US and RAF pilots 'had mid-air row' over Norfolk

[Sun Who]

Thoughts?

BBC News - US and RAF pilots 'had mid-air row' over Norfolk (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-27378057)

[tradewind]

thoughts?.............well for a start, I'm surprised the beeb managed to get the correct aircraft photos for once. :)

[Party Animal]

Looks like another busy day in Norfolk news circles. Yet another non-story...

[Dominator2]

So, the USAF continue to fail to understand how to operate in UK airspace. If their aircrew require protected airspace then the Mildenhall Wing Staff should show them how to book it.
We, the RAF, would never consider flying in someone else's country without knowing the rules, would we!!! Obviously, the RN don't care about that kind of thing. Just declare Blue Water Ops everywhere.

[Wander00]

Thought it was only Tornados v Jags over Norfolk........hat, coat...............

[Dominator2]

And there was me thinking it was F4s V Buccs with the occasional Lightning close by Norwich!

[M609]

We, the RAF, would never consider flying in someone else's country without knowing the rules, would we!!!

:E:E:E:E

Nahhh, would never bust airspace abroad. (Or sleep during the local airspace briefing..... ;) )

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I was not asleep !

I merely closed my eyes so I could better concentrate on the spoken word....
and it would have been undiplomatic to refuse the arrival beer..any of them :ok:

[Hempy]

"due regard" ;-)

[Lonewolf_50]

The UK Airprox Board, which investigates near-misses, concluded both planes had the right to be flying. Of course, as the were both operating according to the laws of physics, subset aerodynamics. :}

As to the C-130 and the parachutists and the whinging ... I'd be interested to know what actually went down, as opposed to what was in the paper. I seem to recall that there was a NATO STANAG about drop zones and temporary special use air space, also one about training ranges.

[Buster Hyman]

I'd be interested to know what actually went down
Clearly, it was paratroopers...

[orgASMic]

My twopennorth as an RAF ATCO, having read the Airprox Board report.

They (the MC-130, the GR4 and the parachutists) were all allowed to be where they were and the two ac captains were determined to exercise that right (the paras probably had not so much choice once the doors were open). The Board commented that perhaps the GR4 might have given the others a little more space, which seems fair to me as it is much more manoeuvrable than a Herc in para configuration. However, he chose not to and said that he "had every right to be here". Airmanship, anyone?

I am slightly confused as to why the Herc was working two ATC freqs (London Mil and Marham App). He was presumably talking to his DZ party on abother box as well. The GR4s were on Marham Dir. The two Marham controllers did pass traffic information to each other but IMHO this might have been solved by all talking to the same controller.

Of concern is that the controllers did not consider it to be a reportable incident. Someone called "Airprox" so it is a mandatory report whatever the controller thinks. I am also concerned that the Sup was short of controllers so elected to work Zone himself and downgrade from a Supervised watch to having an ATCO ic.

The way I read it is that the Herc captain was showing due concern over his charges (the paras) but expected more protection from his NOTAM than was due; the GR4 shoud have shown a bit more class and allowed a bit more elbow room; and, most importantly, Marham and Mildenhall need to talk more.

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013155.pdf

[Boudreaux Bob]

The Board commented that perhaps the GR4 might have given the others a little more space, which seems fair to me as it is much more manoeuvrable than a Herc in para configuration. However, he chose not to and said that he "had every right to be here". Airmanship, anyone?

Airmanship.....none. Arrogance and Stupidity......Shed Loads!

Never mind the Para's and the risk to them....It is my Country, My Airspace, and Sod the Yanks is the way I read it.

Did the FJ ever consider when something seems confused.....the best way to sort it out is on the ground AFTER landing.

[West Coast]

We, the RAF, would never consider flying in someone else's country without knowing the rules, would we!!!.

I still have somewhat fond memories of the Nimrod and its impromptu airshow over parts of San Diego as it tried to land at Miramar back in the late 90's.

[mike rondot]

Here's a fight from a previous life over Norfolk, and a proper fight, with gloves off.

http://www.collectair.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/af9a73760fce56b264b2d140946f7653/f/-/f-4_phantom_v2_finalwith_sig900.72_1.jpg

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Reminds me of an exercise off Gib in the 70s! Buccs deployed from Honington to attack ships in Western Med. Nimrod deployed to act as DISPORT aircraft in support of Buccs (attacking the ships). 6-ship airborne from Gib, circumnavigated the Nimrod who had cleverly positioned itself right on our attack run and could see us all the way as we entered the Straits of Gibraltar!!! Attacked the ships at 100 feet and 580 kts and well abeam and below the Nimrod, landed at Gib, went to bar, DetCo summoned to Air Cdr Gib's office to explain why Buccs had infringed Nimrod who had filed an airmiss against us - it was effectively controlling us onto the target, so it knew exactly where we were!!! Bollocking duly absorbed by sqn ldr DetCo who returned to the bar fuming but soon got over it with suitable alcoholic counselling from the team! Two days later, maritime exercise focal point moves east towards Malta where 12 Sqn now redeploy in order to attack the boats again as they progressed easterly over next 7 days!

From RAF Luqa, DetCo gets his revenge by sending signal to Air Cdr Gib that read:

"12 Sqn Buccaneers now deployed to Central Mediterranean area. Trust this now gives Nimrod sufficient airspace to operate in!"

Nothing more was said but we did enjoy our Hopleaf that night:}!!!!

Bloggs

[racedo]

Opened it up hoping that this was going to be about a fight on who gets to keep it, even pay for the US to tow it away.:rolleyes:

[Flugplatz]

I must remember to carry out flight manoeuvres in my C152 right at the edge of a Red-Arrows' display TRA this summer - clearly these RAF fast-jet lads are up for a bit of brinkmanship..

As long as the radar traces exonerate me, I can safely ignore the Reds' airprox report / 'overcautious' cancelled display nonsense :ugh:

[BEagle]

Well, I can certainly understand the MC-130 Aircraft Commander being one very pi$$ed-off teddy over this. Quite rightly. He did everything he could to alert the pointy-heads about his live para-dropping exercise, but they carried on regardless.

And what sort of a dic.khead chooses to indulge in a general handling exercise in a properly-NOTAM'd para-dropping exercise area anyway, even if it isn't a TRA?

ATC should have been more on the ball - but the GR4s were just plain stupid by my reading of this event.

(Westie - at least when I visited NAS Miramar in 1984 and RAPCON gave us an impossibly tight (for our big jet) approach, the Captain wisely went around and flew a closed pattern. But we were totally mystifed after landing when told we'd be parking 'On the Quartdeck'! Which turned out to be where that C-9B bringing Goose's wife parked in Top Gun.)

[Cows getting bigger]

In a previous life I saw such numptiness. Trogging up the East coast in a civvi Wetdream we would often have some fun in the Whitby area. Ordinarily it would be a couple of Hawks out of Leeming who were playing with each other. London mil would tell us about the Hawks and often ask the Hawks to shift a bit so that we could have a warm-and-fluffy feeling en-route Scotland. There were times the Hawks would shift, other times they would exercise their rights to stay where they were.

Now I've matured a bit, but back then I would berate my ex-RAF compatriots for pi$$ing me around - yep, you have just as much right to be here but I'm trying to go A-B and you just need a play area and it doesn't really matter where it is - do you really have to be in the same bit of sky?

I'm sure the sky is getting smaller and we all have extra pressures that are brought about by financial cuts, training targets etc. However, we shouldn't allow such things to dilute the basic airmanship skills. I now teach people to fly and one of my biggest challenges is instilling an awareness of the environment and the prescence and needs of other aircraft. For sure, aviation has always been lacking in this area but we really need to nurture the concept of mutual understanding.

[bayete]

Mmmm.... airborne argument with the Flight Checkers on their way in to Brize.
Them outside their NOTAM sorting themselves out for their check of the PAR/ILS or whatever.
Us telling them to Foxtrot Oscar as they we heading into a NOTAMed live DZ with troops in the air.
I still can't believe how long it took and how difficult was to get it into their heads that we didn't care if they were 'checking' we would 'discuss on the ground' but in the meanwhile there are live bodies below who don't want to be introduced to their props NOW FOXTROT OSCAR!

[West Coast]

Beags

No worries. The controller probably thought you were a RN aircraft and could make it.

[AdLib]

Sounds like a NOTAM doesn't provide the protection I/we/you/they want/require.

Praps these activities should be conducted within an RA(T)?

[parabellum]

In the big scheme of things which has the priority, Tornados practicing whatever they practice at jump height or qualifying/recurrent training of Army parachutists?


Given the number of dropping sorties that have to be postponed either due weather or lack of available aircraft then, on a good day, when dropping is possible, I would have thought the parachuting aircraft had a priority in the training area up there very close to Purple Airspace and maybe that is what needs to be addressed?

[brickhistory]

To be fair, however, when half the remaining GR4 fleet is being used for this sortie, you don't want to waste time/gas. :E

[Big Pistons Forever]

Big ego's in fast jets, Naaah that never happens. :rolleyes:

[US Herk]

Having been posted to Mildenhall twice (6.5 years combined), and having mixed up the airspace on an MC-130H overhead Sculthorpe, and having spent countless hours turning JP8 into the sound of freedom over East Anglia through the years, I feel well qualified to speak to this topic. ;)

I will assume these were HALO airdrops from FL100-140 (which was typical). Low-altitude para shouldn't be an issue with GR4 around Sculthorpe unless they flew right over the DZ below 1000AGL...

So, the USAF continue to fail to understand how to operate in UK airspace. If their aircrew require protected airspace then the Mildenhall Wing Staff should show them how to book it.
On the contrary; I can assure you that Mildenhall staff and crews understand fully how to properly book UKLFS airspace and issue NOTAMs properly.

I can also assure you that Sculthorpe operations are the virtual default for para and TLZ operations being the only nearby DZ suitable for para.

So to call them proficient in E. Anglia air operations in general and Scuthorpe operations specifically, would be a bit of an understatement as they do both nearly every night.

I am slightly confused as to why the Herc was working two ATC freqs (London Mil and Marham App). He was presumably talking to his DZ party on abother box as well. The GR4s were on Marham Dir. The two Marham controllers did pass traffic information to each other but IMHO this might have been solved by all talking to the same controller.
Confused by what? Their desire to have the most radio situational awareness? Or their desire to keep all possibly affected parties informed?

An MC-130H (the BBC picture is an MC-130J) would have been operating on all four of their boxes. 2 x VHF, 1 x UHF, and 1 x SATCOM. Typical operation over Sculthorpe would be as follows:
Electronic Warfare Officer: UHF with DZ party
Non-Flying Pilot: VHF with Marham
Non-Flying Pilot: VHF with London Mil (or for low altitude, Norwich Appch when east of Sculthorpe and Marham approaching Sculthorpe as the run-in to Sculthorpe begins out off the coast from east to west)
Electronic Warfare Officer: SATCOM with Mildenhall C2
Not certain how an MC-130J would've had their boxes set up, but it's safe to assume at least DZ (required per USAF regulations), London Mil, and Marham Appch were all at least being monitored.

Consequently, the MC-130 was monitoring all available frequencies and being CONTROLLED by London Mil, obtaining DZ clearance & winds from DZ party and additional traffic from Marham Appch. To do otherwise would be unsafe when you're dropping 200lb retarded meat bombs. ;) The contact with Marham was courtesy...and common sense. Marham do not control Sculthorpe airspace, especially at altitudes above FL100.

In the big scheme of things which has the priorityI think the pink bodies hanging under the chutes with extraordinarily limited maneuverability have the priority, right of way and the right to expect more maneuverable flying things to avoid those subject only to gravity.

I'm certain the airspace was NOTAMed - USAF aren't supposed to drop para w/o it for safety reasons - especially HALO/HAHO. My first question is did the GR4 read the NOTAM? Did the GR4 attempt to avoid that airspace? Or did he mistakenly believe it was just another Herc bumbling around near his field?

However, another potentially significant issue is winds. The winds may cause the release point to be outside of the NOTAM area (typically 3NM diameter centered around the DZ). In the case of a west blowing wind, the MC-130 would've offset closer to Marham. Bearing in mind that actuation altitude is typically 3000-3500MSD, drift effect isn't as large as it is with HAHO, but still may require an offset for the release point that places the aircraft outside of the NOTAM "cylinder" of "protected" airspace. I don't know the met for the day, so can't possibly speak specifically to it, only to add that it may be part of the "confusion" between what the GR4 thought they were properly avoiding and what the MC-130 pilot thought they were 'violating'. At the end of the day, it is the attitude that is troubling...

Finally, there's the not insignificant problem of two people divided by a common language. USAF do not use the term para or stores or TLZ and will say "dee-zee" instead of "dee-zed", "jumpers" instead of "paras", and use myriad other slang terms easily understandable to other USAF zipper suited sun gods, but often gobbledygook to folks from elsewhere. Right, wrong, or just different, if nothing else it can cause a delay in comprehension and getting one's message across and the 'righteous indignation' of one listening to "someone with poor R/T" often comes across as shortness, rudeness, or any number of other undesirable manifestations.


Well, I can certainly understand the MC-130 Aircraft Commander being one very pi$$ed-off teddy over this. Quite rightly. He did everything he could to alert the pointy-heads about his live para-dropping exercise, but they carried on regardless.

And what sort of a dic.khead chooses to indulge in a general handling exercise in a properly-NOTAM'd para-dropping exercise area anyway, even if it isn't a TRA?

ATC should have been more on the ball - but the GR4s were just plain stupid by my reading of this event.
Concur with all. It does come across as a bit of "this is 'my' country, I'll do as I please" - not that the USAF or us yanks would ever do anything of the sort! ;) Further, Sculthorpe is NOTAM for airdrop and landings virtually every night, so it's not something out of the ordinary that might be overlooked.

[orgASMic]

US Herk, my point is that it should not be necessary to have 2 ATC freqs on the go (the C2 and DZ freqs are clearly necessary for the task at the time). The 2 controllers might give conflicting instructions if they think they are both providing you with a service. Pick one and let the controller do the necessary liaison with other ATC units.

From the report, it says that Marham was providing a Basic Service (BS) to the Herc and passed traffic information on the GR4 on 2 other tracks. That implies that controller considered that there was a definite risk of collision (rules for a BS) but then he stated that the severity of the incident was negligable, which does not add up. The Herc was also receiving a TS from London Mil; why is there no input from that controller in the report?

As for their NOTAM, as published it only told folks what was going on, it did not say 'keep out'. Some sort of airspace reservation would be better. I would say that a permanent avoid at Sculthorpe activated by NOTAM would be the way ahead.

I speak as an ex London Mil East ATCO who gave regular UK ATC/airspace briefs at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, has been on a LZ/DZ party many times and has been meat-bombed and TALO'd into Sculthorpe on a few occasions.

[Party Animal]

Not so certain it's "this is 'my' country, I'll do as I please" -

More, "I'm a fast jet c0ck that clearly has priority over any other platform flying"

[Wrathmonk]

I'm a fast jet c0ck that clearly has priority over any other platform flying

I guess you didn't quite crack Group 1 then? ;):E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

it should not be necessary to have 2 ATC freqs on the go (the C2 and DZ freqs are clearly necessary for the task at the time). The 2 controllers might give conflicting instructions

As I read US Herk, the C130 would have been in contact with Lon Mil and Marham; controlled by only Lon Mil.


the MC-130 was monitoring all available frequencies and being CONTROLLED by London Mil, obtaining DZ clearance & winds from DZ party and additional traffic from Marham Appch.

So Marham APP was "courtesy" and a basic RADAR advisory service. I do note that a tiny bit of Sculthorpe's MATZ overlaps a tiny bit of Marham's MATZ Stub, though.

PS

Sorry squawking 7700, my current 1/250,000 chart was 20 miles away in the aeroplane. I was looking at my old "what shall I do this week" one.

[squawking 7700]

GBZ,
I haven't got this years map to hand but on last years, Sculthorpe was marked disused so no MATZ - I flew over it at 1500ft.

Can anyone pull the NOTAM for when this was supposed to have occurred?


7700

[Lonewolf_50]

Mike, just curious: any more of those prints available? That's a nice pic. :ok:

[Party Animal]

Unless there was a compelling reason for other aircraft to be in that area, that is a very clear NOTAM and by extension, airmanship makes it a very clear avoid.

I would have slapped one of my students for planning to fly there in the first place and punched him for trying to argue on the R/T on the merits of his technical rights - especially with paras jumping out the door!

[Cows getting bigger]

Deliverance, you mis-read my post. We both have the right to be in Class G but I would suggest that, regardless of whether the aircraft are military or civilian, the easiest solution is for the manoeuvring traffic to work around the aircraft that is trying to get somewhere. I've seen the intransigence from both sides - I think we are actually think the same thing, its just we speak in different tongues.

PS. 100 Sqn has been a playground for pilots since the mid 90s. :)

RIP Chuckles.

[Canadian Break]

Parabellum. Purple airspace is a temporary restriction (IIRC 15 minutes before and 30 minutes after published timings- unless it has changed) - are you saying that on the day and in the area in question there was a Royal Flight in the vicinity - in which case perhaps both parties were in the wrong. Or are you suggesting that Purple Airspace is a permanent fixture - which I do not believe to be the case.

[Clever Richard]

Call me old fashioned but I think good manners was all that was needed to avoid this unedifying spectacle.

[higthepig]

A hole in the cheese in this incident was that the Herc was not squawking 0033, this has been addressed for future exercises.

[Wrathmonk]

higthepig

the Herc was not squawking 0033

Are you sure? Top of Page 3 in the Airprox report (http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013155.pdf) it states

The MC130 was squawking 0033 for paradropping activities
and Tornado callsign 2 was squawking 3647

and the 'radar' paints reproduced elsewhere in the report would seem to confirm this.

[Easy Street]

the easiest solution is for the manoeuvring traffic to work around the aircraft that is trying to get somewhere

I disagree. That is only the easiest solution for the pilot trying to get from A to B. For the manoeuvring traffic, that solution probably means terminating the exercise they're currently undertaking, finding another suitable location nearby (with suitable weather and clear of other traffic), getting back into a suitable formation from which to re-start the exercise.... etc etc. If air combat training is being done 'properly' then there might only be enough fuel for 3 or 4 exercises per sortie, and re-setting effectively wastes one of those attempts. Equally, if the exercise involves a forward air controller on the ground, there is no option for the manoeuvring aircraft to 'move' their exercise; they would have to wait for the conflicting traffic to pass.

Conversely, all the transiting traffic has to do is alter its heading by 10-15 degrees with about 30 miles to go to the confliction, and all is well. Perhaps it might add a minute or so to your journey. Is that really so difficult?

[higthepig]

Are you sure? Top of Page 3 in the Airprox report it states
Wrathmonk,
My mistake, I was a member of the AIRPROX Board for the event that was mentioned in the HQ Air narrative on page 6, I can only blame my own stupidity, humble pie for supper, sorry.
:\

[floppyjock]

www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2014059.pdf

As a civilian DZ Chief Instructor I received this a couple of weeks ago from the CAA.

The CAA don't seem to think 0033 was selected.

Floppy

[Herod]

Conversely, all the transiting traffic has to do is alter its heading by 10-15 degrees with about 30 miles to go to the confliction, and all is well. Perhaps it might add a minute or so to your journey. Is that really so difficult?

Many, many years ago, we used to run an F27 from Norwich to Humberside, and frequently were given headings to avoid the fast stuff. The classic was one day when the controller said "the only avoiding action I can give you is a three-sixty turn. When you roll out again, there might be a gap",

[Wrathmonk]

Floppy

The incident that your CAA Information Notice refers to is as a result of Airprox 2013115 (http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013115.pdf) (which was the other airprox between MC130 and GR4 referred to throughout this thread) and on page 3 of Airprox Report 2013115 it does indeed state

Figure 2 depicts the incident geometry at this point; SSR 3A 3643 was the Tornado, SSR 3A 7000 was the MC130H (my bold)

However, this thread (and my comment) is about Airprox 2013155 and the information at post #41 is lifted from that Airprox report. The MC130, as far as the Airprox Board are concerned, was squawking 0033.

[floppyjock]

Ah didnt realize there was two. doh

Floppy

[BEagle]

Many, many years ago, we used to run an F27 from Norwich to Humberside, and frequently were given headings to avoid the fast stuff.

Ah yes, the good old Yukair 'Norwich Flier'. Often intercepted by the Wattisham F-4 wing - but I don't think anyone got close enough to worry the F-27 crew.

Funnily enough, 2 of us once flew back from Edinburgh to Norwich on that aircraft after a JMC debrief. We knew it was going to be interesting when the undercarriage stopped in the Grand Old Duke of York position on departure as the pneumatic system had run out of puff. But after a few minutes it repressurised, up came the wheels and we accelerated noticeably! Then we were supposed to land at Leeds-Bradford, but after a few attempts we diverted to East Midlands. At the stroke of 22:00, the hosties looked very cheerful - when we asked why, they told us that the delay had put them on some minimum overtime pay rate. "Ah, I see. That'll be 2 large gin and tonic, please!", I said to the number one - and bless her, she duly obliged. Then off to Norwich - only to get bounced by one of our own F-4s....:hmm: Worst part of the whole trip was the Norwich to Wattisham road journey -2 of us plus MT driver and our kit squeezed into a mini for 90 minutes....:\

[US Herk]

my point is that it should not be necessary to have 2 ATC freqs on the go (the C2 and DZ freqs are clearly necessary for the task at the time). The 2 controllers might give conflicting instructions if they think they are both providing you with a service. Pick one and let the controller do the necessary liaison with other ATC units.
Basic Service isn't quite control, it's the old FIS. Control would have been provided by London Mil. The MC-130 would've informed Marham that they were in contact with London Mil, but contacting Marham as courtesy AND for situational awareness. Why wait for Marham to contact London to contact the MC-130 to advise them of traffic or deconfliction? With pink bodies hanging under silk, I'd rather have immediate notification of any potential conflict directly from the source (ie - Marham).

So, on the surface, I understand your concern, but in actuality, it is a non-issue. Bear in mind that neither were providing actual control and weremerely providing some level of service. ;) In the event of conflicting instructions, the crew would've hopefully had the situational awareness to make a safe decision and advised the agencies involved appropriately.

Unless there was a compelling reason for other aircraft to be in that area, that is a very clear NOTAM and by extension, airmanship makes it a very clear avoid.
Concur. Further, it is a very routine (near daily) NOTAM and not something unusual.

A hole in the cheese in this incident was that the Herc was not squawking 0033, this has been addressed for future exercises.
Although addressed that they were, I will state that even had they not, the squawk issue would've been mitigated by talking to both London & Marham, so there would be no question regarding the activity. Does GR4 have TCAS? If not (like many FJ), it would've provided no extra clue other than Marham advising them.

[parabellum]

Parabellum. Purple airspace is a temporary restriction (IIRC 15 minutes before and 30 minutes after published timings- unless it has changed) - are you saying that on the day and in the area in question there was a Royal Flight in the vicinity - in which case perhaps both parties were in the wrong. Or are you suggesting that Purple Airspace is a permanent fixture - which I do not believe to be the case.


Canadian Break - Sorry, my point was that because due weather and availability of aircraft for jumping there is a constant backlog of people who are either initial or recurrent parachutists, consequently I believe that task should have a high priority when the aircraft is available and the weather is good. I mentioned Purple Airspace to give an indication of how high that priority should be without including the parameters of Purple Airspace, only it's priority.

[airborne_artist]

Clearly the Tonka crew had no nautical awareness. In the maritime world steam gives way to sail, and the more maneuverable vessel gives way to the less maneuverable in most situations. I think the pointy jet should have let the meat bomber continue ;)

[Canadian Break]

No apologies necessary old chap - all is now clear. CB

[chopper2004]

BEags,

What a/c was your claim to fame coming into land during the shooting scenes with Goose's wife and kid arriving in VR-57's C-9B?

Was it the Mighty Hunter or the Flying Banana out of interest?

Did Paramount have to re shoot the scene in case of your ship being seen in the background?

Cheers

[Wensleydale]

Back in the 1990s, the bugbear of policing the Balkans No-Fly Zone was whenever a new USN Carrier Battle Group arrived in Theatre. On one occasion, the new CBG decided to have their own exercise in the Adriatic during the day before they officially joined in. The result was many aircraft infringing the operation's tanker tow lines and even an EW serial when they jammed live IFF over the no-fly zone. The fun started when they joined next day - using USN procedures rather than those published in the optasks/opgens etc. (again many busts of sensitive and active airspace).


The last straw was when the ships entered the operational data link net and instantly changed the identity of everything in the recognised air picture which was not USN to Unknown Assumed Hostile - including all of the allied aircraft within the NFZ and those in transit including transports, tankers etc. Repeated requests for them to follow the correct ID procedures and which documents to use fell onto deaf ears until my Data Link manager threw them off the L11 net. ( From memory, when asked why, he told them that we didn't want another Iranian Airliner thank you very much). About 5 minutes later, a much more cultured American voice arrived on the coordination net, apologised, and we had no further trouble after we let them back in (well - the odd hiccup for a couple of days after shift changes).

[BEagle]

chopper2004, I didn't say that we were at NAS Miramar when the scene with Meg Ryan was being filmed. In fact we were there in a VC10K on 25 Oct 1984, which was at least a year before the Top Gun scenes were filmed at Miramar.

(The purpose of our trip was to support F-4J(UK) aircraft for 74(F) Sqn from NAS North Island to the UK and to get some useful training in US procedures. OP TIGER TRAIL 3 - it was epic fun!)

[melmothtw]

In fact we were there in a VC10K on 25 Oct 2004, which was at least a year before the Top Gun scenes were filmed at Miramar.

Sure it wasn't Back to the Future they were filming....

[EESDL]

When did the 'Bears' join this scrap?
Thought it was between a GR4 and MC-130 !

[chopper2004]

My apologies, Beags - sorry misread your statement and thought on average back then it took 2 years to put together any groom movie!

Take it there were very noticeable differences in airspace management! And weather slightly better for sure even in that month?

Cheers