BALPA/GATCO Forum 2005 - The Safety of Public Transport Flights Outside CAS
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP670
Gosh, is that what they're supposed to do ?
When do they start ?
Safety_Helmut
Defence Aviation Safety Centre - to quote "an established tri-Service policy, regulation and auditing body within MoD Central Staffs that acts as the executive arm of the Defence Aviation Safety Board and is the MoD focus for pan-Defence Aviation Safety issues "
When do they start ?
Safety_Helmut
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Biggin Hill
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I think there are 11 MDAs altogether, 323A-E (but D and E don't really count on their own) along with 613 A-C and the 712(?) complex up north that is only really used for large exercises.
However, the point made by deliverance is correct insofar as the requirement for overland trg is concerned; even I know that you can't practise LL overland flying over the sea, and the one area of Class G conflict that repeatedly comes up on these forums is that of the Operational* Training Area Echo, with the stream of civilian ac routing between Newcastle and Aberdeen at or around FL200, irrespective of the publication of ACNs NOTAMs and tactical information passed between controllers.
The problem is that the airlines continually demonstrate poor airmanship by ploughing straight through the middle of notified activity when an early 20 degree turn would enable everyone to get what they require without upset. One thing I would say, a bit contentious though it may be, is that we do seem occasionally to get mil crews who think that they have the right to require the civvy stuff to get out of what they consider to be mil airspace (it is not, of course as it is Class G). The booking of an OTA is simply a way of reducing the number of 1 Gp AD formations operating in there at any one time.
BA
*OTAs = originally Overland Training Areas, but changed to Operational Training Areas about 7 years ago.
However, the point made by deliverance is correct insofar as the requirement for overland trg is concerned; even I know that you can't practise LL overland flying over the sea, and the one area of Class G conflict that repeatedly comes up on these forums is that of the Operational* Training Area Echo, with the stream of civilian ac routing between Newcastle and Aberdeen at or around FL200, irrespective of the publication of ACNs NOTAMs and tactical information passed between controllers.
The problem is that the airlines continually demonstrate poor airmanship by ploughing straight through the middle of notified activity when an early 20 degree turn would enable everyone to get what they require without upset. One thing I would say, a bit contentious though it may be, is that we do seem occasionally to get mil crews who think that they have the right to require the civvy stuff to get out of what they consider to be mil airspace (it is not, of course as it is Class G). The booking of an OTA is simply a way of reducing the number of 1 Gp AD formations operating in there at any one time.
BA
*OTAs = originally Overland Training Areas, but changed to Operational Training Areas about 7 years ago.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a no win situation for either side of course.
However, if us 'civvies' notamed GAT activity from NEW to ADN daily 10NM wide between 0900-2100 from say FL155 to FL245 .. would that help ??
There also seems to be an emphasis on Low Level training ... is FL155+ Low Level in Mil parlance ?? Or do the Muds realistically pull up to that and beyond in evasive tactics ?? Serious question, cos I have never seen it (but then am not looking H24 for examples).
BigginAgain
To be fair, a lot of NOTAMs seem to specify half of the Western hemisphere (e.g JMC, TLP, NATINADS, etc, etc). I have sympathy with operators ignoring avoidance of 2,600+ square miles of airspace when there are only formations of up to 10 jets expected.
On the mil side, it is not fair to specify a smaller piece of airspace since weather can dictate you need to fly otherwise, but on the civvie side avoiding all Class G in the UK FIR is equally stupid.
Maybe we should invade Canada and use it ??
Deliverance
Do keep up lad, it's been 7 years as mentioned by your colleague
However, if us 'civvies' notamed GAT activity from NEW to ADN daily 10NM wide between 0900-2100 from say FL155 to FL245 .. would that help ??
There also seems to be an emphasis on Low Level training ... is FL155+ Low Level in Mil parlance ?? Or do the Muds realistically pull up to that and beyond in evasive tactics ?? Serious question, cos I have never seen it (but then am not looking H24 for examples).
BigginAgain
The problem is that the airlines continually demonstrate poor airmanship by ploughing straight through the middle of notified activity when an early 20 degree turn would enable everyone to get what they require without upset
On the mil side, it is not fair to specify a smaller piece of airspace since weather can dictate you need to fly otherwise, but on the civvie side avoiding all Class G in the UK FIR is equally stupid.
Maybe we should invade Canada and use it ??
Deliverance
Do keep up lad, it's been 7 years as mentioned by your colleague
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't disagree with you.
However, the LOTAs only appear on military charts. Does the 'L' stand for Low Level ??, in which case maybe it needs to be changed if it also covers the Middle Air, although with the Dumfries one you have no chance of that, for the majority of the area covered in the Middle Air would be in CAS. They also seem (on the charts) to have no specified vertical dimensions, and they are certainly not promulgated in any of the MoD or CAA blurb available to civvie pilots concerning awareness of Military flying activities.
Not too surprising then that no one on the civvie side has a clue about them when they are mentioned.
Perhaps a good excuse for a chat and some beers at the MCASD in October at Leuchars ??
However, the LOTAs only appear on military charts. Does the 'L' stand for Low Level ??, in which case maybe it needs to be changed if it also covers the Middle Air, although with the Dumfries one you have no chance of that, for the majority of the area covered in the Middle Air would be in CAS. They also seem (on the charts) to have no specified vertical dimensions, and they are certainly not promulgated in any of the MoD or CAA blurb available to civvie pilots concerning awareness of Military flying activities.
Not too surprising then that no one on the civvie side has a clue about them when they are mentioned.
Perhaps a good excuse for a chat and some beers at the MCASD in October at Leuchars ??
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should invade Canada and use it ??
The problem there is, apart from somewhat unrepresentative terrain, and frequent poor (read fcuking freezing) weather, is the Canadian propensity to slap a 20-mile avoid on any shagging moose.
We can achieve some things in Canada (winter training being one) but not everything.
On spatially large notams, alot of civ operators do not realise the sheer amount of airspace a fast jet needs, both horizontally and vertically, to perform high-energy manoeuvres. A formation requires even more space. To ignore notams and get in the way of that is sheer madness.
16B
Guest
Posts: n/a
OTAs
As a ScATCC (Mil) controller who alternately provides RIS to the AD or Mudmovers during their operations in OTA E should Boulmer be unavailable, and the provision of RAS to EZE (Eastflight) EGNT to EGPD and back - the difficulties of combining both are manifest. To the Mil ATC world there appear to be a number of areas of conflict:
1. The OTAs are not published (to my knowledge) in any civil publication, which seems a gross error by HQSTC as an area set aside by the RAF for such high energy manoeuvres should be published - knowledge aids safety!
2. The very fact of USAF/RAF crews booking and using the OTAs may give the impression that although it is Class G airspace - there is an elemnent of exclusivity about it. Hence when the crews involved are under RIS in a high workload environment and the 'strangers' are being called in - I can understand the view that may be expressed by them; "Why can't they fly in the Class A CAS!". But it is Class G, and if HQSTC want fastjets to undertake essential training of this sort then the obvious thing seems to be to negotiate properly for a defined area similar to the MDAs that is booked in advance, and operates under the Flexible Use of Airspace - when not active anyone can fly through.
3. When I am controlling a Jetstream inbound/outbound from EGNT under a RAS, and I try to co-ordinate with Boulmer reagrding one or more of the OTA aircraft - the response is "Their under RIS 250ft to FL245 - I'll call you in"! Their is no way of avoiding an F3 or GR4 with a Jetstream! Yet I have to endeavour to obtain 3000ft or 5nms separation! In passing when we provide the Lakenheath F15s with a RIS in the OTA E they are very amenable to adjusting their FL/Altitude block or moving slightly further west while the Jetstream is moved further east - even feet wet.
I am a long term member of GATCO, and this Pilot ATCO Forum is anexcellent chance for the various views to be aired. In conclusion - statisticians would say that the probability of a mid-air collision is reducing for every day that one does not occur. I am sure the pilots amongst you are as keen as I that this does not happen. I do not want to the controller of the JS41 with all those passengers that has just had a mid-air even though I may be blameless as I did all that I was capable of doing to try and avoid the military traffic.
HQSTC/CAA DAP please, get your act in gear and lets sort this out before the unthinkable happens.
1. The OTAs are not published (to my knowledge) in any civil publication, which seems a gross error by HQSTC as an area set aside by the RAF for such high energy manoeuvres should be published - knowledge aids safety!
2. The very fact of USAF/RAF crews booking and using the OTAs may give the impression that although it is Class G airspace - there is an elemnent of exclusivity about it. Hence when the crews involved are under RIS in a high workload environment and the 'strangers' are being called in - I can understand the view that may be expressed by them; "Why can't they fly in the Class A CAS!". But it is Class G, and if HQSTC want fastjets to undertake essential training of this sort then the obvious thing seems to be to negotiate properly for a defined area similar to the MDAs that is booked in advance, and operates under the Flexible Use of Airspace - when not active anyone can fly through.
3. When I am controlling a Jetstream inbound/outbound from EGNT under a RAS, and I try to co-ordinate with Boulmer reagrding one or more of the OTA aircraft - the response is "Their under RIS 250ft to FL245 - I'll call you in"! Their is no way of avoiding an F3 or GR4 with a Jetstream! Yet I have to endeavour to obtain 3000ft or 5nms separation! In passing when we provide the Lakenheath F15s with a RIS in the OTA E they are very amenable to adjusting their FL/Altitude block or moving slightly further west while the Jetstream is moved further east - even feet wet.
I am a long term member of GATCO, and this Pilot ATCO Forum is anexcellent chance for the various views to be aired. In conclusion - statisticians would say that the probability of a mid-air collision is reducing for every day that one does not occur. I am sure the pilots amongst you are as keen as I that this does not happen. I do not want to the controller of the JS41 with all those passengers that has just had a mid-air even though I may be blameless as I did all that I was capable of doing to try and avoid the military traffic.
HQSTC/CAA DAP please, get your act in gear and lets sort this out before the unthinkable happens.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HQSTC/CAA DAP please, get your act in gear and lets sort this out before the unthinkable happens
Unfortunately....many of the top neddies in DAP being ex-military ATCOs seem to base their views on the provision of RAS to civil airliners (and thus, official policy) on their military experience of doing the same for military aircraft.
Notwithstanding the 'advice' and 'guidance' that the UK CAA puts out, the fact is that your average Boeing 737, Dash-8 or Regional Jet with fare-paying punters down the back - especially if the seat belt signs aren't switched on - isn't going to make a 45 deg or more bank angle turn in response to an 'avoiding action' call from ATC. Apart from anything else, the aircraft's inertia won't provide the necessary immediate change of track anyway.
Now before you fast-jet drivers lock onto my car with your infrared, if flying in Class G and mixing it with fast jets and also light civvies is not such a potential hazard for 'heavy transport' aircraft, please explain why Brize and Lyneham have the benefit of Class D controlled airspace...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting, and reasonably cogent (for once), discussion.
Referring to raytofclimb's comments, I can confirm that during the specific exercise of which he speaks (TLT), jets routing Aberdeen to Newcastle were frequently offered EARLY turns by Boulmer as a means of staying clear of known activity hot spots, but declined. We do not ask 737s and similar to take avoiding action turns to keep clear of AD activity, but a small early turn along with a statement that we'll do our best to keep the F3s overland, if you can route your regional transport over the sea is often declined - surely this would be safer than blindly pressing on? That said, doesn't the term 'see and avoid' imply that all participants are keeping a good lookout and prepared to take whatever action is necessary to stay safe? Sorry, but if that means you need to take an avoiding action, PLEASE DO SO. If you are not prepared to avoid, than take the CAS route, especially if I'm down the back!
Pprune Radar. If the OTAs (they are not LOTAs as explained earlier) are not shown on civ maps then I have a degree of sympathy for people not understanding what we are talking about. However, they do not in themselves imply any additional requirement for civ users, because they deconflict mil-mil activity (not the issue here). The OTAs are not booked through MABCC, and information on users and bookings is not published to the general public. I don't agree with rafman51's statement that this is 'a gross error by HQ STC', because, when necessary, ACNs are published detailing significant activity such as that mentioned above by raytofclimb. I agree that often these (eg JMCs) promulgate airspace for much greater areas and times than is actually required; some people think this is 'crying wolf', but how many users contact the originator to find out when or where the next event or wave will be prior to getting airborne and going through the middle? Incidentally, I am pretty sure the Americans do not have any means of booking OTAs, neither would they be allowed to under the current rules.
rafman51; you are in a privileged position of seeing both sides if the coin, providing services to mil AD and Civ AT flights. Just out of interest, to what extent do you in-brief with AD crews before working them and how often do they call you or you call them with debrief points? What degree of tactical control do you apply, or is it purely ATC Services?
Finally, because I haven't half rambled on, BigginAgain's plan to make OTA E into an MDA will not work under the existing rules for MDAs because most of the activity in OTA E would not qualify for Segregated Status under the terms of the CAP. Nice idea though. Perhaps OTA E should be designated an AIAA? Doesn't really compare with the Wash AIAA of the early 90s - that WAS intense!
Incidentally, if any of the regional airways crews are interested in seeing things from our side (without the benefit of windows!) drop me a PM and I will see what I can do.
STH
Referring to raytofclimb's comments, I can confirm that during the specific exercise of which he speaks (TLT), jets routing Aberdeen to Newcastle were frequently offered EARLY turns by Boulmer as a means of staying clear of known activity hot spots, but declined. We do not ask 737s and similar to take avoiding action turns to keep clear of AD activity, but a small early turn along with a statement that we'll do our best to keep the F3s overland, if you can route your regional transport over the sea is often declined - surely this would be safer than blindly pressing on? That said, doesn't the term 'see and avoid' imply that all participants are keeping a good lookout and prepared to take whatever action is necessary to stay safe? Sorry, but if that means you need to take an avoiding action, PLEASE DO SO. If you are not prepared to avoid, than take the CAS route, especially if I'm down the back!
Pprune Radar. If the OTAs (they are not LOTAs as explained earlier) are not shown on civ maps then I have a degree of sympathy for people not understanding what we are talking about. However, they do not in themselves imply any additional requirement for civ users, because they deconflict mil-mil activity (not the issue here). The OTAs are not booked through MABCC, and information on users and bookings is not published to the general public. I don't agree with rafman51's statement that this is 'a gross error by HQ STC', because, when necessary, ACNs are published detailing significant activity such as that mentioned above by raytofclimb. I agree that often these (eg JMCs) promulgate airspace for much greater areas and times than is actually required; some people think this is 'crying wolf', but how many users contact the originator to find out when or where the next event or wave will be prior to getting airborne and going through the middle? Incidentally, I am pretty sure the Americans do not have any means of booking OTAs, neither would they be allowed to under the current rules.
rafman51; you are in a privileged position of seeing both sides if the coin, providing services to mil AD and Civ AT flights. Just out of interest, to what extent do you in-brief with AD crews before working them and how often do they call you or you call them with debrief points? What degree of tactical control do you apply, or is it purely ATC Services?
Finally, because I haven't half rambled on, BigginAgain's plan to make OTA E into an MDA will not work under the existing rules for MDAs because most of the activity in OTA E would not qualify for Segregated Status under the terms of the CAP. Nice idea though. Perhaps OTA E should be designated an AIAA? Doesn't really compare with the Wash AIAA of the early 90s - that WAS intense!
Incidentally, if any of the regional airways crews are interested in seeing things from our side (without the benefit of windows!) drop me a PM and I will see what I can do.
STH
Guest
Posts: n/a
In reply to SirToppamHat's commenst. When ScATCC (Mil) provide an ATC RIS to AD aircraft operating within the OTA E their is no 'in-brief' with the crews other than: where they wish to operate, that they require a descrete frequency, and the FL/Altitude block. The out-brief on conclusion isn't - unless an incident occurs!
A point that needs raising here is 'DUTY OF CARE' (DOC). This a factor that has a direct bearing on the responsibilities of: the Controllers; the pilots; the policy makers.
1. For the Controller. Even when providing a RIS to AD aircraft the DOC aspect requires that:
a. If their is an aircraft in confliction with the AD aircraft under service - then as well as giving traffic information on the conflicting aircraft a possible solution can be offered "Will you accept not above FL220" or "Can you accept no further east than your present position" - this will then enable the Military controller to try and co-ordinate with the controller of the conflictor.
b. If the AD or Mudmover aircraft in the OTA can not accept any restriction - then all the controller can do is keep calling the conflicting traffic.
2. For the pilot. I have great sypathy for the military pilots regarding the OTA - they have very important training to do, and it surely can not be outwith the intelligence of the poicy makers to find an overland area that can be segregated for use during specified hours for high energy manoeuvring military aircraft. Until this enlightened day arrives - we have to deal with what we are dealt. The problem is that not all CAT flights are necessarily just trying to cut corners. Air Ambulance flights have been the subject of a series of incidents when flying outside CAS on direct tracks on task. The area that has caused them most problems is north and north west of the airway P600, and it is during the major exercises that problems occur. When pilots are operating at the lower levels of their level block - they are invariably below radar and equally important R/T cover. Consequently should such a CAT aircraft be transiting the area - no warning can be given to the low level aircraft until they may be climbing at a high rate of climb - and it is all too late. My point is that the aircrew involved need to be amenable to adjusting their area or level block slightly so that for a period of time an aircraft can transit their operating area until the military pilots call that they are visual with the CAT and take their own separation.
3. Policy Makers. I have to say that enough has been said in a number of forums regarding this whole topic - yet the policy makers hide behind the definitions of RAS and RIS. If, god forbid, a mid-air occurs - then are the policy makers not going to be in the legal firing line in failing to grasp the nettle and sort out what, surely, is not rocket science to create segregated areas over land - for the information of all, and ultimately the protection of all.
In closing - we all Controllers, military pilots, CAT pilots, GA pilots, and policy makers MUST move away from our own comfort zone and make real efforts to see the problems of the other sides of the arguement. Shouting about Class G being for everybody when for the military pilot he is meaning it's miltary is not going to solve the issue - just harden entrenched positions.
A point that needs raising here is 'DUTY OF CARE' (DOC). This a factor that has a direct bearing on the responsibilities of: the Controllers; the pilots; the policy makers.
1. For the Controller. Even when providing a RIS to AD aircraft the DOC aspect requires that:
a. If their is an aircraft in confliction with the AD aircraft under service - then as well as giving traffic information on the conflicting aircraft a possible solution can be offered "Will you accept not above FL220" or "Can you accept no further east than your present position" - this will then enable the Military controller to try and co-ordinate with the controller of the conflictor.
b. If the AD or Mudmover aircraft in the OTA can not accept any restriction - then all the controller can do is keep calling the conflicting traffic.
2. For the pilot. I have great sypathy for the military pilots regarding the OTA - they have very important training to do, and it surely can not be outwith the intelligence of the poicy makers to find an overland area that can be segregated for use during specified hours for high energy manoeuvring military aircraft. Until this enlightened day arrives - we have to deal with what we are dealt. The problem is that not all CAT flights are necessarily just trying to cut corners. Air Ambulance flights have been the subject of a series of incidents when flying outside CAS on direct tracks on task. The area that has caused them most problems is north and north west of the airway P600, and it is during the major exercises that problems occur. When pilots are operating at the lower levels of their level block - they are invariably below radar and equally important R/T cover. Consequently should such a CAT aircraft be transiting the area - no warning can be given to the low level aircraft until they may be climbing at a high rate of climb - and it is all too late. My point is that the aircrew involved need to be amenable to adjusting their area or level block slightly so that for a period of time an aircraft can transit their operating area until the military pilots call that they are visual with the CAT and take their own separation.
3. Policy Makers. I have to say that enough has been said in a number of forums regarding this whole topic - yet the policy makers hide behind the definitions of RAS and RIS. If, god forbid, a mid-air occurs - then are the policy makers not going to be in the legal firing line in failing to grasp the nettle and sort out what, surely, is not rocket science to create segregated areas over land - for the information of all, and ultimately the protection of all.
In closing - we all Controllers, military pilots, CAT pilots, GA pilots, and policy makers MUST move away from our own comfort zone and make real efforts to see the problems of the other sides of the arguement. Shouting about Class G being for everybody when for the military pilot he is meaning it's miltary is not going to solve the issue - just harden entrenched positions.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rafman51, firstly, I want to emphasise that I asked about pre-briefing solely out of interest, and was not trying to make a point.
I don't disagree with what you are saying in general.
ASACS controllers providing a FIS have, where possible (ie when there is radar cover), additionally to pass traffic information where they consider that there is a definite risk of collision. This has been the case for at least 15 years, but is only now starting to be seen as appropriate by other controllers under what you describe as DOC.
I am concerned that some ATCOs seem to believe that they have some sort of non-deviating status under a RAS, and there is also some evidence of 'Flight Strip Focus', where ac calls for change of height or heading iaw flightplan, controller checks strip, sees it is so and approves the change apparently without reference to other activity in the UIR. I have even heard one supervisor say that the controller is effectively providing a 'RIS in the Upper Air' but perhaps that's one for another day.
If Flight Safety is an absolute priority for the civilian operators, there is absolutely no need for ac to transit through such large areas of Class G when Class A exists. I acknowledge their right to do so, but Regarding Class D, I don't see any problem with creation of CTAs and CTZs around major airprots to enable ac to join the Class A system. Would this improve things in the Borders? I doubt it, because time is money, and routing direct saves both.
STH
I don't disagree with what you are saying in general.
ASACS controllers providing a FIS have, where possible (ie when there is radar cover), additionally to pass traffic information where they consider that there is a definite risk of collision. This has been the case for at least 15 years, but is only now starting to be seen as appropriate by other controllers under what you describe as DOC.
I am concerned that some ATCOs seem to believe that they have some sort of non-deviating status under a RAS, and there is also some evidence of 'Flight Strip Focus', where ac calls for change of height or heading iaw flightplan, controller checks strip, sees it is so and approves the change apparently without reference to other activity in the UIR. I have even heard one supervisor say that the controller is effectively providing a 'RIS in the Upper Air' but perhaps that's one for another day.
If Flight Safety is an absolute priority for the civilian operators, there is absolutely no need for ac to transit through such large areas of Class G when Class A exists. I acknowledge their right to do so, but Regarding Class D, I don't see any problem with creation of CTAs and CTZs around major airprots to enable ac to join the Class A system. Would this improve things in the Borders? I doubt it, because time is money, and routing direct saves both.
STH
CAA Charts
If only the CAA would put the OTAs on charts...We've been trying for ages. They won't put flow arrows on their 1/2 and 1/4 mils either; the excuse being that they make their charts too cluttered. Maybe they should think how cluttered the countryside gets when a couple of aircraft 'clap hands' in the Macynleth Loop (is that spelt right? I wanted to put My-C@nt-Lips as I don't speak Welsh )
Let's hope the long talked about merger of AIDU and AIS will bring some sense to the situation - let's face it, the chances of meeting another RAF jet in a choke point these days is significantly less, isn't it Mr Hoon?
Regards to all
LJ
)Let's hope the long talked about merger of AIDU and AIS will bring some sense to the situation - let's face it, the chances of meeting another RAF jet in a choke point these days is significantly less, isn't it Mr Hoon?
Regards to all
LJ
"My-C@nt-Lips" - is Machynlleth still called that? I remember christening it that during my Gnat course about a thousand years ago in 1975!
Off-route CAT outside Regulated Airspace is a corollary of lo-co airlines operating out of much smaller regional airports without much in the way of Class D or Class A airspace. Out in Class G land (and sea), there seems to be a marked reluctance on behalf of their pilots to alter heading unless the RAS controller requires it. Of course the hidden agenda is for the CAT operators to bleat for yet another airway to be established....
I was once leading an early prodding sortie over the North Sea ; the student in the other VC10 was in the process of making his first successful contact when ATC bleated that 'for co-ordination', would we please alter heading blah, blah...
I refused point blank and was then told that some regional puddlejumper airliner such as a Jetstream or a 737 or something was on a direct track to wherever it was under RAS (this was a gin clear blue VFR day below Class B airspace) and would transit our area - he didn't want to maintain level until clear which was the other option.....
"Well he'll get a good view then; just for once please make the people carrier turn, we ARE continuing with our demanding exercise", I replied. Upon landing I phoned the relevant supervisor and asked him to have a serious word with the airline concerned. It turned out that he already had!
Mind you, off-route people-tubes did use to make very handy targets of opportunity when I was flying F4s from Wattisham....
Off-route CAT outside Regulated Airspace is a corollary of lo-co airlines operating out of much smaller regional airports without much in the way of Class D or Class A airspace. Out in Class G land (and sea), there seems to be a marked reluctance on behalf of their pilots to alter heading unless the RAS controller requires it. Of course the hidden agenda is for the CAT operators to bleat for yet another airway to be established....
I was once leading an early prodding sortie over the North Sea ; the student in the other VC10 was in the process of making his first successful contact when ATC bleated that 'for co-ordination', would we please alter heading blah, blah...
I refused point blank and was then told that some regional puddlejumper airliner such as a Jetstream or a 737 or something was on a direct track to wherever it was under RAS (this was a gin clear blue VFR day below Class B airspace) and would transit our area - he didn't want to maintain level until clear which was the other option.....
"Well he'll get a good view then; just for once please make the people carrier turn, we ARE continuing with our demanding exercise", I replied. Upon landing I phoned the relevant supervisor and asked him to have a serious word with the airline concerned. It turned out that he already had!
Mind you, off-route people-tubes did use to make very handy targets of opportunity when I was flying F4s from Wattisham....
Last edited by BEagle; 3rd Apr 2005 at 17:04.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Biggin Hill
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
However, Civilian Ac are now 'Prohibited Intercepts' unless part of a pre-briefed exercise or for real op reasons. (Actually, weren't they always Prohibited Intercepts
?)
BA
However, Civilian Ac are now 'Prohibited Intercepts' unless part of a pre-briefed exercise or for real op reasons. (Actually, weren't they always Prohibited Intercepts
?)BA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon:
Why should the CAA put the OTA system on charts and do you really think it would make a blind bit of difference?
The suicidal regional airline pilots don't even care about a major multi national exercise, NOTAM'd and clearly going on in front of them, and actively choose to blunder through it- REGULARLY. See my post on page 2.
Why then would they suddenly stick to the class A structure to the west (which exists purely for GA co-ordination and safety by the way) just because the muppets at the CAA drew another AIAA/OTA or dotted line on some chart.
We're losing training value by being walked over by the civvies and no-one up top is fighting our corner.
Frankly it's another push point for me because I don't want to be pilloried in the press for putting a JS41 to the bottom of the deep blue sea when he flew into the merge point. It's always our fault of course- "what the hell was a military aircraft doing so close to an airliner" etc etc etc. ad nauseum
Ray
Why should the CAA put the OTA system on charts and do you really think it would make a blind bit of difference?
The suicidal regional airline pilots don't even care about a major multi national exercise, NOTAM'd and clearly going on in front of them, and actively choose to blunder through it- REGULARLY. See my post on page 2.
Why then would they suddenly stick to the class A structure to the west (which exists purely for GA co-ordination and safety by the way) just because the muppets at the CAA drew another AIAA/OTA or dotted line on some chart.
We're losing training value by being walked over by the civvies and no-one up top is fighting our corner.
Frankly it's another push point for me because I don't want to be pilloried in the press for putting a JS41 to the bottom of the deep blue sea when he flew into the merge point. It's always our fault of course- "what the hell was a military aircraft doing so close to an airliner" etc etc etc. ad nauseum
Ray
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raytofclimb
Your last post is a load of crap. By notaming an exercise does not give you sole use of class G airspace. It just raises awareness of a possible increase in military traffic. The military traffic sometimes will not fly due to poor weather whereas the civil traffic continues to provide a service.
Class G airspace is for the use of everyone not just military aircraft. Controlled airspace is set up to protect, not just civil traffic but also military transport traffic. Danger Areas, published in the AIP, are specifically for military use. Why do you not fly in them and have some protection from the civil traffic that elects to fly in class G airspace and possibly through, unpublished, OTAs.
I don't think you are being walked over by civvies, rather I think it more the other way round. Air transport movements are increasing and therefore the need for more controlled airspace is increasing. Do us civvies get more CAS. No, unless we give up something elsewhere, or we take on an FUA agreement with the military having primacy over the flexible airspace at unsuitable times. The times that the military require this airspace is, surprise, surprise, normally when civil traffic is at its busiest and the extra airspace we gained is useless for moving more aircraft.
Why do you train in class G airspace and not in Danger Areas? You cannot expect to have protection from civil aircraft in an area that they don't even know about.
If you don't want to put a J41 to the bottom of the deep blue sea, use your Danger Areas.
TUTH
Your last post is a load of crap. By notaming an exercise does not give you sole use of class G airspace. It just raises awareness of a possible increase in military traffic. The military traffic sometimes will not fly due to poor weather whereas the civil traffic continues to provide a service.
Class G airspace is for the use of everyone not just military aircraft. Controlled airspace is set up to protect, not just civil traffic but also military transport traffic. Danger Areas, published in the AIP, are specifically for military use. Why do you not fly in them and have some protection from the civil traffic that elects to fly in class G airspace and possibly through, unpublished, OTAs.
I don't think you are being walked over by civvies, rather I think it more the other way round. Air transport movements are increasing and therefore the need for more controlled airspace is increasing. Do us civvies get more CAS. No, unless we give up something elsewhere, or we take on an FUA agreement with the military having primacy over the flexible airspace at unsuitable times. The times that the military require this airspace is, surprise, surprise, normally when civil traffic is at its busiest and the extra airspace we gained is useless for moving more aircraft.
Why do you train in class G airspace and not in Danger Areas? You cannot expect to have protection from civil aircraft in an area that they don't even know about.
If you don't want to put a J41 to the bottom of the deep blue sea, use your Danger Areas.
TUTH
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly are these danger ares you refer to? Most UK danger areas cover weapons ranges. If we had our own airspace that was suitable for large-scale COMAO exercises and practice intercepts, we would use it, believe me.
You are displaying your complete ignorance of just how much airspace is required for exercises of this nature. Your average fast jet can go from 250ft to 25,000ft in a matter of seconds, and needs the tactical freedom to do so during such exercises. A controller wouldn't even have time to issue an avoiding action, let alone the geek at the JS41 controls having time to act upon it.
Best they start showing a degree of professionalism then, and start reading their NOTAMS - that's what they're issued for.
We do not need protection from Civ ac, they need protection from us. That is what class A airspace exists for. Use it.
Even if we had the 'right' to bong airways, we would not. It's called professionalism.
16B
You are displaying your complete ignorance of just how much airspace is required for exercises of this nature. Your average fast jet can go from 250ft to 25,000ft in a matter of seconds, and needs the tactical freedom to do so during such exercises. A controller wouldn't even have time to issue an avoiding action, let alone the geek at the JS41 controls having time to act upon it.
You cannot expect to have protection from civil aircraft in an area that they don't even know about.
We do not need protection from Civ ac, they need protection from us. That is what class A airspace exists for. Use it.
Even if we had the 'right' to bong airways, we would not. It's called professionalism.
16B
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pick up a copy of the DOD IFR chart, specifically the L3 and L4 copy.
Look at the ammount of brown color on the paper (brown marks G)
Find one country in the civilized world with the same ammount of class G to FL245 or FL195, and remotely compareable trafficl loads.
I bet you wont find one..........
Bit of topic, but still!
Look at the ammount of brown color on the paper (brown marks G)
Find one country in the civilized world with the same ammount of class G to FL245 or FL195, and remotely compareable trafficl loads.
I bet you wont find one..........
Bit of topic, but still!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: nearby
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16B
I mentioned the HRA before and it has so far been ignored in this discussion. I know it is primarily for TFR stuff and only goes to 5000' but it is a huge area that could be better utilised. I have sympathy for both sides on this topic having been on both sides but the arrogance displayed sometimes by the military regarding airspace coordination is breath taking. Recently I saw a GR4 fly round the margins of a Class A zone in amongst some of the most intense helicopter traffic in Europe and the crew didn't either bother to call the unit whilst the poor radar controller was trying to give avoiding action to numerous rotary and fixed wing. They only called when they wanted to transit the zone - poor airmanship or arrogance? You tell me. As an aside the crew were obviously enjoying themselves because as they went past me (with USL) they must have been about 100' - ex-bucc crew I presume practicing their maritime role!
I mentioned the HRA before and it has so far been ignored in this discussion. I know it is primarily for TFR stuff and only goes to 5000' but it is a huge area that could be better utilised. I have sympathy for both sides on this topic having been on both sides but the arrogance displayed sometimes by the military regarding airspace coordination is breath taking. Recently I saw a GR4 fly round the margins of a Class A zone in amongst some of the most intense helicopter traffic in Europe and the crew didn't either bother to call the unit whilst the poor radar controller was trying to give avoiding action to numerous rotary and fixed wing. They only called when they wanted to transit the zone - poor airmanship or arrogance? You tell me. As an aside the crew were obviously enjoying themselves because as they went past me (with USL) they must have been about 100' - ex-bucc crew I presume practicing their maritime role!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 Blades
I was not talking about Danger areas which are published. I was talking about OTAs which are not.
You could book the use of the Danger Areas from MABCC instead of using Class G airspace which I say again is for the use of everyone not just military aircraft. I do know how much airspace that is required for large scale exercises. Military have 2 large areas for fighters to operate in during JMCs. This also has a major impact on UAS traffic to and from the North Atlantic which we have to vector clear. You cannot block airsace in class G airspace just like military cannot be given NDS in that airspace, you can only notam possible increased activity. Military aircraft regularly infringe controlled airspace and cause problems to civil controllers.
Deliverance
If you reqiure that much space for intercepts why do you practice over land. Why not over the sea. There is plenty of airspace east of the D613 complex for you to practice in where there is little or no civil traffic to bother you.
TUTH
I was not talking about Danger areas which are published. I was talking about OTAs which are not.
You could book the use of the Danger Areas from MABCC instead of using Class G airspace which I say again is for the use of everyone not just military aircraft. I do know how much airspace that is required for large scale exercises. Military have 2 large areas for fighters to operate in during JMCs. This also has a major impact on UAS traffic to and from the North Atlantic which we have to vector clear. You cannot block airsace in class G airspace just like military cannot be given NDS in that airspace, you can only notam possible increased activity. Military aircraft regularly infringe controlled airspace and cause problems to civil controllers.
Deliverance
If you reqiure that much space for intercepts why do you practice over land. Why not over the sea. There is plenty of airspace east of the D613 complex for you to practice in where there is little or no civil traffic to bother you.
TUTH