Royal Near Miss........???
buoy15, the Safeguard System applies only to Royal Helicopter Flights and Selected Helicopter Flights. It does not apply to Royal Flights made by fixed wing aircraft.
Incidentally, civil pilots are only 'requested' to observe the separation from the Royal helicopter, so 501' from a clattering corgi-carrier is quite sufficient!
Incidentally, civil pilots are only 'requested' to observe the separation from the Royal helicopter, so 501' from a clattering corgi-carrier is quite sufficient!
Your auth sheet nonsense appears to be confusing typical service supervisory CMA-bull$hit with the actual legal requirements.
One very good reason why all military pilots applying for civil licences have to take an Air Law paper - so that they actually have to learn and apply the real rules and procedures, rather than some 'Mummy-knows-best' SOP...
One very good reason why all military pilots applying for civil licences have to take an Air Law paper - so that they actually have to learn and apply the real rules and procedures, rather than some 'Mummy-knows-best' SOP...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beages, maybe it is finally time for you to go and lie down.
From the UK SRD, the preferred route is:
DCS W911D IOM L10
Consequently, one must reiterate RD1's question about GAT cutting corners.
As an aside, I continue to be intrigued by ScOACC not providing a RAS to off-route traffic. Is this what is called "risk management"?
From the UK SRD, the preferred route is:
DCS W911D IOM L10
Consequently, one must reiterate RD1's question about GAT cutting corners.
As an aside, I continue to be intrigued by ScOACC not providing a RAS to off-route traffic. Is this what is called "risk management"?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe all the hullabuloo about an archaic 1930's system.
When will the RAF get into the 80, so it may progress into the '90s in preparation for the new millenium.
.
It wasn't a near miss - it was 3. > something F*ing miles!!
When will the RAF get into the 80, so it may progress into the '90s in preparation for the new millenium.
.
It wasn't a near miss - it was 3. > something F*ing miles!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buoy15 - Yes, familiar with the safeguard system. When I referred to 3 miles being standard seperation in some airspace, I wasn't suggesting that this would be applied to a Royal.
And yes the off-route GAT thing is becoming more and more of an issue, over the Irish Sea. How often do we see traffic cutting the corner from KELLY direct to NM or similar. Mentalists. Straight over the top of Warton for the sake of a few miles. Another good one is the growing number of DW inbounds that cruise at 180 E-W, north of Valley - where the base of the airway (the northern westbound bit) is 185! I bet a whole Jelly Baby they're still under Radar Control. Nice one chaps - It's Bandit Country and fair game
Later...
And yes the off-route GAT thing is becoming more and more of an issue, over the Irish Sea. How often do we see traffic cutting the corner from KELLY direct to NM or similar. Mentalists. Straight over the top of Warton for the sake of a few miles. Another good one is the growing number of DW inbounds that cruise at 180 E-W, north of Valley - where the base of the airway (the northern westbound bit) is 185! I bet a whole Jelly Baby they're still under Radar Control. Nice one chaps - It's Bandit Country and fair game
Later...
Purple Airspace - shurely one means Controlled Airspace Temporary (were the Corgi Carrier not in established CAS)?
Psychophysiological entity
_____________________________________
Wb's SATCO - don't be such a poof! Back when men were men and F4s ruled Wattisham, we did many an intercept on the 'Norwich Flier' flogging its way from Amshterdam to Naarch Airport!
_____________________________________
So! That was YOU was it?
Wb's SATCO - don't be such a poof! Back when men were men and F4s ruled Wattisham, we did many an intercept on the 'Norwich Flier' flogging its way from Amshterdam to Naarch Airport!
_____________________________________
So! That was YOU was it?
On many an occasion!
wb'sSATCO does sem to have taken my comments without the requisite pinch of salt though.
I used to get very cheesed off at ATCUs who tried to shunt us around the North Sea 'for co-ordination' in order for them to give a RAS to some corner-cutting airliner. Indeed, we had looks of incredulity at Wattisham from a visiting pair of Lightnings who learned that we had to go from Wattisham tower to Wattisham Approach to Eastern Radar to Neatishead just to get to the north coast of Norfolk! They wouldn't hear of such nonsense. Airborne on tower, then "Sqn discrete - GO" and that was that until they called Binbrook at Initials!
"What type of service do you require?" How tempting it used to be to say "Nothing - just shut up and let us get on with things our own way!"
wb'sSATCO does sem to have taken my comments without the requisite pinch of salt though.
I used to get very cheesed off at ATCUs who tried to shunt us around the North Sea 'for co-ordination' in order for them to give a RAS to some corner-cutting airliner. Indeed, we had looks of incredulity at Wattisham from a visiting pair of Lightnings who learned that we had to go from Wattisham tower to Wattisham Approach to Eastern Radar to Neatishead just to get to the north coast of Norfolk! They wouldn't hear of such nonsense. Airborne on tower, then "Sqn discrete - GO" and that was that until they called Binbrook at Initials!
"What type of service do you require?" How tempting it used to be to say "Nothing - just shut up and let us get on with things our own way!"
Last edited by BEagle; 13th Nov 2004 at 08:03.
BEagle, you say that you'd like us to shut up and let you get on with things your own way. Yes you have that right and we'd love to be able to! It's called going VFR, like your quoted Lightning mates. You didn't have to speak to Eastern Radar or Neatishead if you didn't want to. Unless it was written into your Fg Order Book? Unfortunately nowadays, if you elect to call ATC for a FIS all ATCOs now have this wonderous term, "duty of care" hanging over them and if any ATCO is deemed to have failed in his duty of care then unfortunately it's not a case of a hats on chat with no tea and biccies. If the poop really has hit the spinning object, then you'll wind up in court being done for negligence, man slaughter and heaven alone knows what else. THAT is why you may get more information than you actually want when you've asked for a FIS or a listening watch. That's not to say that there aren't ATCOs out there who do have a tendency to give their life story on the RT because there are; however, hopefully it might illustrate the kind of sh*t we have to put up with on a regular basis
whowhenwhy - perhaps, then, it's time the UK military adopted the same ATC and RTF procedures as the UK's majority airspace users?
Or perhaps we should bring back 'listening out on this' as the minimum 'service'? Quite often under FIS I just want ATC to STFU unless called......
So to get round it, I just say "Squawking 7000, to en-route, good day". And then just stay on the frequency with the volume turned down....
Or perhaps we should bring back 'listening out on this' as the minimum 'service'? Quite often under FIS I just want ATC to STFU unless called......
So to get round it, I just say "Squawking 7000, to en-route, good day". And then just stay on the frequency with the volume turned down....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - "perhaps, then, it's time the UK military adopted the same ATC and RTF procedures as the UK's majority airspace users?"
What a novel idea that the military should do anything so sensible in the interests of flight safety!!!!!!!!
What a novel idea that the military should do anything so sensible in the interests of flight safety!!!!!!!!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS don't establish any form of airspace for Royal Flights.
This is done by the Airspace Utilisation Section (a joint civil/MoD organisation but nothing to do with NATS) based on the requirement given to them by 32 (The Royal) Squadron (who are also nothing to do with NATS
). As already mentioned, if existing Controlled Airspace is already there, then this is used. If it is not Class A however, it will be upgraded to Class A for the periods stated in the NOTAM. This is to prevent VFR flight within the airspace.
NATS comes in to play, usually as the Controlling Authority if they have responsibility in the airspace concerned, or to advise AUS if the airspace designated has errors in it on receipt of the NOTAM.
This is done by the Airspace Utilisation Section (a joint civil/MoD organisation but nothing to do with NATS) based on the requirement given to them by 32 (The Royal) Squadron (who are also nothing to do with NATS
). As already mentioned, if existing Controlled Airspace is already there, then this is used. If it is not Class A however, it will be upgraded to Class A for the periods stated in the NOTAM. This is to prevent VFR flight within the airspace.NATS comes in to play, usually as the Controlling Authority if they have responsibility in the airspace concerned, or to advise AUS if the airspace designated has errors in it on receipt of the NOTAM.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Flew with a very nice co-pilot chappie who when asked by Lossie Radar "What kind of service do you require?"
Replied, "A good one!"
Nuff said
Aussie quote
"Stalling is an attitude problem"
Flew with a very nice co-pilot chappie who when asked by Lossie Radar "What kind of service do you require?"
Replied, "A good one!"
Nuff said
Aussie quote
"Stalling is an attitude problem"
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I understand that the Typhoons were under control at the time so no problem there!
