Prestwick: Controllers' bomb flights unease
 

BBC 28th July 2006
Some air traffic controllers at Prestwick have raised concerns about handling flights carrying bombs destined for Israel.

BBC Scotland has learned that staff were unhappy about dealing with the US planes because flight plans appeared to mention that there were bombs on board. Some of the 200 air traffic controllers said they were "very uncomfortable" handling certain aircraft. Unions have considered an approach to the management as a result.

One air traffic controller, who did not want to be identified, said: "We usually don't know the cargo that is on board but for some reason this one's flight plan was brazenly advertising it was carrying bombs. "People are very uncomfortable with that."

the article continues

So what does the nature of the freight have to do with ATC? I smell journos....

Doesn't it come down to procedures?
There was a suggestion in the media that the flight was reclassified from civil to military en route.
I suppose the US don't mind 'fessing to bombs but not detainees.

I agree. It's nothing to do with ATC what and who's on board. But I don't think PIK ATC are really taking action over this. Daily Mirror alert!

If ATC are aware that an aircraft with an emergency is carrying any dangerous cargo, then CAP 493 requires that the Rescue services are informed - not unreasonable!

As the BBC report mentions 200 ATCOs, that suggests to me that it is referring to Prestwick (Scottish) Centre, and not PIK ATC, who employ a somewhat smaller number of controllers!

I remember the B1/B-52 bombers arriving at Fairford with 'dangerous cargo' on the flight plan. You don't say!!!

I wondered if it is that they have moral reservations about handling flights carrying munitions which are to be dropped on defenceless civilians (such as I have)

Update from the BBC
Saturday, 29 July 2006, 00:19 GMT 01:19 UK

US President George Bush has apologised to Tony Blair for using Prestwick Airport to refuel planes carrying bombs to Israel, Mr Blair's spokesman says.

The spokesman said Mr Bush gave a "one-line" apology for the fact that proper procedures were not followed.

================
The point seems to be involving civilians in the trade of war materials between two 'third party' countries. Since the USAAAF have military bases, they could have used them for staging and, of course, not then have to declare the cargo. But, given the recent information on the way that the USA transported individuals on 'civilian' flights through UK airspace, it was probably time for some to protest. Especially since Blair won't.

Four innocent UN observers were killed by an errant Israeli missile the other day. You can't be happy working flights that have an itemised cargo of bombs on the flight plan heading out to Israel,regardless of what political viewpoint you may have on the situation.

Why not use Mildenhall or Lakenheath rather than a civil airfield?

I saw a copy of the flight plan for the flight in question and was quite shocked by the blatantness of the admission in the 'remarks' section.

It doesn't give you a particularly nice feeling thinking that the direct routing you may have given a certain flight, helped speed the 'bomb' (as quoted in 'remarks') on its merry way towards some innocent child.

I believe the Irish refused passage of the flight through their airspace.

If the press reports are correct - I repeat IF - are not some people at some ATCUs getting a little precious? Part of the job is handling military as well as civil flights - are they going to make some moral crusade out of the purpose behind every military flight? Or is "bringing home our brave boys from Iraq" acceptable, whereas carrying munitions is naughty?

2 Sheds - no not precious, this is just the gut reaction of myself and others.

From sitting in the restroom one moment, watching reports of what is happening in Lebanon, to then reading the flight plan information; as described, the next, leaves you with an uneasy feeling.

It's true that we do deal with a large number of military flights day in, day out. It is rare however to be faced with the indirect consequences of working one of these flights, especially when these consequences can be so brutal.

Whatever your views on the conflict in Lebanon, it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to picture where one of these bombs could land up, and thus, not be adversley affected by this.

So I take it you would also feel equally ill at ease should an Iranian aircraft travel through your sector, or come to that..anything from Syria. After all the Israeli's are losing innocent civilians as well. Before anyone tries to flame me..one innocent death on either side is too many. It does however seem rather precious from some of you...given that we never hear any of this in defense of Israel when they lose people:hmm:

I write this as someone who has been there and seen BOTH sides of it, and knows enough about the region, and its politics to realize that this guilt-ridden hand wringing angst..would'nt amount to a hill of beans if it was your house being flattened by a bomb/rocket from either side:hmm:

757manipulator - correct!

I would feel equally ill at ease if the flight was Syrian, Iranian or indeed a Hezbollah holiday charter.

I didn't and won't give my views on the wider issues of the area, and I don't have your first hand experience that comes from having been there. And thankfully, not having had such experience, I haven't become inured to violent actions, therefore I am still able to express shock when confronted with the information that I read.
I will only say that I believe that any violent actions, from which ever party, only inflame a terrible situation even further.

This is not an anti-Israeli rant.

The conflict can only be resolved by dialogue, and any further lives lost; on either side, are just more lives wasted.

My comments and feelings to do with the flight plan 'remarks' relate soley to that and nothing else.

So, bearing in mind that there have been thousands upon thousands of flights over the years into the UK carrying bombs, is it just that you 'knew' what was on that particular aircraft? If you didn't know (as usually these flights are annotated DAC (Dangerous Air Cargo, as are tins of paint!)) then ignorance is bliss and you wouldn't concern yourself?

BD

BDiONU - To a large extent - Yes.

I am quite aware that bad stuff happens all over the world every day, some of which is done in my name, by my government.

I am also fully aware that the aircraft that I control carry all manner of cargo and people (I am sure that there have been plenty of murderers, rapists and other equally unpleasant characters aboard many of the flights that have passed through my sectors), but you are very rarely confronted so directly with the potential consequences of this.

This is the point that I was making.

What you subsequently do with this information is your business. If you wish to make a strong moral point and refuse to work such traffic good luck to you (and good luck searching for further employment I don't doubt).

Personally, for better or worse, my own line in the moral sand is probably a bit further on and I wouldn't refuse to work such traffic, some of my colleagues obviously feel differently though.

To call this post 'hand wringing' is probably correct, but to casually dismiss the original information without thought, I think, is far worse.

Video of latest suspected flights c/o BBC - see other thread below:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...18#post2746718

Don't know if the said controllers are reputed to be PIK or Atlantic House but either regularly control UK and other national military aircraft including combat and cargo. Most who know PIK will recall the massive US deployments in 1999 for the Kosovo campaign (C5's especially). These a/c were no doubt carrying munitions. Did the controllers think then that the bombs dropped on Kosovo didn't or couldn't kill children or does it depend whose 'side' we are on?

Doesn't anybody remember that rather than defending ourselves from incoming missiles, the UK invaded Iraq, a sovereign country (not a political statement but a legal one!). The logical extension of any 'unease' about handling military munition-bearing flights would be to refuse to deal with any military, including RAF and those training the pilots to drop the bombs (i'm sure the RAF's bombs hurt just as much!).

Let's not get carried away with the C4 News 'Arab good-Israel bad' line.

Anyway, here's a theory...

Why did the US military use civilian cargo flights, routed through civilian airports? They have military airlift capability and military airfields where a zero 'footprint' can be maintained.

Why were the flight plans visible (CFMU etc) and explicit in terms of content (I have seen similar plans and exemptions (not these particular ones) and they are generally vague)?

Why did the route necessitate a fuel stop in PIK? Could they not have routed thru Bangor and direct to Tel Aviv or tech stop in KEF with lower visibility?

Answer:

Either they were simply put out to civilian contractor and none of this was anticipated or

They had every intention of the world knowing what was being supplied and they could rely on the reactionary British Press to do the publicity for them.

If the intention was to send a message, then who to?

Hezbullah....maybe? Israel is hitting their underground bunkers and 'we want you to know that there are plenty where they came from'!

but who else has installations hidden underground?

Iran! Having learned from the Iraq raid in the '80's, their nuclear installations are underground.

Maybe the message is to Iran?; 'we have bombs that can reach you underground and we are giving them to the guys who are prepared and capable of using them'!

I usually assume that these things (the publicity) don't happen by accident.

Safety is an issue
 

Leaving aside the politics - I think one fundamental aspect is being missed here. Were the flights handled in accordance with the airport's protocols for handling dangerous goods? And just what are those protocols? Should such cargos be parked on a ramp that is in close proximity to a passenger terminal?

Just maybe the concern of the ATCOs is for their PERSONAL safety. Many of them must live fairly close by and they certainly work within what might be regarded as an uncomfortably close distance.

If they don't like it, they can join the demo today:

See BBC item linked in other thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post2748176

'Just maybe the concern of the ATCOs is for their PERSONAL safety. Many of them must live fairly close by and they certainly work within what might be regarded as an uncomfortably close distance.'

I'm sorry, IMHO, that's a pathetic statement and you clearly have no idea of the science behind today's modern weapons.

With comments like that, you should be working for the Daily Mail.

Phew, rant over!

Not all Prestwick ATCOs are feeling uneasy about working these a/c. I'm not nor have I heard any declarations of "uneasiness".
Hezbollah and their kind nearly brought our industry to it's knees, they've stated their wish to destroy the western way of life. I don't give a monkeys what Mr Anwar thinks, it's obvious where his loyalties lie.

Oh really, mr/ms 'joined today post count 1'... Where have you been all this time???

Not to say that makes your views, whoever you may be, any less valid. However, most of the "uneasiness" I have encountered has been expressed in the form of expletives directed at the ":mad: Yanks" or ":mad: Isrealis" for shipping their bombs through here.

Several of us, although you're apparently not amongst that number, don't feel particularly comfortable about giving a load of ordnance safe, orderly and expeditious handling on its way to perhaps being used to blow some women and kids to bits who just so happened to be in the wrong place, if you can indeed call their own homes the "wrong place", at the wrong time.

But that aside, we do give said ordnance safe, orderly and expeditious handling despite that fact and have to sleep at night in the knowledge of having done so.

Furthermore, if Syria/Iran were shipping katoosha rockets through Prestwick for Hezbo' I'd be hearing a great deal more of ":mad: Syrians" and ":mad: Iranians".

[quote=rab-k]Oh really, mr/ms 'joined today post count 1'... Where have you been all this time???

My first post, yes, because I felt that I was being represented without anyone asking my opinion.
The lunatic fringe at the airport today felt no need to denigrate Hezbollah, I can only surmise they support them, and therefore support their policy of launching attacks while using local Lebanese as a shield. Between that and reading todays papers about the "secret" FPLs and all that guff it gets a bit tiresome. No hard feelings Rab but we're all entitled to our opinions,
I felt the need to give mine. I have no problems with these flights and while there may be some among my colleagues who don't like the situation they most certainly have not declared their "uneasiness".

ayr..ATCer.

My unease manifested itself in my being distracted, albeit for a short period, by a feeling of anxiety about the end use of the bombs being carried by the aircraft I was controlling, whose cargo had just been brought to my attention.

Not being a head-shrink and therefore being unable to categorise the experience in a medical sense, I maintain that what I experienced for a short time was a sense of unease. This feeling reappeared whilst driving past one of these aircraft on the way home and it has remained at the back of my mind ever since.

Sure, such flights go on all the time and I have no problem with the use of such weapons against 'military' targets. However, when I read/hear about incidents like Qana, I can't help but wonder if the bombs used were on those flights.

The word "uneasiness" was presumably used by the journo concerned to describe the feelings of the ATCO/ATSA they themselves talked to. I'd say it is pretty well in the ball-park as to how I feel so chalk me up to not liking the situation and thereby declaring my "uneasiness".

Welcome to PPRuNe by the way:) .

Whilst some controllers may be 'uneasy' about the final destination of any 'hazardous cargo', I would hope all would want to know the cargo was hazardous so their actions could be 'informed' in an amergency in UK airspace.
Otherwise, why do we have statutory notification procedures?
I am sure the Fire Service (and a few others) would like a 'heads up' on the fact that several kilotonnes of bunker buster bombs was heading earthwards in a civilian-registered cargo plane. (also some could have depleted uranium tips!)

AyrshireATCer

Thank you for your opinion. Well done - very gungho, very macho:)

Can I just test the depth of your ease?

How at ease would you be if (hypotheticaly) it was confirmed that one of the bombs that was on board one of these flights that you had given a nice direct routing to (and wished a hearty 'good-day' to), had been used on Qana, killing those children?

Would that give you a warm, rosey glow inside?

Or, taken to its extreme...

Imagine an Israeli air force F16 stopping off at Prestwick, fresh from a shopping trip to the U.S., with a nice batch of shiney, new cluster bombs mounted under each wing.

The F16 departs Prestwick, you ident it and give it climb. You then notice that the destination code on the strip reads 'ZZZZ' and there is no routing info. beyond DCS.

You query the pilot (should I send it to SUBUK or LAKEY)?

He absent-mindedly declares that his destination is a small place near Beirut (anytown, Lebanon),to do a low approach and go around; whilst also dropping his cluster bombs (by the way), before heading back to Lod Air Force Base. He also gives his e.t.a. for destination.

You thank him, re-route him via NEW, then; to help him out (he was very polite), you route him direct to OTR.

You give him to Montrose.

Job well done.

A few hours later you are in the restroom.
You are watching live coverage of the conflict in Lebanon on BBC News 24.
You casually glance at your watch - you realise your break has just come to an end.
You are just leaving the restroom when suddenly your attention is drawn back to the TV.
The live broadcast is violently interrupted by dozens of explosions reigning down on the small town featured in the broadcast.
You suddenly realise that this is the town that the F16 pilot had mentioned and; what is more, he is a couple of minutes early on his e.t.a.!

As the cameraman pans over the scene of devastation and mutilated corpses are you thinking, '2hit! I'm glad I gave him that direct routing, otherwise I would have missed all the action'??

Still sleeping comfortably at night??

Or are you beginning to feel something now?

Before anyone jumps down my throat, calling me an anti-Semite or similar, feel free to substitute a Syrian/Iranian Mig for an F16 and a town in Israel. I still wouldn't be at 'ease' with the situation.

In the US it is normal for ANY flight that is carrying explosives of any kind to have it in remarks of the flight plan so that the controllers can inform emergency services in the event of an aircraft emergency. There is nothing blatant about it, it is what we do... We do this with both mil and civil...

regards

Scott

Wow such flaming... Y'all didn't seem to mind shipments to the UK when you were going to the Falklands... :ugh:

But those shipments were not being dropped on innocent children !!!! :mad:

Scott

My reaction to the situation was pretty much along the lines of what rab-k describes (as stated in previous posts).

We all know '2hit happens' and people get hurt.

But to casually brush it off without a second thought... I find mistifying:confused:

'P-P'

I guess ayr...ATCer can make that 2 chalked up on the "uneasiness" tally.

Scott - I recall us having enough 'dumb bombs' of our own to do the job, but the SHAR boys found the AIM-9L Sidewinders most helpful, thank you!

Again, I have no problem with legitimate 'military' targets, but soft civilian targets, whatever the excuse, are unacceptable - on both sides!

This all reminds me of the night before the 1967 Six Day War started, when an Israeli military Stratocruiser (freight conversion) landed at RAF Waddington presumably to pick up assorted weaponry. It departed in the early hours via Rome. All presumably with the connivance of HMG, unless a local Milo Minderbinder was doing some sort of deal. Not sure which party was in power. How do I know this? I saw the flight plans.

Thread Drift Warning!!!

I see the similarly themed "Prestwick" thread on 'JB' has 'disappeared'.

With that in mind, perhaps we'd better stick to the theme of "uneasiness" of those in ATC re. what they find they may be controlling on a day to day basis, in particular the 'bomb flights' being discussed here.

Incidentally, the only other time I have felt similar unease was when working the Fuerza Aérea de Chile 'getaway car' with a certain Gen Pinochet sat down the back. :mad:

Pheasant Plucker, I am not losing any sleep unless you're questioning my professionalism by routing said a/c direct without coordinating.
Horrendous things happen on a daily basis all over the world, I don't feel I have any great importance to affect the outcome. Those that do - carry on trying, you'll be a while.

I don't see what the big deal is with this. Its going to happen anyways no matter what you do. It's like saying everybody in Britain has helped innocent children die in Iraq because we pay our taxes, or that because a guy works in a factory that makes transistors that eventually end up in F16 avionics he is somehow responsible for the innocent lives that the F16 will claim.

Its going to happen no matter what you do!

IMHO you guys are missing the point. Nobody is disputing the fact that your average humble ATCO is powerless to prevent/disrupt these flights even if they wished to do so. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.

However, with that in mind, it does NOT prevent your average humble ATCO from taking the view that they do not feel comfortable controlling US arms supply flights making pit-stops at UK Civil/USAF/RAF aerodromes with weapons which the IDF have a nasty habit of dropping on unarmed civilians whilst supposedly attempting to take out the 'bad guys'.

I believe that was what we were discussing. Not whether I nor anyone else in our business can do anything about it in the context of our occupation.

If the IDF want to use a kind of 'scorched-earth' policy to create a 'buffer zone', cleansed of its resident civilian population amongst which Hezbo' guerrillas could operate, then there ain't a great deal I can do about it. But it doesn't mean that I enjoy, in my own insignificant and indirect way, feeling a part of that process.

Finally, in returning to the main focus of this thread, could I therefore declare my "uneasiness" duly declared!

I hear that today's flights went thru Mildenhall. They should have put them all thru there in the first place.

Scott



Ronnie Reagan couldn't see the sense in fighting over "a bunch of rocks" and had to be persuaded as to where the loyalty of the US should lie.

It appears that Dubya has NO doubt where the US sympathies should lie and as such Olmert has another 13 or so days left to kill Lebanese civilians.

The whole damn thing is immoral....