Civil vs Military vs Civil Debate (Was part of RAF Role in Norway Airliner Crash)

[captplaystation]

Dont expect a reply TIMTS they have all had an early night to psyche themselves up for tomorrows "sortie",or. . .getting sloshed in the bar .And I know/knew enough ex mil guys/gals to know the validity level of that urban myth.Bottoms up chaps!

[Send Clowns]

playstation

A hint: when you find you're in a hole, stop digging.

You seem to admit now you are basing your judgement of RAF/RN fast jet pilots (and some of my friends will be amused at me defending crabs) at least in part on the skills of a Belgian C-130 pilot, and some various worldwide airforces. Another hint: that isn't what we're talking about here. No disrespect to the Herc guys, I know some great pilots from that world, but your mate not only probably failed to get fast jet recommend, but he was Belgian too. Not noted for their military achievements. They are a bunch of pacifists so it is unlikely the military is a respected career choice or a high priority, or that operational training is as good as it is in a country where some still respect our military (bloody hell, me talking about respect for the RAF! )

So when you've no idea what your talking about, wind your neck in mate.

TIMTS

He was. To question the fact shows complete underestimate of how a Harrier is flown and operated, and of how the services select and train their crews. I know the guys that have failed the course to fly the FA2, and they are rather better handling pilots than I am and have shown better airmanship, and I assure you that I ain't too shabby myself (fixed-wing I mean. Never really got the hang of rotary).

I have a lot of respect for pilots who fly Twotters as they are designed to be flown, my ambition is to do so myself.

However single-crew jet pilots are the top pilots in the RAF and RN. The fast jet world is the top of the tree, single-crew above that. All those that slipped through selection are weeded out, either out of the service or into the roles that include all you have to do and much more besides. Even they are trained and tested to higher standards than civvies.

Such training is simply not available outside the military. No pure civvy is as good as a decent military pilot, although a competition aerobatic pilot flying for airlines (liek the Brit who won the first round of the Red Bull Air Race in Longleat) might come close.

I accept that they might not make the best pilots in a civilian environment, but that is not their world and CRM counts for exactly zero. They are certainly better pilots overall.

[An Teallach]

.getting sloshed in the bar .

I'm a civvy, Capt PishedStation. I sincerely hope you're sloshed this evening.

To be frank, if you're sober and you can't operate a space bar on a keyboard, punctuate or write the Queen's English when you have time to think and edit; my confidence in your ability to operate an airliner, think on your feet and communicate with ATC etc. is negligible.

Please tell us which airline you fly for, so that I may retain my confidence in civil air travel by avoiding it like the plague!

[Send Clowns]

TIMTS

I know they were civvies, and did not have access to the training required by the RN and RAF. They cannot become as good as Harrier pilots have to be.

You have flown with them in rotary, and they haven't impressed you? But we are talking about them flying a Harrier, and about them being better pilots than the Twotter pilots. Swap them over. Who will crash the aircraft, who will complete the flight?

I have flown rotary. I was not very good at it (by RN standards - I could fly a helicopter and operate it to the standards equivalent to those required by my civilian CPL/IR(A)), despite having been near top of my class in the fixed-wing training - hence my return to fixed-wing. I am sorry but how people fly an R-44 is not a strong indication of how good they were as fixed-wing pilots. It takes a rather different skill.

You also cannot judge RN pilots (or, I concede, RAF single-seat) by reference to foreign fast-jet pilots. They have shown time and again that they can fly better than most pilots from most other nations, and operate their aircraft more effectively with better situational awareness. They do make errors in that demanding environment, I never said that was not possible, but they are certainly better pilots than any civvy has the chance to become.

Exactly how many ex-RN or RAF fast-jet crews have you flown with, in fixed-wing aircraft? How much do you know about the skill required to fly a Harrier (a uniquely demnding aircraft)?

[Days Like These]

Ha!

Well this is definitely the most chortle-inspiring debate of recent times on PPrune with the usual host of humour-merchants and idiots. Alas, my less than perfect-eyesight resulted in me joining the RAF as a ground branch member. I chose not to become a civilian pilot because it didn't interest me but I respect those that perform a vital service flying me to places exotic for a modest fee.

Today's Moron Of The Day Prize has to go to CaptainAmstrad who mocked what he perceives to be a "binge-drinking before sorties" culture that he's been told all about by his "many mil aircrew friends". I have to say there is a hell of a lot of drinking undertaken in the Officers mess, I myself am not a big drinker but what would mess life be without it! However, witnessing aircrew in the bar, I can honestly say that 99.99% of the time, mil aircrew are always sensible enough not to get wasted the night before a sortie. Of course there's always a very small minority who might but I'm yet to see it and for the most part I'm proud of the professionalism exuded by my aircrew chums. But Monsieur Playstation you must surely be able to criticise from your ivory tower...I mean there's definitely no drinking culture within the civilian fleets whatsoever! And the following aren't examples of this being true that I managed to find in a quick 30-second google search:

1. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4167161.stm

2. www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/08/pilots.trial/

3. www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-2-2005_pg7_8

On to the more serious subject at hand. TIMTS is upset by statements made that mil aircrew are better than their civilian counterparts (not that you can easily compare a Harrier to a 747). My views side with those of Send Clowns in all honesty but I think it's important to differentiate between a pilot's potential and his actual ability. I think you can honestly say that the majority of fast jet pilots are the best in the world. Why? Because they have had millions of pounds worth of investment in them. They have been trained by the best and more is demanded of them than any other type of pilot. Their chop and success rates are quite remarkable! Do the civilian trg companies fail as many students? Do they even come close? We all know for a fact that they don't and that if you throw enough money at it, all but the absolute dregs will gain an ATPL.

The same is true of multi-engine and rotary pilots too. How many civilian multi-engined prop pilots can conduct TALOs, Air Drops, RALs, Tac Approaches? Yet in contrast mil multi-engined pilots can/are far more likely to be able to do the same as their civ counterparts.

This is where I believe the potential ability aspect comes in. At this point I can sympathise in a fashion with TIMTS. Mil pilots do make mistakes like their civilian counterparts, they too are human and yes some are arrogant but I've met a few civil pilots too and modest wasn't the first word that sprang to mind! Military pilots are the best because they have had superior trg because they are expected to go above and beyond ferrying people from London to Rome. This does not mean to say that those many civilian pilots out there whom, for whatever reason didn't join the Air Force, aren't capable of being just as good as their mil counterparts. However, at the end of the day, they haven't had the training and until they do, they will never be able to prove that they are just as good!

[Widger]

PPrune Radar,

Not wishing to creep this thread but, wrong again.

3. SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR.
3.1 Equipment. Mode A and C with altitude reporting are mandatory for all flights within the whole of the United Kingdom
airspace when:
a. Operating at and above FL100.
b. Operating below FL100 under Instrument Flight Rules in controlled airspace.
c. operating within the Scottish TMA between 6000ft alt and FL100.

Straight out of the MIL AIP. There is no difference. The only community that seems to operate outside these rules are the gliding fraternity.

In the incident you refer to, the highly professional mil pilots fully intended to use SSR. They thought they were squawking, but, because they were not talking to an ATC unit, they were unaware of the status of their equipment. The civil airliner was routeing through Class G, not looking out of the window, receiving a RIS from a civil controller (because the unit refuses to provide a RAS) (Another SAFETY NET) and the controller did nothing about the confliction, because he ASSUMED it was below FL100 (NOT VERY SAFE). In his R/T he stated it was "pop-up" traffic when in fact it was showing on radar all the time (NOT VERY SAFE)
And finally, it was the MILITARY pilots who saw the airliner. The civil crew saw nothing at all. (All of this is published in the public domain)

So as you can see, there were many CIVIL factors in this incident. So, it is totally unfair to lump all the blame on the military pilots. Yes two of the final safety nets (TCAS and STCA) were negated by no SSR but even before that, several of the holes in the cheese were also lined up by a rediculous regulation (No provision of RAS. A regulation imposed just to save the ar*es of the fully paid up union members, that gives NO protection to the travelling public), the aircrew not looking out the window and very late TI by the civil controller.

You asked for an example of a civil aircraft not squaking, well it did not involve two airliners what about a certain glider that strayed into CAS SW of Newcastle some time ago. No military involvement at all, but I do not hear you all jumping up and down about that!

Have a safe day everyone

[garp]

***You seem to admit now you are basing your judgement of RAF/RN fast jet pilots (and some of my friends will be amused at me defending crabs) at least in part on the skills of a Belgian C-130 pilot, and some various worldwide airforces. Another hint: that isn't what we're talking about here. No disrespect to the Herc guys, I know some great pilots from that world, but your mate not only probably failed to get fast jet recommend, but he was Belgian too. Not noted for their military achievements. They are a bunch of pacifists so it is unlikely the military is a respected career choice or a high priority, or that operational training is as good as it is in a country where some still respect our military (bloody hell, me talking about respect for the RAF! )***

Send Clowns, you're way out of line here. How on earth can you make such a statement? We all know that in all disciplines everywhere in the world there are people who wouldn't be able to organize a piss-up in a brewery. BAF herkies have been flying humanitarian missions all over the world in some of the most remote and dangerous areas, their pilots have tons of experience in operating their planes under difficult circumstances.Have a look at this guy's CV http://www.astronautix.com/astros/dewinne.htm and tell me if that changes your idea about Belgian military pilots. Note the training at the Empire Test Pilots School in Boscombe Down, the Tornado license, the first non-American to receive the Semper Viper Award for demonstrating exceptional skill during flight etc.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Widger

Semantics seems to float your boat, so let's do it

The UK Civil AIP is not the instrument I was thinking of when talking about civil requirements for the carraige of SSR. Indeed, the AIP is not the law of the land. You will have to tell me whether the Mil AIP which you refer to holds a similar status or not, since I am not au fait with how it relates to Queens Regulations and military 'law' and how it is 'legislated' by the military that the military aircraft must have certain equipment in certain airspaces.

The law for the carraige of equipment for aircraft in the UK is the CAP 393 Air Navigation Order. As I am sure you are aware, it is a legally binding document which details the legislation applicable and to whom it is applicable. The Order does not apply to military aircraft except for 4 articles, none of which are applicable to equipment carriage. This is stated up front, in black and white, in the document itself. Therefore a military aircraft is quite legally entitled to operate with a transponder above FL100 .... or indeed anywhere else for that matter. That is the 'civil' legality aspect of our debate. You allude that the military follow the same rules as the civilian world. That is a good thing. However, any civilian agency knows that the ANO does not apply to military aircraft and so cannot assume that they will comply with it. Civilian agencies do not generally have access to the rules by which the military are bound, nor do they need to. So unless they are told then they can't know which rules you are going to comply with in any given situation.

In the incident you refer to, the highly professional mil pilots fully intended to use SSR. They thought they were squawking, but, because they were not talking to an ATC unit, they were unaware of the status of their equipment.

'Highly professional' is a subjective benchmark, which others are 'debating' on this thread and I won't be drawn in to. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the pilot believed he was squawking and was not. Presumably the technical snag on that specific box was identified and fixed on landing

The civil airliner was routeing through Class G, not looking out of the window,

Worryingly common, even although it never guarantees you will spot conflicting traffic.

receiving a RIS from a civil controller (because the unit refuses to provide a RAS) (Another SAFETY NET)

Mmmm, my sources say you are wrong on this one. The unit does provide RAS in specific circumstances such as on Advisory Routes, to specific flights by local agreement with specific operators, and with a blanket approval for controllers to immediately raise the service from RIS to RAS where necessary for flight safety reasons. The procedure even says that the controllers can issue the required Avoiding Action without having to go through the dialogue of changing service with the pilot, on the common sense basis that the 30 or seconds that might take would be better spent avoiding a collision. The service change would be made once the immediate danger has been dealt with. (Please note that civil Avoiding Action is one with a degree of urgency to prevent a collision, whereas the military seem to use it as standard phraseology when issuing any vector to aircraft on RAS [just a personal observation]).

and the controller did nothing about the confliction, because he ASSUMED it was below FL100 (NOT VERY SAFE).

I don't have the benefit of the report in front of me, but agree with you if that's exactly what happened.

In his R/T he stated it was "pop-up" traffic when in fact it was showing on radar all the time (NOT VERY SAFE)

Again, as I understand it from sources, the provision of ATSOCA was not the primary task of the controller involved, it was the provision of a Radar Control service to aircraft also on his frequency within Controlled Airspace. I would interpret that 'pop up' is a poor choice of words on the controllers part and more likely to actually mean that his scan only picked it up at the last moment because he was paying attention to his priority tasks. Not an ideal situation I grant you, but a limitation of the service which NATS can provide. Personally speaking, I would get NATS to junk all en route ATSOCA except on defined routes or within defined Radar Service Areas where dedicated resource can be provided. Give it all to military units, remove such flights from the NATS en route charging system, and let the Mil try and collect any cash they wish to charge Then we could get our NATS controllers to concentrate on solving the capacity problems we have with our prime customers.

And finally, it was the MILITARY pilots who saw the airliner. The civil crew saw nothing at all. (All of this is published in the public domain)

So 'see and be seen' worked on this occasion then. It doesn't state that both parties need to always be part of the equation anywhere does it ? But in an ideal world would happen all the time.

So as you can see, there were many CIVIL factors in this incident.

I never said there weren't any. The point made by an earlier poster was about SSR and that's the point I was addressing. But your thread creep has been good for raising more issues and debate

So, it is totally unfair to lump all the blame on the military pilots.

Blame ?? Stated where .... and by whom ?

Yes two of the final safety nets (TCAS and STCA) were negated by no SSR but even before that, several of the holes in the cheese were also lined up by a rediculous regulation (No provision of RAS. A regulation imposed just to save the ar*es of the fully paid up union members, that gives NO protection to the travelling public),

With respect, that's bollocks of course. Civil controllers have a duty of care under RIS or RAS regardless. The civil controller involved (putting aside the fact that he didn't spot this specific confliction for a moment) had the 'regulation' available to give avoiding action even under a RIS if he deemed it was necessary to avoid a collision. To all intents and purposes, the same actions would be taken in spotting a last minute confliction regardless of the actual level of service. You are just trying to muddy the waters. The controller involved appeared not to have spotted the confliction therefore even if he had been giving a RAS then no action would have been undertaken. That was the crux of this incident, not the level of service. But let's beat the emotion drum ... RIS equals NO protection to the travelling public. Not worth anyone providing it then, or pilots asking for it. Let's ask the authorities to scrap it. Mind you ... talking of protection to the public neither does no light, non transponding, non NOTAM'ed mil ops in Class G at night I suppose (Top marks to HQ Strike though for dealing with that one in 24 hours and getting the 'highly professional' squadrons to do so in future - see, the system of civil/mil co-operation can work !!)

the aircrew not looking out the window and very late TI by the civil controller.

Both points I agree with. Causal factors.

You asked for an example of a civil aircraft not squaking, well it did not involve two airliners what about a certain glider that strayed into CAS SW of Newcastle some time ago. No military involvement at all, but I do not hear you all jumping up and down about that!

Give me the number and I'll go and read up on it before jumping up and down. Of course to be a totally valid rant, I'd need to know that the other aircraft involved was mandated to carry TCAS and the level of ATC service being provided .. as well as the flight level of the encounter And to be fair, this topic was about military stuff, a glider argument can be seen from time to time on the Private Flying forum.

Have a safe day everyone

Amen !!