US and RAF pilots 'had mid-air row' over Norfolk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US and RAF pilots 'had mid-air row' over Norfolk
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
So, the USAF continue to fail to understand how to operate in UK airspace. If their aircrew require protected airspace then the Mildenhall Wing Staff should show them how to book it.
We, the RAF, would never consider flying in someone else's country without knowing the rules, would we!!! Obviously, the RN don't care about that kind of thing. Just declare Blue Water Ops everywhere.
We, the RAF, would never consider flying in someone else's country without knowing the rules, would we!!! Obviously, the RN don't care about that kind of thing. Just declare Blue Water Ops everywhere.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We, the RAF, would never consider flying in someone else's country without knowing the rules, would we!!!
Nahhh, would never bust airspace abroad. (Or sleep during the local airspace briefing.....
)
I was not asleep !
I merely closed my eyes so I could better concentrate on the spoken word....
and it would have been undiplomatic to refuse the arrival beer..any of them
I merely closed my eyes so I could better concentrate on the spoken word....
and it would have been undiplomatic to refuse the arrival beer..any of them
The UK Airprox Board, which investigates near-misses, concluded both planes had the right to be flying.
As to the C-130 and the parachutists and the whinging ... I'd be interested to know what actually went down, as opposed to what was in the paper. I seem to recall that there was a NATO STANAG about drop zones and temporary special use air space, also one about training ranges.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My twopennorth as an RAF ATCO, having read the Airprox Board report.
They (the MC-130, the GR4 and the parachutists) were all allowed to be where they were and the two ac captains were determined to exercise that right (the paras probably had not so much choice once the doors were open). The Board commented that perhaps the GR4 might have given the others a little more space, which seems fair to me as it is much more manoeuvrable than a Herc in para configuration. However, he chose not to and said that he "had every right to be here". Airmanship, anyone?
I am slightly confused as to why the Herc was working two ATC freqs (London Mil and Marham App). He was presumably talking to his DZ party on abother box as well. The GR4s were on Marham Dir. The two Marham controllers did pass traffic information to each other but IMHO this might have been solved by all talking to the same controller.
Of concern is that the controllers did not consider it to be a reportable incident. Someone called "Airprox" so it is a mandatory report whatever the controller thinks. I am also concerned that the Sup was short of controllers so elected to work Zone himself and downgrade from a Supervised watch to having an ATCO ic.
The way I read it is that the Herc captain was showing due concern over his charges (the paras) but expected more protection from his NOTAM than was due; the GR4 shoud have shown a bit more class and allowed a bit more elbow room; and, most importantly, Marham and Mildenhall need to talk more.
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013155.pdf
They (the MC-130, the GR4 and the parachutists) were all allowed to be where they were and the two ac captains were determined to exercise that right (the paras probably had not so much choice once the doors were open). The Board commented that perhaps the GR4 might have given the others a little more space, which seems fair to me as it is much more manoeuvrable than a Herc in para configuration. However, he chose not to and said that he "had every right to be here". Airmanship, anyone?
I am slightly confused as to why the Herc was working two ATC freqs (London Mil and Marham App). He was presumably talking to his DZ party on abother box as well. The GR4s were on Marham Dir. The two Marham controllers did pass traffic information to each other but IMHO this might have been solved by all talking to the same controller.
Of concern is that the controllers did not consider it to be a reportable incident. Someone called "Airprox" so it is a mandatory report whatever the controller thinks. I am also concerned that the Sup was short of controllers so elected to work Zone himself and downgrade from a Supervised watch to having an ATCO ic.
The way I read it is that the Herc captain was showing due concern over his charges (the paras) but expected more protection from his NOTAM than was due; the GR4 shoud have shown a bit more class and allowed a bit more elbow room; and, most importantly, Marham and Mildenhall need to talk more.
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013155.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Board commented that perhaps the GR4 might have given the others a little more space, which seems fair to me as it is much more manoeuvrable than a Herc in para configuration. However, he chose not to and said that he "had every right to be here". Airmanship, anyone?
Never mind the Para's and the risk to them....It is my Country, My Airspace, and Sod the Yanks is the way I read it.
Did the FJ ever consider when something seems confused.....the best way to sort it out is on the ground AFTER landing.
We, the RAF, would never consider flying in someone else's country without knowing the rules, would we!!!.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of an exercise off Gib in the 70s! Buccs deployed from Honington to attack ships in Western Med. Nimrod deployed to act as DISPORT aircraft in support of Buccs (attacking the ships). 6-ship airborne from Gib, circumnavigated the Nimrod who had cleverly positioned itself right on our attack run and could see us all the way as we entered the Straits of Gibraltar!!! Attacked the ships at 100 feet and 580 kts and well abeam and below the Nimrod, landed at Gib, went to bar, DetCo summoned to Air Cdr Gib's office to explain why Buccs had infringed Nimrod who had filed an airmiss against us - it was effectively controlling us onto the target, so it knew exactly where we were!!! Bollocking duly absorbed by sqn ldr DetCo who returned to the bar fuming but soon got over it with suitable alcoholic counselling from the team! Two days later, maritime exercise focal point moves east towards Malta where 12 Sqn now redeploy in order to attack the boats again as they progressed easterly over next 7 days!
From RAF Luqa, DetCo gets his revenge by sending signal to Air Cdr Gib that read:
"12 Sqn Buccaneers now deployed to Central Mediterranean area. Trust this now gives Nimrod sufficient airspace to operate in!"
Nothing more was said but we did enjoy our Hopleaf that night!!!!
Bloggs
From RAF Luqa, DetCo gets his revenge by sending signal to Air Cdr Gib that read:
"12 Sqn Buccaneers now deployed to Central Mediterranean area. Trust this now gives Nimrod sufficient airspace to operate in!"
Nothing more was said but we did enjoy our Hopleaf that night
!!!!Bloggs
I must remember to carry out flight manoeuvres in my C152 right at the edge of a Red-Arrows' display TRA this summer - clearly these RAF fast-jet lads are up for a bit of brinkmanship..
As long as the radar traces exonerate me, I can safely ignore the Reds' airprox report / 'overcautious' cancelled display nonsense
As long as the radar traces exonerate me, I can safely ignore the Reds' airprox report / 'overcautious' cancelled display nonsense
Well, I can certainly understand the MC-130 Aircraft Commander being one very pi$$ed-off teddy over this. Quite rightly. He did everything he could to alert the pointy-heads about his live para-dropping exercise, but they carried on regardless.
And what sort of a dic.khead chooses to indulge in a general handling exercise in a properly-NOTAM'd para-dropping exercise area anyway, even if it isn't a TRA?
ATC should have been more on the ball - but the GR4s were just plain stupid by my reading of this event.
(Westie - at least when I visited NAS Miramar in 1984 and RAPCON gave us an impossibly tight (for our big jet) approach, the Captain wisely went around and flew a closed pattern. But we were totally mystifed after landing when told we'd be parking 'On the Quartdeck'! Which turned out to be where that C-9B bringing Goose's wife parked in Top Gun.)
And what sort of a dic.khead chooses to indulge in a general handling exercise in a properly-NOTAM'd para-dropping exercise area anyway, even if it isn't a TRA?
ATC should have been more on the ball - but the GR4s were just plain stupid by my reading of this event.
(Westie - at least when I visited NAS Miramar in 1984 and RAPCON gave us an impossibly tight (for our big jet) approach, the Captain wisely went around and flew a closed pattern. But we were totally mystifed after landing when told we'd be parking 'On the Quartdeck'! Which turned out to be where that C-9B bringing Goose's wife parked in Top Gun.)
Last edited by BEagle; 13th May 2014 at 19:43. Reason: To defeat the naughty word nanny!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a previous life I saw such numptiness. Trogging up the East coast in a civvi Wetdream we would often have some fun in the Whitby area. Ordinarily it would be a couple of Hawks out of Leeming who were playing with each other. London mil would tell us about the Hawks and often ask the Hawks to shift a bit so that we could have a warm-and-fluffy feeling en-route Scotland. There were times the Hawks would shift, other times they would exercise their rights to stay where they were.
Now I've matured a bit, but back then I would berate my ex-RAF compatriots for pi$$ing me around - yep, you have just as much right to be here but I'm trying to go A-B and you just need a play area and it doesn't really matter where it is - do you really have to be in the same bit of sky?
I'm sure the sky is getting smaller and we all have extra pressures that are brought about by financial cuts, training targets etc. However, we shouldn't allow such things to dilute the basic airmanship skills. I now teach people to fly and one of my biggest challenges is instilling an awareness of the environment and the prescence and needs of other aircraft. For sure, aviation has always been lacking in this area but we really need to nurture the concept of mutual understanding.
Now I've matured a bit, but back then I would berate my ex-RAF compatriots for pi$$ing me around - yep, you have just as much right to be here but I'm trying to go A-B and you just need a play area and it doesn't really matter where it is - do you really have to be in the same bit of sky?
I'm sure the sky is getting smaller and we all have extra pressures that are brought about by financial cuts, training targets etc. However, we shouldn't allow such things to dilute the basic airmanship skills. I now teach people to fly and one of my biggest challenges is instilling an awareness of the environment and the prescence and needs of other aircraft. For sure, aviation has always been lacking in this area but we really need to nurture the concept of mutual understanding.
