Lyneham Future?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep trying to find some logic in the decision, and feel that we have really scored an own goal. I cant see that the long term savings and benefits outway the disadvantages of closing one of the most successfull, happy and capable RAF stations.
I dread to think how much money needs to be spent on Brize to bring it up to scratch today, let alone over the next 10 years to make way for all those personnel, aircraft and support infrastructure. The sad thing is we all know it will be done on the cheap by some half arsed contractor, and in such a way that it will only meet an already outdated requirement. At least we have the MOD to help us as they have a long tradition of constructing fantastic contracts that deliver on time and budget.
I cant think of a single Nation that would decide to put all their AT/AAR assets in one Station, and at a time when expeditionary warfare seems to be our bread and butter.
I dread to think how much money needs to be spent on Brize to bring it up to scratch today, let alone over the next 10 years to make way for all those personnel, aircraft and support infrastructure. The sad thing is we all know it will be done on the cheap by some half arsed contractor, and in such a way that it will only meet an already outdated requirement. At least we have the MOD to help us as they have a long tradition of constructing fantastic contracts that deliver on time and budget.
I cant think of a single Nation that would decide to put all their AT/AAR assets in one Station, and at a time when expeditionary warfare seems to be our bread and butter.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grimweasel has touched on this but doesn't it all depend on keeping open an airfield suitable for SF ops based on Hereford? Don't see SF moving anywhere soon, having just spent a mint on their new HQ/Training base etc. so if they close Lyneham where is the next most suitable AD for military ops that is easily accessible by road from Hereford?
Answers please, on a postcard to Whitehall.
Answers please, on a postcard to Whitehall.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who is this Wholigan and who is really whinging?
If you are told you're in the zone, then it means you are. Maybe you shouldn't be flying - try driving one of those "trucks we see on the M4" instead of flying - at least you can read the road signs to find out where you really are.
If you are told you're in the zone, then it means you are. Maybe you shouldn't be flying - try driving one of those "trucks we see on the M4" instead of flying - at least you can read the road signs to find out where you really are.
Thread Starter
Err, I think you'll find that Wholi' does know what he's talking about. He does have a few thousand FJ flying hours, you may be interested to know....
And yes, Lyneham radar does pick up trains - but Brize Radar once gave me traffic information on a tractor! Onew of those spraying things with great long booms - must have been some dipole lengths in its construction!
And yes, Lyneham radar does pick up trains - but Brize Radar once gave me traffic information on a tractor! Onew of those spraying things with great long booms - must have been some dipole lengths in its construction!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He may have a few thousand FJ hours but maybe he is not quite so current with Class D rules re avoidance of unknown contacts.
I have spent many thousand hours in front of the radar and equally many hours trying to resolve the issue of having to pass traffic information on "unknown traffic" (ie the trains, 'angels' and road traffic) within Class D.
I have no doubt that the ATS providers know their stuff - contact them I'm sure all can be explained or altenatively pick a route where you don't have rely on some "controller whinging at you!"
I have spent many thousand hours in front of the radar and equally many hours trying to resolve the issue of having to pass traffic information on "unknown traffic" (ie the trains, 'angels' and road traffic) within Class D.
I have no doubt that the ATS providers know their stuff - contact them I'm sure all can be explained or altenatively pick a route where you don't have rely on some "controller whinging at you!"
Thread Starter
rej - there is no requirement for traffic under VFR in Class D airspace to be given any separation instructions from unknown contacts. That's a fallacy perpetuated by military controllers who still think that they're controlling the old 'Rule 36' airspace. Traffic information should be available, however, but no avoidance instructions given...... So you can tell Wholi' about your tractors, trains, angels, birdies, anaprop and other distractions, but if he's operating under VFR in Class D airspace you do NOT have any right to interfere with the legitmate progress of his flight.
There is a tendency for military controllers to treat Class D airspace as 'permanent IFR'. When VMC exists in Class D airspace, the over control of legitimate VFR traffic in order to give full IFR separation on 'unknown contacts' is intensely annoying. In fact there is a current CHIRP programme running as a result of controllers refusing permission to VFR traffic to enter Class D airspace.
Although the ANO requires that traffic in Class D airspace obeys controllers' instructions, overcontrol in VFR is unacceptable and should be reported using the CHIRP proforma.
There is a tendency for military controllers to treat Class D airspace as 'permanent IFR'. When VMC exists in Class D airspace, the over control of legitimate VFR traffic in order to give full IFR separation on 'unknown contacts' is intensely annoying. In fact there is a current CHIRP programme running as a result of controllers refusing permission to VFR traffic to enter Class D airspace.
Although the ANO requires that traffic in Class D airspace obeys controllers' instructions, overcontrol in VFR is unacceptable and should be reported using the CHIRP proforma.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
You a correct in that VFR traffic does not need to be issued any avoiding action against such "unknown traffic" in fact it is not even called to the VFR traffic unless we have reason to believe that it is an ac that could be co-altitude. Lyneham ATC does follow the rule iaw the ANO and JSP 552 - I should know as one of the examiners. It is only IFR traffic that is offered avoiding action, thus I think your comment "you do NOT have any right to interfere with the legitmate progress of his flight." is totally out of order.
We in the military do not 'over control' - I think we are professional controllers who provide a safe and flexible service. If you would like to discuss this further I am sure we could arrange for you to visit. You never know, you might even appreciate some of the problems that we experience.
By the way I don't suppose you were flying into EGBP today were you !!!
You a correct in that VFR traffic does not need to be issued any avoiding action against such "unknown traffic" in fact it is not even called to the VFR traffic unless we have reason to believe that it is an ac that could be co-altitude. Lyneham ATC does follow the rule iaw the ANO and JSP 552 - I should know as one of the examiners. It is only IFR traffic that is offered avoiding action, thus I think your comment "you do NOT have any right to interfere with the legitmate progress of his flight." is totally out of order.
We in the military do not 'over control' - I think we are professional controllers who provide a safe and flexible service. If you would like to discuss this further I am sure we could arrange for you to visit. You never know, you might even appreciate some of the problems that we experience.
By the way I don't suppose you were flying into EGBP today were you !!!
Thread Starter
rej, thanks for your response. No, I was firmly on the ground today.....
'You' was not meant personally when I was referring to the 'over control' of legitimate VFR traffic. Sorry for that. It was meant as a generic reference; VFR traffic has every right to proceed without interference in VMC Class D airspace and it sounds as though that's what you provide. But traffic info should be 'on request' - not every train, tractor and unknown contact unless the pilot has requested it. I was once flying from Farnborough to Filton in gin clear VMC (in a military aeroplane) and was right royally messed around to suit some controller's desires to accommodate a formation which was due to take off from Rompers Green - but hadn't actually done so. Quite which Rule of the Air gives taxying traffic priority under airborne traffic, I do not know..... So he got the '7000A, to en-route, good day' treatment. As did the half-wit at the Secret Oxonian Airbase who once tried to order me not to cross The Sacred Zone below FL60 when it tops out at 3500' amsl....
Have to say that your flexibility could show another aerodrome with Class D airspace a thing or 2! Where VFR traffic is often 'controlled' in VMC instead of avoidance being passed to those wishing to fly under IFR.
'You' was not meant personally when I was referring to the 'over control' of legitimate VFR traffic. Sorry for that. It was meant as a generic reference; VFR traffic has every right to proceed without interference in VMC Class D airspace and it sounds as though that's what you provide. But traffic info should be 'on request' - not every train, tractor and unknown contact unless the pilot has requested it. I was once flying from Farnborough to Filton in gin clear VMC (in a military aeroplane) and was right royally messed around to suit some controller's desires to accommodate a formation which was due to take off from Rompers Green - but hadn't actually done so. Quite which Rule of the Air gives taxying traffic priority under airborne traffic, I do not know..... So he got the '7000A, to en-route, good day' treatment. As did the half-wit at the Secret Oxonian Airbase who once tried to order me not to cross The Sacred Zone below FL60 when it tops out at 3500' amsl....
Have to say that your flexibility could show another aerodrome with Class D airspace a thing or 2! Where VFR traffic is often 'controlled' in VMC instead of avoidance being passed to those wishing to fly under IFR.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assume that the military rules broadly accord with those in the civil world (with Class D being a civil classification and all that 
)
In which case, when dealing with unknown aircraft in Class D airspace the instructions to military ATC would be akin to:
Passing traffic information on unknown aircraft unless the primary function of sequencing and separating IFR flights is likely to be compromised.
If a pilot requests Avoiding Action it shall be provided to the extent decided by the radar controller.
Give Avoiding Action if radar derived or other information indicates that an aircraft is lost, has experienced a radio failure, or has made an unauthorised penetration of the airspace.
If the pilot decides not to comply with the Avoiding Action advice, he becomes responsible for his own separation and any Avoiding Action which may subsequently become necessary.
So, in BEagles case at point, and confirmed by rej, in terms of Avoiding Action it seems it is being carried out exactly as it should be. Unfortunately, if the JSP rules are the same as those we have in the civilian world then there is no leeway to not pass information on unknown contacts (unless you use the defence of being too busy with IFR tasks as detailed above
). Perhaps it's one for the rulemakers to look at changing in respect of VFR traffic receiving a service. They should be looking out the window after all, admiring the trains, trucks, and tractors below !!
)In which case, when dealing with unknown aircraft in Class D airspace the instructions to military ATC would be akin to:
Passing traffic information on unknown aircraft unless the primary function of sequencing and separating IFR flights is likely to be compromised.
If a pilot requests Avoiding Action it shall be provided to the extent decided by the radar controller.
Give Avoiding Action if radar derived or other information indicates that an aircraft is lost, has experienced a radio failure, or has made an unauthorised penetration of the airspace.
If the pilot decides not to comply with the Avoiding Action advice, he becomes responsible for his own separation and any Avoiding Action which may subsequently become necessary.
So, in BEagles case at point, and confirmed by rej, in terms of Avoiding Action it seems it is being carried out exactly as it should be. Unfortunately, if the JSP rules are the same as those we have in the civilian world then there is no leeway to not pass information on unknown contacts (unless you use the defence of being too busy with IFR tasks as detailed above
). Perhaps it's one for the rulemakers to look at changing in respect of VFR traffic receiving a service. They should be looking out the window after all, admiring the trains, trucks, and tractors below !!
Thread Starter
Yes - ish. But the point being made is that in gin clear VMC, pilots operating in accordance with VFR in Class D airspace should not have the progress of their flights arranged to give priority to IFR traffic. The IFR traffic shall be given avoiding action on VFR traffic, not vice versa. That might seem unreasonable to some, but that's all that's mandated in Class D airspace. You won't find Class C in the UK, Class B in the UK is FL245 and above, so unless you're controlling a Class A CTR or the LTMA, please don't hassle legitimate VFR traffic in Class D airspace!
Who let the so-and-sos have a RT set installed in the Watch Office!
Who let the so-and-sos have a RT set installed in the Watch Office!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite the same case being discussed here but we've gone round the houses on Class D in the ATC Forum over the last week or so.
If you got a spare 3 weeks, have a read
Class D Thread
Thread Starter
Because when Lyneham closes, a pointless and unneccessary piece of over regulated airspace will go with it! The daft Lyneham CTA will be consigned to the rubbish bin where it justly belongs. The CTR I can understand - but why the he££ do they need a CTA up to FL65?? Brize doesn't need one - so why does Lyneham?
Even though the Lyneham ATCOs do a great job.....
Even though the Lyneham ATCOs do a great job.....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: roughly near Everleigh DZ
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lon Mil - Albert, contact Bzn Rdr on ***.**,
Albert - do be serious I was planning on landing today, VMC, field in sight ,going on route, stud 5, thanks byeee.
Load moving............
Albert - do be serious I was planning on landing today, VMC, field in sight ,going on route, stud 5, thanks byeee.
Load moving............
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has there been an announcement?
That is, apart from the landlord of Mallard Pub in Lyneham village, on GWR FM radio today. He's delighted that Lyneham is staying open til 2020.
I'll see what the station barber has to say for himself.
That is, apart from the landlord of Mallard Pub in Lyneham village, on GWR FM radio today. He's delighted that Lyneham is staying open til 2020.
I'll see what the station barber has to say for himself.