Military/civilian Airprox Incident

[PETERJ]

Reported in today's Scottish Daily Mail (sorry can't handle URL thingie !)

17 June pm,25 miles west of Glasgow, altitude 5000 feet,Shorts 360 ex Islay for Glasgow and unspecified military jet. Airprox report filed with CAA. The Shorts is reported as being in receipt of air traffic service from Glasgow.

Same article says that between January and June 2001 there were 44 airprox incidents involving civilair transport (not all of them involving the military I hope) 33 of which were assessed as having no risk of collision. So thats 7 incidents a month and 11 incidents in total which involved a risk of collision - presumably ranging from "slight risk" to "high risk" .

Gulp !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spitoon]

And your point is?

[PETERJ]

No point. The forum is called Reporting Points. I,m just reporting the story and my reaction to it.

[egffztzx]

PETERJ,

Airproxs are a fact of life, especially outside of controlled airspace. I do not wish to suggest that they are not significant and it's quite right that they are investigated and lessons learnt.

Unfortuantly, after the recent sad event in Germany the press will now pick on these events and may not provide a full and balanced picture.

Two web sites that will put things in context:-

http://www.caa.co.uk/caanews/airprox.asp

http://www.ukab.org.uk/

[Captain Stable]

egff.

You are quite correct in your summation that, in the aftermath of the German midair, the press will be susceptible to such stories.

Sadly, you are incorrect in your assertion that "lessons are being learnt". They are not.

However, and unfortunately, our military colleagues are guilty of an ever-increasing number of airprox incidents. Read the latest UKAB report and it quite clearly highlights what an increasing danger mil aircraft represent to all other ofroms of aviation.

[bi focals]

if your flying close to our military pals operating area leaving your
weather radar on may give them a clue your around. fast jets
will detect it,and may be able to avoid you .

[S76Heavy]

Do fast jets use their radar as traffic avoidance aid when buzzing around the countryside? I've had my share of close encounters with jets and I do not like to see my tax money that close..:(
and my wx radar is of no use in detecting traffic.

[bi focals]

fast jets have ecm [electronic counter measure] equipment which will detect YOUR radar and will give them an indication your around

[Ghostflyer]

The chance of your weather radar giving a fast jet mate a cue as to where you are is not that high. Any Air Defence aircraft will be using its radar to avoid or engage all traffic within about 50 nms of the nose within its route of flight. Mud movers do have systems that can help but are not optimised for the task.

One of the snags as a civvy is that when a Fast Jet spots you on radar or visually in its operational area it will continue with the operation unless it believes it is unsafe to do so. What we would consider close i.e. inside 5nms, the average fast jet mate feels completely comfortable with. Don't forget that most of the time they are actually trying to achieve a visual merge with other aircraft with seperations of around 1000' laterally.

In those circumstances the aircraft will probably give a wing flash to show its presence and then will re-route around you whilst continuing to the target or merge. It will miss the 'stranger' coming the other way by a couple of miles and a thousand feet or so. However, if the stranger will be involved in the visual merge (dogfight) the formation leader will terminate the exercise and reset.

There have been mid-air collisions between FJ and light aircraft in the past but these have generally occured when the civil aircraft was operating below 500ft in an area of intense activity. When the fast jet is trying to miss the rocks, some of the pilots attention is understandably drawn from visual lookout.

If you are a civil aircraft operating in controlled airspace, you are quite likely to see FJ aircraft routing around the edges of that airspace. The crews will be flying just outside the line following a moving map tactical display.

Ghost;)

[S76Heavy]

My problem with the situation is that I don't know if the FJ has seen me, and if he (she?) has, what does the pilot expect ME to do..And even if I am comfortable with the separation, I still have to try to reason with a dozen or so upset pax who only saw something grey flashing past their window.

[Ghostflyer]

S76Heavy,

Now being a civvy myself, I feel for you. For what its worth unless ATC tells you about their presence, 99% of the time when one goes past you won't even see it. Even with radar contact they are hard to spot coz thats their design.

You have no way of knowing whether or not he has seen you unless he waggles his wings which he would only be likely to do if transiting; not in the middle of an intercept. If you are worried though, all fast jets use the right hand traffic rule too. Good operators do try to make it clear that they have changed course by using 90° AOB to initiate the turn to give a heads up and enable you to see them easier.

If you start a turn to increase separation your big old wing flash and line of sight rate is going to give away your position visually beautifully. The worst thing that you can do is press to the merge and hope he has spotted you. As always early action helps.

I know there are times when you feel that you can't turn but if it wouldn't hurt your pax, you stay in your allocated airspace, make it a transient maneuvre and you think it would improve the situation, who is going to give you a hard time. If you have to take a big deviation then you will obviously have to coord with ATC if you are receiving a service. Out of interest that is how fast jets show their position to each other.

As to what to tell the pax, keep them informed just as you would were you hammering around the hold at LHR. Lots of the near miss horror stories in the press from pax around LHR come when they see an aircraft close aboard whilst whistling around the hold. A quick call from the crew would have explained it to them and put their minds at ease.

Sorry if this sounds like an egg sucking exercise I didn't mean it that way.

Ghost:)

[Captain Stable]

All these are valid concerns. Unfortunately, and I can say with some authority, the military do not see them as such.

I have worked (very) closely with some of the people involved with the above incidents, and I have to say I do not see any prospect of improvement in the situation for the foreseeable future. If anything, rather the opposite.

MOST of our colleagues in the FJ fraternity are thoroughly professional and competent and adult. Sad to say this is not true of all of them. It is time that this fact was recognised and addressed by those with the authority to do something about it instead of saying to themselves "boys will be boys - it's good for them to get it out of their systems - no real problems here - etc."

If you get anyone from the FJ fraternity on one side away from any possibility of being quoted, thet will confirm that all is not as it might be.

It is well past time that the RAF, the CAA, the AAIB and the UKAB stopped trying to fool themselves and everyone else that everything in the garden is rosy.

[411A]

Unfortunately Capt'n Stable, the same is true in the USA. Even though very large parts of the US airspace are set aside for military operations, FAR too many of these guys regularally traverse civvy airspace and, like the incident not so long ago in the Tampa area, never call ATC to advise accordingly.:eek:

[S76Heavy]

Ghostflyer,

thanks for the lengthy reply. As I fly a helicopter on offshore flights, even if I bank hard, I won't show that much more profile than when flying straight and level. My airspeed is obviously limited and we do operate in controlled airspace as well as on special routes in uncontrolled airspace. Unfortunately, there are several military ranges nearby and the jets have no obligation to talk to ATC relevant to our flights. In the most extreme event, I had a heads up call from ATC 2 seconds before they went past me on opposite tracks, they had just zoomed up from out of their range and crossed my track, one at my level a few hundred feet away, the other one underneath. NOT FUNNY! Especially as our radar service is SSR only.
:mad:

Capt Stable, I am still waiting for an official reply to the airprox report, now 3 years ago. It seems as though the military just don't give a flying F*** and it really upsets me that they do not take these things seriously. Not even after a couple of collisions between fighters and civil traffic, with fatalities.
There is only so much we can do to avoid tragedy, being low and slow..:(

[Captain Stable]

That's not good, S76. :(

I suggest you phone them and ask to speak to Gordon McRobbie.

[WorkingHard]

"There have been mid-air collisions between FJ and light aircraft in the past but these have generally occured when the civil aircraft was operating below 500ft in an area of intense activity. When the fast jet is trying to miss the rocks, some of the pilots attention is understandably drawn from visual lookout. "

What a way to describe a pilot going about his business quite legitemately. The military do what they want when they want (or so it seems). Perhaps they should be reminded that their sole purpose is to PROTECT us from any enemy and not for them to be the enemy. Any AAIB report between civilian and military a/c inevitabely comes down on the side of the military and I for one would like to know why. Take the case in Wales where a Cessna was hit from about the 7 o'clock position by a FJ and the resultant deaths were attributed by the AAIB as "failure of the pilots to see each other" How in God's name can you see something coming from that angle at 500knots? Even using the Low Level notification systems does not ensure you are avoided by the military as has been seen time and time again.

[Captain Stable]

I have to differ, Working.

The UKAB have now (thankfully) started in the latest Report to attribute the blame. And the story it tells is not good news for the FJ mates. Reading between the lines, it shows some of them in a (justifiably) poor light.

Having been part of the investigation into a few mil/civil encounters, it appears that most of the time they are caused by going against briefing - either not paying attention, or not understanding the briefing, or simply not caring and "buzzing" civil traffic by attempting simulated intercepts on them.

Yes, yes, ghost, I know that everyone denies officially that such illegal practice intercepts happen. But everyone inside the FJ fraternity also know that, actually, they DO - and often.

Liaison between military and civil controllers is poor in the extreme, with civil controllers finding it very difficult indeed to contact whoever is controlling a particular blip on their screen and, compared to many civil aircraft, many mil jets have very limited equipment thanks to Her Majesty's Government wishing to save a couple of bob here and there.

There is also a very poor attitude on the part of some pilots on both sides of the mil/civil divide, insisting upon thinking of Class F/G airspace as "theirs". It is not.

It is practically impossible to get to quite a few regional airports without going through Class G airspace. This needs to change. There need to be some protected routes. This will not stop the FJs going over or under such airways, or through with permission and crossing clearance from the controlling authority. CANP also needs beefing up. And finally, there needs to be severe penalties for some of the high jinks that lots of us have seen.

[S76Heavy]

Captain Stable, re your previous, unfortunately they happened over another (European) country's territory..but I agree, it's not good.
And as Workinhard states correctly, how can you see anything moving at 500 Kts from behind? But how much time do I have if I do see him approaching me from the front at a combined speed of 500 kts? Has anybody done the maths on that ?

A bit off topic, would the need for buzzing and showing off of some jet pilots have anything to do with the relatively low hours the military fly compared to commercial aviation?

[Plane*jane]

We were having a discussion about this problem as our routes are close to military practice zones. We fly RIS /RAS and with that are provided with some cover, but comparing notes we all have AT LEAST 2-3 "avoiding action" EACH with military a month. My concern was such to raise it as a topic with ATC forum. Very helpful they were too. Yes frighteningly sometimes at 5 nm "passing down your left side" we see....NOTHING. Sometimes we see them in advance of ATC positioning (once passing below and ahead of us, when ATC said they were behind going away)....... of course because of the lag in ATC radar didn't pick up his 180 turn. The wx radar does help in a way as you can see the interrogation traces come up. But does that paint the full picture. I don't know.
I applaud any improvements that could be made. Military have to practice, and one would like to think that they aren't all doing TC's Top Gun antics. Certainly in LATCC military are integrated with civilian controllers, but anyone caring to watch the North Sea area (Clacton) as I had the chance to, will realise the complexity of having to deal with everything from fat alberts, to dogfights overspilling out of DAs, low level around the Kent coast, all interspersed with civilian traffic.
Guess we'll still keep good lookout but frankly relative velocities at 900kts+???? What chances.

[Ghostflyer]

Stable,

Tosh! What is an 'illegal practice intercept' Years ago, there used to be a slot on flight plans that you could fill in asking to get 'embellished'. This meant that you wanted to be intercepted, not now.

FJs do not go looking for civilian aircraft to intercept, on all but about 10 of over 3000+ sorties in the UK FIR I had someone that was cooperating with me. i.e. We had agreed to meet so that I could carryout offensive maneuvring and he could perform his defensive tactics. An FJ mate really doesn't have any interest in meeting some mate that wants to fly straight and level; there is ZERO training value.

If there is civilian traffic in a play area at the same time as their playmates FJs will 'Haul Off' the strangers once the traffic is identified.

Think about it this way would you rather have someone who knows you are coming initiate an intercept but then abort it whilst maintaining separation. OR, would you prefer some mate who is clueless to just blunder through your path.

As an aside, separation is separation, 99.99999% of the time separation is maintained. When a civvy pilot or ATC makes a mistake it is seen as 'A professional error'. When an FJ pilot makes a mistake it is 'FJ Cowboys wazzing the FIR'.

The height of arrogance that I saw was the way in which some civil guys wouldn't recoqnise the confines of a MATZ and would only accept that it was like other airfields in the open FIR with a 2 mile circle; the rest advisory. Talk about lack of understanding! A Cessna 150 and a Tornado have slightly different performance. How would Heathrow feel if it was 'wazzed' by Cessna 150s? If an FJ mate gets within 10 miles of an 'advisory airway' the world is up in arms.

I am now a civvy pilot and I can understand how both parties make mistakes. If you are carrying out a demanding job, and like it or lump it, most modern civvy aviation isn't*, you are bound to make more mistakes. (*Apologies to North Sea Rotary Guys) In my new environment, it horrifies me how often 'professional pilots' screw up even the basic things.

What I see is the root cause of all of these problems is lack of understanding on both sides of the fence.

:) Ghost:)

[BlueEagle]

OK Ghost, I agree , you have nailed it, now, since the established lines of communication have obviously failed how shall we all go about setting up a suitable forum where both sides are properly represented on a , say, weekly basis.

Not a challenge, more a suggestion, but current methods are not working, it would seem?

If both military and civil were able to input their individual experiences immediately after a flight and suitably qualified personnel were able to co-ordinate and colate such information, in time for a WEEKLY meeting, then it is possible that some daylight may appear, there would be an on going line of communication and no complaint would get lost in the mire of bureaucratic mud.

So, how do we bring this about?

[canberra]

this what used to be put on flight plans by aircraft willing to be used as a target for ad aircraft to intercept. about 15 years ago a tornado intercepted a ba 757(it was under gci control by the way it wasnt the pilot having a bit of a laugh), the captain of the 757 wasnt happy at suddenly having a fighter on his port wing, so since then the practice has been stopped and the military only practice intercepts on military aircraft. as for fast jet pilots hours, well you spend 2 hours in a fighter cockpit and see what its like! and dont forget not all fighters in the uk are raf.

[411A]

Quite right canberra...and if the "others" just happen to be USAF, their actions are unpredictable at best, just as in the USA. For example....400knots low level through class B civvy airspace with no communication (to civvy ATC) and sometimes at night with no lights. Wonderful ain't it.
With all the military airspace available, one would at least expect that the FJ (and MV-22) guys would...stay there.:mad:

[Captain Stable]

Sorry, Ghost but it is not "tosh". Don't make the mistake of assuming that a civvy does not know what goes on in mil circles. Many civvy pilots have been there, have mates there, have worked closely with mil...

I have seen radar replays of what can only be practice intercepts of civilian aircraft. I have spoken to ATCOs who have watched two FJs formate astern of a civilian airliner and then peel off fast, overtakling as they do so. It happens. You may have never done so, nor know anyone who has. But to deny outright that it happens is tosh of the highest order and damages your other arguments.

You also mention the FJ's assumption that, if he sees the other aircraft, and can ensure separation, that is enough. It is not. Civvy pilots do not like having the sh!t scared out of their pax by suddenly seeing a fast jet peeling off. They do not like not knowing if the FJ mate has seen them or not. They do not like knowing that the civvy controller is unable to contact any mil unit responsible for the reported traffic. Mil pilots need to be aware of these - many, thanks to lack of communication, are not, and don't care, or don't think.

UK airspace is also used by many foreign mil units for training. These tend not to understand the rules here. Check the incident close to MAN not long ago. I also had a very close encounter with a Turkish F15 (I believe) which suddenly decided to climb hard right in my path, necessitating spilling a few drinks down the back.

I agree with your points regarding MATZs, or other ATZ's. Lack of professionalism by a Cessna driver does not justify breaches of the rules by anyone else. Remember that very few C152 pilots out there have any professional qualifications. Mil pilots do, and therefore have a higher burden of responsibility on their shoulders. If a Cherokee infringes a MATZ, then it is not terribly hard to "follow" the blip home and have a quiet word explaining to him what he's done, and suggest that the CFI at his club might like to ensure other PPLs know the rules.

Lastly, the latest UKAB Report makes very sobering reading for anyone in the FJ fraternity, as do the previous two reports. There is a serious problem out there, and it is getting worse, not better. It does not help to deny there is a problem, or simply to blame someone else. We need to find a solution, and the main component of that solution has to be communication - sharing information and resources.

[Ghostflyer]

Stable,

A question, when you were watching these radar replays was separation infringed and were the military pilots filed against or were they maintaining the separation required by law in VFR airspace. i.e, 1000' vertically. If they had maintained separation then they had employed the rules as dictated by regulation.

As I said earlier, they may have committed to an intercept and then hauled off once the target was identified. It can be very difficult to determine the identity of aircraft that are operating in close proximity even with the use of Airborne Interogators or Non Cooperative Recognition techniques. However, I do not accept your suggestion that Military aircraft, 'often' i.e. on a routine basis intentionally try to intercept civilian aircraft. That in your words, damages your other arguements, as laudable as they may be.

You might not like the regulations, however, if the military pilot is operating within those rules it is irresponsible to accuse them of unprofessionalism. They have not carried out anything 'illegal' if separation is maintained.

The most apposite statement that you came up with is:

There is also a very poor attitude on the part of some pilots on both sides of the mil/civil divide, insisting upon thinking of Class F/G airspace as "theirs". It is not.

Most Civil operators and ATC providers would love the entire overland portion of the UK FIR to be IFR airspace. That would be unacceptable to the military. I spent time working on the UK JFADT a NATS/Military discussion body looking at the future shape of UK airspace. Inevitably the ATC element were interested in solving their current tactical problems by adding 'fillets' of Class A airspace without regard to how that would effect the military or even other civil operators. They would then try to turn advisory airways into actual airways and offer airspace 250 miles or so from military Main Operating Bases as play areas. These play areas would not have been viable because of the time spent transiting, the lack of fuel on arrival and thus the extra money drawn from the tax payers purse.

The snag is that civil operators want to tie up the airspace around their airfields without offering any other airspace on a quid pro-quo basis. Until the military are offered airspace that is large enough for the kinematics of current fighter types for 'exclusive use', they will fight tooth and nail not to relinquish current VFR airspace. That is bad for both sides, military pilots really don't want to have to worry about 'strangers' drifting around the merge point as they close at 20 miles/minute. They want to carry out their tactical mission without interference from civil operators. Civil operators would prefer for the military to stay behind a red line on the map and to never meet them in the open.

Another recent development has been a trend by civil operators to reduce the cost of their operation by either flying to less fashionable airfields or even opening up new ones despite the availability of capacity at nearby fields. The shennanigans with Finningley spring to mind.

So what is the solution. Well the biggest problem is that there is not enough airspace for everyone and everyone wants to maintain their rights to use it. The CAA, NATS and the military need to get together and actually look at the problem strategically. Right now NATS just react to the demands of the aviation community irrespective of the feasibility of the proposals. The Civilians should be given the right to protected airspace around their airfields, as should the military. However, by taking a strategic view to ensure that some areas are available for military operations, it may be necessary to deny the rights of some civil operators to open airfields where ever they feel the whim. The bottom line is that we need a plan! Because of parochial concerns I am not convinced that the current bodies have the will to create one. Until this occurs from on high all that will happen is that everyone will try to put out the fires but without hiding the petrol.

Ghost

[Captain Stable]

The meaning of "often" depends, really on the context. I would call one a month, in this context, often. Would you disagree?

In the radar replays I have seen, and one or two other incidents I have discussed with one or two participants, separation was most definitely less than 1000 ft vertically and 5 miles horizontally.

Making all airspace over the UK IFR would not help anyone. Apart from anything else (skydiving, gliding, pleasure flights, etc. etc.) it would make training far too complicated for the flying schools. We would then be stuck with a major pilot shortage.

I strongly advocate a major reworking of the UK Airspace. This would not, of course, be anything like easy. But what we have at present is a system that does not adequately serve any of its users. But we need a military that can train adequately. Demand on civil air transportation are increasing and it is not satisfactory for large transport jets to have to go outside all protection of controlled airspace to reach significantly-sized regional airports.

In the meantime, we need to accept that there are some totally incompetent private pilots, that there are some unprofessional gung-ho minded FJ pilots, that there are some civil transport pilots who would serve the travelling public better by spending more time with their gardens, but also that the system needs to support all the above better than it does.

[Ghostflyer]

Stable,

5 miles horizontally! So these fast jets were intercepting these aircraft in controlled airspace! Yeah, I know its easy to throw stones. 'Often' is also a tricky word because I suspect that there are considerably more airmisses between civil aircraft in Class A airspace each month than there are mil/civ in the open FIR. I really don't want to get into a stats debate, it will add no value.

I am not defending all military pilots and like you I am certain that some break the rules in just the same way as some civilian pilots couldn't even spell SOP let alone follow them. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that not all pilots are as rule bound as others. We will never be able to stop overconfident individuals from what ever persuasion from carrying out foolish acts. I do disagree with emotive terms like 'buzzing' and 'gung-ho' which are familiar terms to the tabloid journalists that call a surge on Concorde, a near death experience. The vast majority of military aviators are totally professional in carrying out an extremely demanding role.

We all agree UK airspace needs to be reworked to reduce the chances of these incidents taking place. This forum is a talking shop and I think the discussions have been valuable. As moderator why not raise your concerns to the UK FJADT via NATS or the CAA. It can't hurt.

Ghost

[HugMonster]

I know of many "encounters" between military and civil aircraft both inside and outside CAS. I suspect that a lot of the trouble is that military pilots think that "If I can see it, I can miss it - what's the problem?" whilst the pax on your average Holsfortheprols flight are somewhat alarmed by seeing a Bureaufighter, Jaguar or whatever flash past at what looks like a distance of 5'6". Certainly, when a pair or more of FJ's are out playing, I am particularly nervous - if their eyes are on their mate, they aren't likely to be on me, so getting close to me worries me greatly.

I have as much right to be there as they do. But given their far greater speed and manouvrability, the onus is on them to stay WELL clear of me.

Perhaps it is time that ALL Class F and G airspace had a ruling ATCU, (e.g. Pennine for the Vale of York) and whenever anyone wants to play there they HAVE to maintain a listening watch on the relevant frequency?

[Captain Stable]

Ghost, when I referred to the separation as being less than 5 miles I did not intend to imply that this was inside controlled airspace.

What do you call "separation"? What do you consider safe? What distance do you consider it is appropriate for military jets to maintain from civilian transports?