UK Military aircraft in near Miss
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Military aircraft in near Miss
UK military aircraft involved in 832 near misses in five years | UK news | The Guardian
Have you ever had a near miss?
Have you ever had a near miss?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Among the near misses were 14 incidents a month on average over the five-year period involving military Hawks, Tomahawks, and Cherokee helicopters encroaching on the airspace of passenger jets
Also, how many near misses were there involving Civvie Hawks?
Seriously,
As a [just] retired Civvie ATC [ex mil] When you have 1.2 million airways movements alone in the UK, the unknown number of Light a/c, Microlights, Balloons plus all the UK Mil [and Visitors] aviating around. I think that is a pretty good record. It could be better, but that needs thought and education on all sides
If anyone wants to make sense of the Guardian piece, the figures are from a document in the Commons Library:
Go here , find DEP2010-1324 and download the word document. There's even a near miss in 2004 between a C172 and a B-25 [sic] - which no doubt the Guardian team will put down to the USAF...
Go here , find DEP2010-1324 and download the word document. There's even a near miss in 2004 between a C172 and a B-25 [sic] - which no doubt the Guardian team will put down to the USAF...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you established a set of criteria which gave you a 'serious risk of collision' and then ran the experiment 67 times, noting that said collision never happened...would you change the criteria? To something slightly less sensational such as 'nearer miss'...
I have noted a risk of collision on countless occasions, I've taken them all relatively seriously.
I have noted a risk of collision on countless occasions, I've taken them all relatively seriously.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's awful.... journalism that is. For a start it is barely readable and not helped by a headline that's is not English.
Secondly the raw data is for ALL airprox reports regardless of categorisation and they have done a really bad job of describing their analysis. Looking at the data I see 65 CAT A airprox and only 32 of them involved one or more military aircraft. (That is if you include 2 Air Cadet Vigilant gliders and one "bulldog" which could have been civil.) so call it 31 and 1 suspect.
By including all the CAT C - (no risk of collision existed) they have bulked out their numbers to make it appear more spectacular, just shody work there.
"14 incidents a month involving military aircraft" would be 840 and yet there are only 832 (they claim) reports including all the civil and no risk ones
The actual rate of mil cat A's would be 0.53 per month. Still high but somewhat less than they are suggesting.
Finally, by relying on a single source of data they have missed out on all the ACTUAL collisions which occurred in the UK in the same period.
Polly Curtis and Dan Milmo, remain behind and write 500 lines "I must not try to sensationalise data that I don't understand"
Airprox categorisation for the uninformed.
A Risk of collision An actual risk of collision existed
B Safety not assured The safety of the aircraft was compromised
C No risk of collision No risk of collision existed
D Risk not determined Insufficient information was available to determine the risk involved, or inconclusive or conflicting evidence precluded such determination
Secondly the raw data is for ALL airprox reports regardless of categorisation and they have done a really bad job of describing their analysis. Looking at the data I see 65 CAT A airprox and only 32 of them involved one or more military aircraft. (That is if you include 2 Air Cadet Vigilant gliders and one "bulldog" which could have been civil.) so call it 31 and 1 suspect.
By including all the CAT C - (no risk of collision existed) they have bulked out their numbers to make it appear more spectacular, just shody work there.
"14 incidents a month involving military aircraft" would be 840 and yet there are only 832 (they claim) reports including all the civil and no risk ones
The actual rate of mil cat A's would be 0.53 per month. Still high but somewhat less than they are suggesting.
Finally, by relying on a single source of data they have missed out on all the ACTUAL collisions which occurred in the UK in the same period.
Polly Curtis and Dan Milmo, remain behind and write 500 lines "I must not try to sensationalise data that I don't understand"
Airprox categorisation for the uninformed.
A Risk of collision An actual risk of collision existed
B Safety not assured The safety of the aircraft was compromised
C No risk of collision No risk of collision existed
D Risk not determined Insufficient information was available to determine the risk involved, or inconclusive or conflicting evidence precluded such determination
Still trying to find his target at Utah Beach, is he? 
"there were no serious collisions during the five years" - what, aside from the one where two good mates of mine were killed? And the one involving the Tutor and civvy glider... and any others that don't immediately spring to mind? They should go into fiction writing...
<edit to add> I notice the Guardian is one of the few newspaper websites that doesn't have a comments section at the bottom of it's stories... Anyone have an email address for the editor?
<further edit to add> [email protected] is the Reader's editor email address. I do, however, note that the post is currently empty.....
<edit to add> I notice the Guardian is one of the few newspaper websites that doesn't have a comments section at the bottom of it's stories... Anyone have an email address for the editor?
<further edit to add> [email protected] is the Reader's editor email address. I do, however, note that the post is currently empty.....
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0211; 23rd Jun 2010 at 13:37. Reason: addition + further addition
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rum Punch
Had a near miss on Andros range once. Torp forgot it was an EVT
. Sub driver not happy.
The other near miss involved getting too drunk to sh4g the hippocrocadillapig who was very friendly to me at Isla Morada.
Reminiscing again.......
. Sub driver not happy.The other near miss involved getting too drunk to sh4g the hippocrocadillapig who was very friendly to me at Isla Morada.
Reminiscing again.......
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rear view mirror on the canopy of the F4 was quite small. I saw it full of F4 on one occasion chasing down a 4 ship of Buccs in LFA 7. Too close for comfort but too quick for any action. Still here thank goodness.
The best effort on some exercise planners part was to put 10 Harriers through 4 F4s on Cap, 2 ECM Canberras 1000 feet above and hit the CAP with 4 German F4s as Counter Air. We went home ashen faced and that was in the heady days of Cold War Germany.
The best effort on some exercise planners part was to put 10 Harriers through 4 F4s on Cap, 2 ECM Canberras 1000 feet above and hit the CAP with 4 German F4s as Counter Air. We went home ashen faced and that was in the heady days of Cold War Germany.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airpolice...
Yes there was. It was called "The Manchester Guardian"...
Unfortunately since then, standards have slipped....since it moved to the great metrolops,,,,
Was there not a proper newspaper called the "Guardian" once?
Unfortunately since then, standards have slipped....since it moved to the great metrolops,,,,
