TU-95 Intercept

[Tankertrashnav]

Twice in the 70s I have been on a crew tasked to transit Turkish airspace heading for points east, once on a much looked forward to FEAF ranger to Singapore. On those occasions we got no further than Akrotiri because our NATO ally had refused diplomatic clearance to cross their airspace. What with that, and frequent French ATC strikes, I often used to wonder how our Soviet opposite numbers must have chuckled - can you imagine them asking for diplomatic clearance to overfly Poland, for example?

[dikastes]

UK airspace

Using terms like "British Airspace" is unhelpful.

Have the Bears flown within the UK FIR? Certainly, there is nothing to stop them doing so, and they have been doing that for 40+ years.

Have they penetrated UK Territorial Airspace? Not as far as we know, unless you know something different.

-tankertrashnav Clearly you don't know anything about UK airspace and classes of airspace and the ICAO rules for entering such airspace. Neither have you read the UK AiP.

[ORAC]

I recall that Libya tried to press the issue of territorial waters and free right of passage in the Gulf of Sirte on two occasions....

Gulf of Sidra incident (1981)




Splash two Migs - 1989

[Tankertrashnav]

For purposes of clarity then, Dikastes, perhaps you could explain exactly why my statements are wrong. I'd be most grateful, as I've always thought it's never too late to learn.

Anybody else who can be bothered is welcome to pitch in!

[Just This Once...]

TTN,

My guess is that he is referring to the ICAO regulations (of which Russia is a signatory) that expressly forbids aircraft flying in this class of controlled airspace without a clearance, RT contact or a squawk.

Russia is quite at liberty to fly in international airspace if it files a flight plan and flies in accordance with the AIP, even if it annoys the heck out of the controlling FIR or the host government. It is not entitled to carry out unsafe acts against the international agreements that it has agreed to. Russian military can also fly with 'due regard' but this still carries a responsibility and cannot lead to unsafe acts such as this.

[ORAC]

Nothing illegal taking place. Many times in the 70s and 80s the Bears crossed civilian airways in the MRSA at FL350-360, if they looked like getting close to a civil flight I'd call ScaTTC/LATTC and point that there was a non squawking pair xx miles in front of my fighters at the same level as their flight XX. "But who's controlling them!" The indignant reply would come. not sure, think it's Moscow Central", I'd reply.

But if you came out to the eastern Mediterranean and the Nicosia FIR you'd find U2s, RC135s, Nimrods, US 6th fleet, Israel F-15s etc all happily doing their own thing. Nearest to a collision was the U-2 that got severely bent flying through Concorde's wake.

The Israeli ATC got snidey for a while and starting telling Nicosia about the US/UK flights, so we started telling them about the IAF flights - soon stopped and an agreeable silence fell; tell Nicosia got primary radar and just about had a heart attack. Soon got used to it though and just passed traffic advisories.

Nothing new under the sun - and nothing to get shocked at the Russians about.

[AreOut]

"Nearest to a collision was the U-2 that got severely bent flying through Concorde's wake."

lol I've just imagined that, do you have any more info about that incident?

[ORAC]

Mid 70s, Concorde westbound from Bahrain crossing overhead Lebanon around FL600, U2 northbound along coast about FL580. At the time we weren't allowed to call the U2, only monitor for their calls (that changed). Concorde passed Within a couple of miles*. With very small stall margin the U2 departed and severely over stressed recovering. Airframe had to be flown home in a C5 for repair and a replacement flown in.

Comment from the pilot in discussion. "Didn't mind the b*****d was bigger than me, didn't mind he was faster than me - but what pissed me off was the b*****d was above me!"... - but he thought it was a real cool white bird in the black sky.

* Memory going, 40 years ago. Can't now remember if it was the shock wave ahead or wake behind.

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Nothing new under the sun - and nothing to get shocked at the Russians about.

Times have changed. Primary radar is not the prime means for civilian air traffic deconfliction, the volume of traffic has increased and we simply cannot tolerate the mid-air collision risk with some petulant idiot flying through crowded skies not talking or squawking.

We live in a time where flying without TCAS is considered unusual; this is verging on madness. Civilian ATC cannot provide a safe service against an aircraft that they may not be able to see.

[Cows getting bigger]

"petulant idiot" ....... best you copy the Americans (and, in my personal experience, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the French etc) into your complaint.

ICAO - smoke screen - International Civil Aviation Organisation. Last time I looked, a TU-95 with a Red Star on the side wasn't a civil aircraft. Nor was the F15 that chose to take a close look at me the other day and, shock horror, failed to comply with the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practises. A quick look at the UK legal framework will tell you that the UK military doesn't have to comply with ICAO SARPS.

Some of you guys need to wake up and have a quick look at international law and not a gentlemen's agreement signed at Chicago a few decades back. Sure, its not very clever driving through Class A/B/C without coordination but that is one of the very reasons that the UK and NATO maintain a surveillance infrastructure such that they can identify Pesky Ivan and safely escort him through the skies.

Purleeeease don't join the Daily Mail bandwagon and tell professional aviators (especially those who have spent their lifetime dealing with such activities) that this is outrageous, unsafe, frivolous etc.

[dikastes]

International Airspace

Russia is quite at liberty to fly in international airspace if it files a flight plan and flies in accordance with the AIP, even if it annoys the heck out of the controlling FIR or the host government. It is not entitled to carry out unsafe acts against the international agreements that it has agreed to. Russian military can also fly with 'due regard' but this still carries a responsibility and cannot lead to unsafe acts such as this.

So can you explain what International Airspace is? Does London FIR/UIR incorporate International Airspace?

As far as I can see, the position of the TU 95s, when intercepted by the Typhoons, was in the London FIR, in class C airspace. The UK AIP (Incorporating standards and recommended practices of ICAO), states that when wishing to fly in the London FIR/UIR in class C airspace, then a flight plan is required and communication with ATC & in receipt of an ATC clearance is also required. (See copy of UK AIP below)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/167369...n/photostream/

The TU 95 were tracked in the UK FIR/UIR. I have indicated below on a map of the London FIR/UIR, where the Tu 95s and Typhoons were seen. As you can see the track of these TU 95s was well inside the London FIR and in class C airspace (Crossing busy Upper Air Routes used by civil and military aircraft flying over the Atlantic).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/167369...n/photostream/

[ORAC]

Outside the 12nm territorial limit no international organisation, such as ICAO, or national government, is entitled to prevent free passage by sea, or air, except in so far as they wish to do so by force of arms. FIRs are only applicable to assenting parties.

[Tankertrashnav]

Times have changed. Primary radar is not the prime means for civilian air traffic deconfliction, the volume of traffic has increased and we simply cannot tolerate the mid-air collision risk with some petulant idiot flying through crowded skies not talking or squawking.

True, but then if said aircraft are accompanied by a couple of Typhoons (or whatever) which are themselves squawking, as I assume would be the case, then the mid-air collision risk is greatly reduced. The FJs are effectively saying
"there is a big aircraft here, stay clear"!

[Cows getting bigger]

Correct. The UK FIRs (London and Scottish) do not indicate or imply any sovereignty over such airspace, at least that outside territorial waters. ICAO signatories agree to provide alerting and flight information services within such airspace and nothing more. Have a look at the FIR boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland; it doesn't follow an international border so who is responsible for what if you're inside the Scottish FIR but over Ireland? Who's going to shoot you down? The answer is that there are numerous bi-lateral agreements such that cross-border civil aviation continues with safety.

Airspace designation - no country has the RIGHT to impose any form of airspace control or restriction outside of international waters. It is common practise to recognise conditions that countries have applied in airspace outside of territorial limits but no one is obliged to comply with such conditions. Someone mentioned "due regard" a little earlier and that is absolutely correct.

Get over it - this was not unsafe, there are all sorts of protocols in place to protect the commercial traveller and the only effect is inconvenience.

Now, a far more interesting subject is the political intent and implication of such irritable activity.

[dikastes]

ORAC

Outside the 12nm territorial limit no international organisation, such as ICAO, or national government, is entitled to prevent free passage by sea, or air, except in so far as they wish to do so by force of arms. FIRs are only applicable to assenting parties.

An FIR is established in order to provide a flight information and alerting service. FIRs can and do extend into international airspace. However, within each countries FIR there are rules and regulations for flying your aircraft, whether it's a private or commercial flight, a civil or military irrespective of international airspace.

Each FIR is subdivided into classes of airspace. These classes of airspace have specific rules. A lot of this airspace requires the pilot to communicate with ATC and follow ATC instruction. If you don't do this then there are penalties for non compliance. One of these is finding a Typhoon, fully armed, sitting on your wing!

Most countries allow free passage of their FIRs/airspace under the Chicago Convention providing you follow the rules. Them TU 95s did not follow the rules.

[dikastes]

Cows get Bigger

Get over it - this was not unsafe, there are all sorts of protocols in place to protect the commercial traveller and the only effect is inconvenience.

What protocols do you refer? TCAS? ATC conflict alert - Just like Überlingen then?

If you read carefully what I have written above and understand ATC and airspace, as I do, then it is not safe.

[ORAC]

An FIR is established in order to provide a flight information and alerting service. FIRs can and do extend into international airspace. However, within each countries FIR there are rules and regulations for flying your aircraft, whether it's a private or commercial flight, a civil or military irrespective of international airspace.

Incorrect, see article 3 of the ICAO Convention. Though some would like it changed, see below, but don't hold your breath, EU parliament resolutions are non-binding, non-legislative crowd pleasers.......

Article 3

Civil and state aircraft

a) This Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft.

b) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft........


European Parliament: Motion for a European Parliament resolution on military planes which fly in European air space with their communication systems and transponders switched off and threaten passenger planes

[Cows getting bigger]

dikastes

Oh how I laugh. I've been involved in airspace for over 30 years. I've worked in the CAA (DAP) holding responsibility for the coordination of non-standard and unusual aerial activity within the UK FIRs, sat in Europe helping formulate SES, FUA, FABs etc, held numerous operating endorsements as a controller, instructor and examiner and, in my spare time, hold an ATPL plying my wares across Europe and the Middle East.

I'm fully au-fait with ICAO airspace classifications and the international law surrounding the various rules of the air. I'm also well up-to-speed with regards to safety management and how to mitigate activities such as erroneous and un-coordinated activity within CAS.

For the last time ICAO only applies to civil aircraft.

Now, please accept that you are wrong, wipe away the tears and move on.

[dikastes]

Cows Get Bigger

Oh how I laugh. I've been involved in airspace for over 30 years. I've worked in the CAA (DAP) holding responsibility for the coordination of non-standard and unusual aerial activity within the UK FIRs, sat in Europe helping formulate SES, FUA, FABs etc, held numerous operating endorsements as a controller, instructor and examiner and, in my spare time, hold an ATPL plying my wares across Europe and the Middle East.

I'm fully au-fait with ICAO airspace classifications and the international law surrounding the various rules of the air. I'm also well up-to-speed with regards to safety management and how to mitigate activities such as erroneous and un-coordinated activity within CAS.

For the last time ICAO only applies to civil aircraft.

Now, please accept that you are wrong, wipe away the tears and move on.

This is not about whether ICAO applies to the military or not. This is about safety. Picture this, with you ATPL, hat on. Your flying your B777 or whatever it is. You contact ATC for an ATC Control service. There you are at FL330 and suddenly, from no where, at big fat effing Bear plows across your nose causing you to take avoiding action. With you heart beating faster than the turbanfan is rotating you speak to the air traffic controller and declare that you have just had a raging airmiss with a nuclear equipped Tu 95 over Lands End.

The TCAS on the aeroplane did not work because the Tu 95 was primary only. ATC did not see the bear on their radar because it was primary only.

The Americans, the Germans, the French, the Turkish, the Spanish etc etc, fly their mil aircraft through our airspace and comply with the rules, whether it is talking to a civil or a military controller.

So, NO, I cannot accept that I am wrong when it comes to safety, those Russians and you are taking the моча!!

Finally, it was very brave of you to admit that you once worked for the CAA (DAP). The way the CAA are dealing with the new Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA) is utterly shambolic!

PS how do the CAA (You) mitigate activities such as erroneous and un-coordinated activity within CAS? Please let us all know! It would make very interesting reading.

[ORAC]

One of the major problems in the world is how few people can recognise and deal with reality. The subsequent problem is how to move forward before they acknowledge how to deal with the real issues rather than their idealistic, unobtainable, solutions. Still, probably makes them feel happier in bed at night....