root of nothing.

throw a dyce

27th Mar 2008, 13:30

I am well aware of the London LARS new system.In fact in a lot of ways it mirrors what we have been doing here for many many years.We give aircraft in Class G services from RAS,RIS,MRAS and FIS because of the nature of the airspace and our heli traffic.We often give the heads up on multiple fast contacts,to much slower traffic and 99.99% of the time the military are not talikng to us.Farnborough are copying us,not the other way round.It's just that the LARS task it very much a secondary consideration on our priority list.Farnborough has dedicated staff for the job.
We are also very willing to give military practise diversions traffic permitting,and I'm the first to offer this when I can.It really doesn't help to call people ''Sad,Bitter,Chippy little man'' when I am trying to stop collisions and enhance safety.After all it's the military that are responsible largely for our CAS infringements and have been for the last 30 years plus.How many decades does it take for the message to get through.If they call I will offer a service.It's very simple.
Anyway it won't be the last infringement but perhaps some pilots might think,and that it is a serious matter.As for the abuse,well I thought more of military pilots but this has been a real eye opener.:bored:

Timelord

27th Mar 2008, 13:45

TAD might do well to remember that a few years ago a FJ crew took such extreme action to avoid CAS whilst in cloud that they lost control of their aircraft and died. It's all about trying to get their job done whilst managing priorities and risks.

Bob Viking

27th Mar 2008, 14:18

I think the 'sad, bitter chippy little man' comments come about as a result of your approach.
Do you honestly believe you are stopping collisions and enhancing safety by having a rant on here?!
You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but I wouldn't take the postings of a few Ppruners as gospel and form an opinion of an entire fraternity based upon them!
BV:rolleyes:

mystic_meg

27th Mar 2008, 14:24

I thought more of military pilots but this has been a real eye opener
...ditto civvy ATCOs...:bored:

Maybe if you lost the attitude people might be prepared to listen to you?
Just a thought, you understand........

anotherthing

27th Mar 2008, 15:35

TAD

Farnborough are not copying Aberdeen in respect to providing a LARS service... they have provided a LARS service for years, in Class G, to assist with seperation of their IFR traffic operating to and from Farnbourough which lies OUTCAS.

What Farnborough are now doing is providing a LARS service well beyond the usual 30 miles that is published in en route sups etc.

The LARS they used to provide was, in the same manner as what you do up north, a secondary consideration manned the same way as you are now. It is only since the introduction of this vastly increased area for LARS that they have been given dedicated LARS controllers.

To be fair, they need them because the users of the (much) lower levels of airspace in the LTMA have been the major safety concern within NATS as a whole for some time.

iccarus

27th Mar 2008, 16:21

Ok, some valid points!! However......

2 military infringements of class D airspace = posting on a very public forum and probably a bollocking and/or loss of supervisory privileges for individuals concerned!
Lesson will no doubt be learnt. Individuals concerned will feel professionally embarassed and the spotlight will be on for a few months to ensure that they do not repeat their mistakes!

In comparison, several years of multiple civvy airline cr@p airmanship decisions (class G , RAS and kiss my ass if you want me to take a heading change) = well done for saving 20 track miles and making the company a little bit more profit! Crack on and see how much more you can get away with next time!

Maybe someone could inform me which organisation exists to police and regulate the skills and decisions made by civvy pilots, except of course the company which wishes to save cash.

Toadpool

27th Mar 2008, 16:51

Maybe if you lost the attitude people might be prepared to listen to you?

This is also true of quite a few (not all) of the mil pilots I have dealt with over the years. Many seem to think that they are the most important aircraft in the sky and get a strop on when they don't get what they want.

I have also been in a meeting with a Sqn Ldr FJ pilot who stated that if he didn't get descent when required, he'd descend anyway using the "big sky" theory.

PPRuNe Radar

27th Mar 2008, 18:36

Oh dear .... it's kindergarten time.

There are 2 main strands to this thread. The very important and serious issue of Controlled Airspace infringements, and the attitudes and posturing of some posters.

The first is worthy of debate, since it leads to increased understanding of the differences between civil and milly operations and how such events arise. It also might educate parties on both sides as to what happens after the event and the considerations which are taken in to account. By sharing that information, it might be possible for appropriate lessons to be learned and improvements made to the operation of UK airspace.

The second issue is regrettable, but understandable to some extent, as the thread starter did not exactly pose his thread in a diplomatic and constructive manner. Some 'banter' or 'pushback' to his/her comments by military fliers and controllers was bound to follow.

The best was of course from one of our journo brethren, whose qualifications in flying a fast jet, a civil airliner with 300 souls on board, or providing an ATC service to aircraft in defined airspace is unclear to me. I suspect those qualifications are zero, and his ability to pontificate on something he has never done, or been able to do, lead me to leave up his post for all to see thus demonstrating his attitude and futility of his credibility on this specific thread. As usual he gets his anti jock rant in as well ..... guaranteeing him his place in the 'Sun', should they ever need his services. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach or write about it. This is just as true in aviation as elsewhere it seems.

Putting the attitudes to one side, let's continue the constructive side of the debate folks. We all might just learn something.

youngskywalker

27th Mar 2008, 19:06

Well said. I must confess I found the post from Jacko to be quite belowe the belt and offensive both with regard the anti Scottish jibe (notwhistanding the normal friendly banter which I have just received on the Mil forum!) but also his comment of "nobody would ever choose to be a civil air traffic controller", what a load of bo@#ocks. In my previous job, with NATS Aberdeen, I can assure you that most of the ATCO's chose that career from the start, are dedicated, highly motivated and hard working professionals just like Military controllers and aircrew. I actually know the thread starter personally and can assure you that he is a very professional controller and somebody who easily had the ability to fly professionaly too had he wished. Granted, he has not worded this thread particularly diplomatically however!:O

Boslandew

27th Mar 2008, 19:21

Well said, PPrune Radar. The initial question was somewhat barbed but why oh why do so many people home in purely on the barb and ignore what was essentially a serious question deserving a serious answer.

Incidentally so much of the 'banter' and insult on this Forum is of such a childish nature I find it hard to believe it comes from adults, its like little boys bickering. I doubt that many of you would be so rude to a stranger face to face but then its so easy when you're safe on the net.

Jackonicko

27th Mar 2008, 20:48

PPRuNe Radar,

I make no secret of what I am, and I certainly do not hide the very limited nature of my aeronautical qualifications (enthusiastic but amateur glider pilot and a long-ago UAS trained PPL). I don't fly plane loads of 300 passengers, I don't hurtle around the sky in a fast jet, and I couldn't control the traffic in the Elstree circuit. But when I do fly, on my own, or with one, two or even three pax, I take pride in being as well prepared and as conscientious as I can possibly be, following the example of the professional pilots I admire and respect, while remaining aware of my inexperience and lack of real currency. And I have enormous respect and gratitude to ATC, on whom I place my reliance.

I don't think that you necessarily need to have done something to a particular level to be entitled or able to have a view, or to make a comment, though the less experience you do have, the greater the need for humility. A lack of experience of writing for publication doesn't seem to prevent PPRuNe Radar and others from making stupid remarks about journalists, after all. ;)

The OP launched this thread with a deliberately confrontational and offensive post, asking whether it was "a jolly old thing round the subsidised beer in the mess" when RAF aircrew infringed CAS. :rolleyes:

That's unnecessarily confrontational and stupid, and that phrase alone meant that he deserved whatever abuse people chose to throw at him.

He implied that the incidents he had witnessed were common, frequent and routine (he has a "file of past zone infringements from the military about 3 inches thick") and as good as accused military pilots of recklessly endangering the travelling public.

As aviators, we all know that RAF standards are very high. We all know of the pride that RAF aircrew take in pinpoint timing and navigational accuracy, and we all know of the exacting standards imposed by instructors, supervisors and CFS at all levels.

We might therefore conclude that occasional slips from those high standards are rare, and are unlikely to be reckless and deliberate, and are likely to be fleeting 'technical breaches' rather than huge incursions that scatter civil traffic as it manoeuvres to avoid catastrophe. And to suggest otherwise is both witless and offensive.

As to civil air traffickers, his assertion that he "never even tried to get into the RAF. Not my cup of tea" had a hollow ring to me. What I said was that being an Air Trafficker isn't a 'first choice career' - and as a generalisation I'd stick by it. (That's not the same as saying "nobody would ever choose to be a civil air traffic controller", Young Skywalker). Let's face it, anyone interested enough in aviation to work in the business wants to fly - and those who can't (often through no fault of their own) become among the best Navs, air traffickers, or even journos. There's no shame in having hayfever, glasses, inadequate o-levels or applying in a 'thin year', and not even in simply not being good enough. Not everyone has what it takes, and the kind of passion that makes you want to be a pilot will serve you well in other fields of aviation.

Many of us can get over whatever our inadequacy was (whatever prevented us from becoming a professional pilot) and can enjoy flying for fun, and can enjoy being a supporting player in the aviation world.

Mr Dyce gave every sign of having a massive chip on each shoulder, with his ill-considered rant. This is the military aircrew sub forum, and as such he (and I) are guests on it, and we should treat military aircrew with some respect and even deference - this is their place, not ours. And if we don't we can expect a robust reaction.

Throw a Dyce,

I'm sorry that all this nasty abuse has upset you, you poor dear, but had you started a thread with a more moderate tone, politely asking a serious question, outlining the problem and asking for suggestions as to how things might be improved, then I can guarantee that you'd have got a friendly and helpful response. Indeed some aircrew have over-looked your boorishness and hostility and have tried to offer just that kind of advice. But if you come here and start shouting the odds, displaying your nasty little prejudices about military aircrew, and you'll find that people are sharp enough to recognise that you're either a 'chippy little man' or a 'tw@t', or both. And on Military Aircrew, they'll tell you, in pretty blunt terms.

I'd be astonished if Air Traffickers don't have a pretty poor opinion of ageing PPLs like me who aren't really current enough, and who struggle with so many aspects of aviating, but I've never met one who was ignorant and boorish enough to come into the bar at Booker and start telling us what a dangerous rabble we all are.

throw a dyce

27th Mar 2008, 21:01

Anotherthing,
Yes I see what your saying about Farnborough.We have been working helis out to over 100 miles in Class G since North Sea Oil was discovered.Also we have provided a LARS service,to stop zone infringements,and keep our light aviation friends in the picture.From that aspect our operations are trying to do the same thing.I think where we differ,is the amount of military that conflict with our traffic,with little or no notice.That takes up a lot of time from our primary tasks.We also have a lot of IFR traffic in Class G,and whatever our military friends say,we try to give these aircraft the best service.
Back to thread,
It's not just 2 zone infringement.That is the tip of a pretty big hill.Some aren't even reported because we can't trace the aircraft involved.
I'm all for liason visits,and we see other ATC units.It's a very very long time since I saw any FJ pilots visit our ATC unit.Perhaps even back to the 80's.

knowitall

27th Mar 2008, 21:25

"It's a very very long time since I saw any FJ pilots visit our ATC unit."

Your reputation clearly preceeds you..........

Jackonicko

27th Mar 2008, 21:27

Perhaps those pointy hats with a D on the front that Mr Dyce provides are the wrong size?

PPRuNe Radar

27th Mar 2008, 22:05

Mr Dyce gave every sign of having a massive chip on each shoulder, with his ill-considered rant. This is the military aircrew sub forum, and as such he (and I) are guests on it, and we should treat military aircrew with some respect and even deference - this is their place, not ours. And if we don't we can expect a robust reaction.

Yes, indeed he did. But it's not your place to have an equally 'chipped' rant in return, on behalf of the mil aircrew you obviously defer to. At least not until they make you their spokesman. Till then, you are also a guest here and it's not your battle to fight.

If you'd posted your reply made at 20:48 as your initial response (albeit a little too rose tinted and gushing for my liking), you'd have added some sensible comment to the debate. But, like part of the thread starters first post, you were unecessarily confrontational and stupid in my opinion.

He implied that the incidents he had witnessed were common, frequent and routine (he has a "file of past zone infringements from the military about 3 inches thick") and as good as accused military pilots of recklessly endangering the travelling public.

All things are relative. In airspace in the North of the UK, nearly all the infringements ARE by military aircraft, whereas in the South, most are by GA aircraft. The frequency is probably low, perhaps a few every month, but when they do occur they are routinely made by military aircraft, especially in the Aberdeen area. Until each incident is investigated and a degree of risk assessed, the travelling public have possibly been endangered. It is unlikely to have been done in a reckless manner, but that would depend on the circumstances offered for the infringement occurring. For example, would pilots carrying out of date maps, or maps which had insufficient data on the airspace, be deemed reckless perhaps ? That would be something for the legal system to decide if the unthinkable happened.

As aviators, we all know that RAF standards are very high. We all know of the pride that RAF aircrew take in pinpoint timing and navigational accuracy, and we all know of the exacting standards imposed by instructors, supervisors and CFS at all levels.

Absolutely. But being human (in spite of the God like status some would like to place on them), mistakes are made. The crux of the matter is to find out why and to see what can be done to prevent them (as far as humanly possible) in the future.

We might therefore conclude that occasional slips from those high standards are rare, and are unlikely to be reckless and deliberate, and are likely to be fleeting 'technical breaches' rather than huge incursions that scatter civil traffic as it manoeuvres to avoid catastrophe. And to suggest otherwise is both witless and offensive.

I would suggest you don't have any idea about the facts of some of the incidents from that statement. There are quite a few incidents where civil aircraft have been given avoiding action by ATC or have taken TCAS action. There are also many more where no civil aircraft have been in the way but by luck rather than design. These involve quite significant incursions in to the airspace. In fact, for fleeting breaches, I'd say that most controllers are more likely to have a quiet word with the pilot via an ATC Supervisor or through the squadron rather than go for formal reporting.

As to civil air traffickers, his assertion that he "never even tried to get into the RAF. Not my cup of tea" had a hollow ring to me. What I said was that being an Air Trafficker isn't a 'first choice career' - and as a generalisation I'd stick by it.

Your opinion of course :ok:

Many of us can get over whatever our inadequacy was (whatever prevented us from becoming a professional pilot) and can enjoy flying for fun, and can enjoy being a supporting player in the aviation world.

I've never felt inadequate compared to an RAF pilot, nor any other for that matter. They have my respect as a fellow professional in the industry but I am sure I do my job just as well and professionally as they do using the skills, previous training, and experience I possess uniquely for my profession. As do they.

throw a dyce

28th Mar 2008, 00:04

Pprune Radar,
In this neck of the woods,the unit policy was to report every incident,infringement whatever,as Nats were trying out this new reporting scheme.It is often impossible to report every infringement,as we can't trace the aircraft.They are low level on 7001 and gone below radar cover.
The ones I'm concerned about are the real howlers,where something has gone badly wrong with flight planning.Also the ones that cross the CTA 4000 plus ft above the base.It's as if the CAS didn't exist.Why does it keep happening?
Perhaps my initial wording could have been more diplomatic,but I find it very difficult not to get rattled about what I saw yesterday.

Jackonicko,
You are going to have to think up some new material,because you're repeating yourself.What rag do you scribble for,so I can avoid buying it.:8

rata2e

28th Mar 2008, 00:15

You shouldn't have joined up!
The Torry Loon asked a reasonable question, even if wasn't in the most diplomatic manner. The average UK taxpayer, whilst supportive of the armed services, would rather not pay any increase in tax to provide the funding that they actually require because of the usual spin and BS that everything is OK, despite kit shortages, late over budget projects, white elephants and operational museum pieces.

With this in mind, can't you imagine the nanny state reaction to a mil/civvy nasty? Would the mil have to transit as GAT to safe airspace to train? Huge restrictions to an already overstretched budget.

What you do is vital, to all of us, not just in the UK. Equally, surely you don't want to sh1te on your own doorstep. I think the gist of the original question was, are you giving sufficient consideration to CAS whist flying, and if so how do these CAS infringements occur?

TOPBUNKER

28th Mar 2008, 03:32

If Dyce ATC were a tad more flexible or even friendly towards mil callsigns perhaps guys would speak to them more often when flying in their vicinity .

If one already has comm's it's a lot easier to negotiate a poor-weather 'nibble' of the edge of someone's airspace or indeed to get a timely low-level abort service.

Does anyone else feel that Aberdeen's airspace is laterally oversized for the needs of its operation?

In my, albeit pre-Telic (!), experience I reckon that they were easily the least co-operative civil ATC unit for military transitees. The old Thames Radar and even Heathrow Approach seemed to bend over backwards in comparison.

Dyce-man - it's a two way thing - you've got the comfy chair and the coffee - GROW UP !!!

Lurking123

28th Mar 2008, 06:29

TAD, it is your duty to report every infringement and not just the ones you can identify. The RAF (using the Radar Analysis Cell at West Drayton/Swanwick) will do the tracing - its their job. If hey cannot find a suitable radar tape they will dig very deeply and get LFA booking info, pilot reports and even aicraft data recordings. There is little point in trying to demonstrate a trend (for example to the CAA in trying to justify more CAS or to the RAF to try and reach an arrangement) if you don't have the evidence.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.

Avtur

28th Mar 2008, 07:55

"If the radar controller had not taken avoiding action..."

Is that not what they are paid to do when the situation arises???

throw a dyce

28th Mar 2008, 07:58

Lurking,
Yes we can sometimes trace them through those system you mentioned,but it's hardly worth it if it's just a nibble.However it's worth thinking about since we are required to report every infringement.

Top Bunker,
Well you've opened up a new can of worms here.Perhaps you don't realise that we are a diversion airfield for the military.We have virtually every weekday practice diversions with Tornados and the Nimrod schedule,and fit these in the best we can.These practice diversions are basically training flight,and of lower priority.However we quite often bend helis out a bit to accommodate your requests.I have never seen Aberdeen ATC do anything but be as flexible as possible with the military,when they bother to call.Also the speed differences with our traffic,means you get messed around sometimes.That's life.
You obviously have no understanding of ATC at Aberdeen.We are required to keep aircraft inside controlled airspace,and the airspace is designed to do that if we had to use the holds at the ADN and ATF.With traffic levels at about 450 movements a day during the week this happens on a regular basis.If you don't like the seat in your aircraft,then leave the RAF.I have my job to do and I suggest the juvenile thoughts are yours.
Perhaps a liason visit is needed.:ugh: You may need us in anger someday if you have an emergency.:eek:

Lurking123

28th Mar 2008, 08:13

TAD, I'll lay my cards on the table. I previously worked in the CAA and my section's responsibilities included monitoring the civil/mil interface. At the time, any safety interaction had the scrutiny of the highest level management. This had been brought about by a set of particularly nasty incidents. Indeed, after one the AAIB decided to shove their nose in. There was also a very close call between a Tornado and one of the oil rig Pumas just above an HMR.

Throughout, we found it very frustrating in trying to identify the scale of problems and particular hot spots. All too often would I take a call from someone saying "this is always happening".

There have been previous threads about open and honest reporting and transparency. No one in the aviation industry should shy away from filing even the most minor of report. The key bit is that a database can be properly populated and we can objectively identify exactly what is happening.

throw a dyce

28th Mar 2008, 08:33

Lurking,
OK point taken.I was inclined to let the very minor ones go,but from now on everything will be reported,even if we can't trace them.I think the file is about to get a lot thicker.:ok:

Roland Pulfrew

28th Mar 2008, 09:08

TAD

It's a very very long time since I saw any FJ pilots visit our ATC unit. Perhaps even back to the 80's.

And just out of interest when was the last time that you ATCers visited a fast-jet unit?:rolleyes:

And when was the last time you contacted the bases involved and invited them for a visit?

HEDP

28th Mar 2008, 11:24

As a partly amused and partly horrified (at TADs manner) bystander to this thread may I respectfully suggest that if the powers that be (CAA/NATS etc.) are looking in at this thread then they give serious consideration to offering some pointed advice to the likes of TAD on how to approach subjects such as these.

To a casual observer it seems that with the approach used (confrontational and opinionated) this individual is seriously in danger of putting up a significant wall/barrier between the mil/civ communities and damaging any good work that has been done to date.

Safety is of course paramount but there are positive ways to go about addressing the issues and then there are detrimental approaches such as this.

I am also not sure of the impartiality of the moderator in this instance and might commend that where partiality may be an issue then a different moderator might have his attention drawn to the issue.

Please see this for what it is; an unengaged bystander with a mind for due process and fostering of safety,

HEDP

Pure Pursuit

28th Mar 2008, 12:47

Guys,

ABZ is a very busy heliport & has it's fair share of fixed wing trade too. I have often looked at the scope & realised that there is a LOT of offshore traffic out there.

As an FC, I always call Dyce/Humber when controlling in the 613 or 323 complex & they are very keen to get things set up in a safe manner before the pointy things start hammering around at similar levels to the offshore rotary. Indeed, should you need a 5k base height for your sortie then Dyce will, more often than not, coordinate their traffic & stay well below you. There is infact a standing agreement between LU Sqns & Dyce to facilitate this in the 613 complex.

Although TADs initial post did not start the thread off well, we should not berate him into the ground simply because you do not want to hear what he has to say as a civvy. Plenty of posters on here have had very negative things to say about Civ ATCOs (myself included) however, I could just as easily post some howlers about the F3 community on here, as they could about FCs!

The sky is only safe if we are all working as a team.

PPRuNe Radar

28th Mar 2008, 12:56

Impartiality

I work in a joint ATC unit which services both civil and military needs.

This involves co-ordination and compromise on a continuous basis, by both sides of the house. If I was not part of the joint system we have in the UK, then I'd be quite legitimate in stonewalling every request made by my military colleagues to accomodate operations in airspace where civil aircraft have priority. But I am, and I don't. I work with my fellow controllers and, through my military ATC colleagues, indirectly with military aircrew, to try and meet the needs of all airspace users. Some examples from the last few days include AEW operations, early closure of MDAs, non squawking transit by military aircraft, cleared flight paths through civil routes, radar corridor use, etc, etc. The list is long, but routine.

A casual observer may of course not be aware of how the UK airspace system works, but in essence it is a joint one as I have described.

I also get involved in initial investigations of incidents such as infringements. Appropriate counselling is the preferred method of dealing with whoever made the error, be it aircrew or ATC, be it civil or military. Filing a report is also sometimes a necessary evil, to provide a record of the infringement for trend analysis purposes and detail the actions taken to prevent a reoccurence.

Impartiality has nothing to do with the topic I had an issue with ... which was the behaviour of some posters. If you take time to read what I actually said, you will find that in addition to generic comments about general behaviour, I specifically criticised both the thread starter (who is on my side of the house .. civil ATC) and a poster who is a rampant Forces supporter (on the other side of the house).

It is also of note that there are no appointed moderators for this Forum. There are a limited number of us who have access to moderate the whole site. None of them are military personnel. We all work in civil fields so your request for impartiality will be hard to meet.

sailor

28th Mar 2008, 16:12

Throw a dyce, if you were there when Lossie was dark blue I bet you had fewer problems. There are those who know they are the best and others who think they are.

Had great service from you guys in my other life with Dan's one up on the 747's.

You have been getting a lot of unnecessarily rude flak from some who may be officers but are obviously not gentlemen.

Safety doe not happen by accident.

airborne_artist

28th Mar 2008, 16:15

http://clipart.coolclips.com/150/wjm/tf05041/CoolClips_busi0050.jpg

anotherthing

28th Mar 2008, 16:56

HEDP et al

TADs initial opener might have been diplomatically lacking - but until you have been on the receiving end and had to deal with something like he describes, then you really have no idea what it feels like. It's bad enough if you screw up and get two of your own aircraft close together... to use a rather base phrase you tend to 's:mad::mad:t yourself'.

Having one (or more) of your aircraft 'attacked' by an aircraft you know nothing about that should be well outside your airspace is even worse... avoiding action is always easier and more effective if you can give it to both parties concerned and not just one... especially when the intruder is a high speed/high energy aircraft.

Yes, TADs initial post was badly worded - but the chances are he had just come off radar and was still seething. The responses by the likes of minigundiplomat (up to his usual standard) and jackonicko (who tries to claim that TAD can't be a journalist because of his grammar or spelling - that's surely a joke in itself) are completely pointless and totally unhelpful.

As for claiming that PPRuNe Radars reply was not impartial - you need to re-read it... he was stating facts. Maybe there is a need for better interaction between Aberdeen and the fast jet community - it certainly seems that way reading this thread.

Your comment that TADs initial post was counter productive in flight safety and this type of incident is probably as far from the truth as it could be.
Yes a lot of the mil guys on here bit back hard because of TADs initial attitude, but I bet you every one of them who consider themselves as professionals and take pride in their work would have made a little mental note to themselves about making sure they were not the next one to make the same mistake.

Just a few thoughts from ex mil Observor, now civvy ATCO.

Oh and Jackonicko, I would say that journalism lies well below Civil ATC in anyones first choice for a career... and on a comparison of general professional standards, it certainly falls way below :ok:

Gnd

28th Mar 2008, 17:26

Ouch, that hit the spot me thinks, I'm of to my box now!!

And it is no where near and class D - luckily:cool:

HEDP

28th Mar 2008, 17:46

Mmmh,

My comment on impartiality was merely based on one Civil ATCO (PPrune Rad) kinda wading in in a spat between another Civil ATCO and in this case a jounalist who appeared on balance to have elequently outlined his position. I take the point about a limited number of mods!

I am not wanting to be dragged into the overall spat.

I stand by my comment however that the manner of the original post, well meaning although somewhat confrontational, is more likely to alienate those from whom feedback is sought. Flight safety would be best served with a balanced appropriate discussion in a tone that is likely to elicite positive feedback and not put up a brick wall between two communities.

And surely he ought not to be seething whilst on radar, better be relieved than in the wrong frame of mind. Kinda goes hand in hand with my previous comment I guess.

IMHO

Jackonicko

28th Mar 2008, 17:47

Journalism certainly wasn't my first choice of career, and I can't think of any aviation or defence journo who isn't, at root, a frustrated fighter pilot. I don't think one would make much of a journo in this sphere unless you had, or you'd had that level of passion for the business. There may be some ATCOs who never wanted to be aviators, but not many, I'll be bound.

As to professional standards, I'm happy with mine, thanks, and I'm glad that you're happy with yours. At my end of the business, writing about military aerospace on a full-time basis, I'd say that standards are pretty high, to be honest.

And though I'm sure many ATCOs wouldn't want to trade places with me, Air Traffic lay many, many places down on my list of career choices. I'm entirely happy with my second choice of career and would not have wanted to be an air trafficker for all the tea in China.

anotherthing

28th Mar 2008, 18:02

HEDP

rest assured TAD would have been taken off radar as soon as the incident was resolved - standard procedure.

Once dealt with (something that is usually automatic with ATCOS - almost an involuntary - but good - reaction), and once the situation is resolved, then one would tend to replay it in ones mind... thats when any seething would start!

However as stated, its standard procedure to remove the ATCO from position regardless of blame and allow them to a) calm down; b) file any required reports and c) compose himself.

rest assured, as an ATCO does not have access to PPrune whilst controlling, the seething I referred to above would have been done in his own time, probably somewhere between points b) and c) above :ok:

Jackonicko -

Glad to see you think yourself professional - I was merely alluding to the difference in the average (hence general) standards. It's just a pity that you could not maintain that professionalism and think before your vitriolic diatribe at post number 24.

Lurking123

28th Mar 2008, 18:45

I'm sat here wondering whether 80+ posts on a rumour network have actually achieved anything. :*

spekesoftly

28th Mar 2008, 19:42

Look on the bright side. We now have a better understanding of why certain posters followed their chosen careers.:rolleyes:

Flying Serpent

28th Mar 2008, 20:44

Not wanting to throw petrol on the fire but.....

I've had subsidised beer in the mess.

'twas a few years ago though.

:oh:

iccarus

29th Mar 2008, 10:18

Who do i complain to??

I find it unacceptable that that a so called professional controller has put specific details of an incident on a forum like this.

Whats the number??

PPRuNe Radar

29th Mar 2008, 11:51

My comment on impartiality was merely based on one Civil ATCO (PPrune Rad) kinda wading in in a spat between another Civil ATCO and in this case a jounalist

You'll find that's a moderators job methinks. To try and divert the spats back to the topic being discussed. You'll also find I placed blame on both sides.

who appeared on balance to have elequently outlined his position.

Yes, the following is very eloquent and grown up, don't you think ....

[amateur shrink mode]Great. Another moaning jockistani f*ckwit with chips on both shoulders - not good enough to fly, not good enough to serve in the forces (civil ATCO isn't a first choice career for anyone), and without enough character to get over it and enjoy being a supporting player in the aviation world. Thus brimming with petty resentment against both pilots and servicemen, and against service pilots most of all.[/amateur shrink mode]

As I think we've done the attitudes thing to death on this thread, and should concentrate on the infringements issue, future posts not on topic are liable to be deleted, if PPRuNe so decides. Call it summary justice if you will :ok:

To put things back in context then:

In 2006 (the latest full year figures available), 13% of identified infringers were military aircraft. That's around 82 infringements over the year by professional military pilots. To provide the balance, 74% were identified as GA aircraft. But bear in mind there are 8000+ registered GA aircraft in the UK, not including those foreign aircraft which visit our shores. The number of hours flown by GA in UK airspace will be astronomical compared to those flown by the military over a year. The threat to civil aircraft entitled to protection within Controlled Airspace is a very real one. Military pilots can play their part in reducing the stats, as can every other pilot in our skies.