BBC reporting QRA sramble
 

F3s sent to intercept suspect Jumbo. Link here

Beeb picked it up fom Pprune, see rumours thread. Twas Nov 12ish, NORDO PIA 747 to Manchester.

Are you sure?

I was at Coningsby yesterday, and I watched both the Q jets scramble at around 0910 and head off out in a south easterly direction, with full reheat plugged in until they disappeared from view.

The beeb reports it as late afternoon, maybe that was something else. Were they carrying jumbo tanks?

The 'scramble' on Thursday was a practice against a target launched for the purpose, the F3s however decided that it was far too difficult to take out the intended target, instead they opted for an American tanker nearby, causing him to take a TCAs avoid, he was not impressed!!!:oh: :sad: :ok:

lippiatt,

Your statement: 'the F3s however decided that it was far too difficult to take out the intended target, instead they opted for an American tanker nearby' is complete, and probably libellous,
bo!!ocks.

An airprox has been filed, which will bring out the whole story but, of course, most people who see this thread will never read the Board's report. They will only have the misleading and unfair impression generated by your half-witted and ill-informed post.

Grow Up:mad:

Sorry, didn't realise an airprox had been filed, your right though, most people, including peeps like me wouldn't know that and won't get to read the report.

However, I do dispute the libellous accusation, they must have got fairly close to the American for an airprox to be filed surely?? Was the American where he should not have been??

:confused:

Both ac were appartently in Class G, and in contact with ATC. The airprox will answer the question of who was in the wrong, which is most likely to fall with ATC.

I heard that the F3's were talking to a CRC (Boulmer?), do they have to obey ATC regulations as well?

Do you mean the F3s or the scopies? The F3s certainly obey ATC regs, it's the scopies who have the problems!

(Light blue touch paper and retire to safe distance!!)
:ok: :ok:

The F3s would probably have been getting an Air defence Radar Information service frome the GCI site. It is (near as damn it) the same service that they would get from ATC. GCI would be providing the info on which UK airspace regulation compliance could be achieved.
Airmiss = Airprox these days. & not infrequently filed cos the TCAS has gone off!!!
I do tend to agree that tis far more helpfull to get the facts before slinging the mud around. Especially if you don't know what you are talking about.
QRA would not have been "taking out " any target. They would probably have been intercepting to ID and possibly escort or shadow. You may have noticed that there are very few airliners "Taken out" in UK airspace. the passengers don't like it!!!!!!!!!!
:mad:

From speaking to a couple of people, the F3s were probably still talking to an airfield ATC when the airprox occured. It is more than likely that the F3s did speak to a CRC that morning, but they had not done so before the incident.

The wx was poor on Thurs morning so it would not be a surprise if at least one of the ac was under a RAS. We all know what a RAS is and where the responsiblities lie.

If an ac gets a TCAS alert then an airprox is filed regardless. A paperwork nightmare but it has to be done.

lippiatt,

I've checked the meaning of 'libel' in my OED, which offers: 'a published false statement damaging to a person's reputation'. The QRA crews fly live armed ac and consequently operate under very strict rules whether on practice or operational missions.

I think your statement: 'the F3s however decided that it was far too difficult to take out the intended target, instead they opted for an American tanker nearby' satisfies this definition. That implies that the crews were behaving like cowboys, by ignoring their orders and the rules under which they operate - and it's just not true. This seems damaging to the crews' reputations to me (and, by extention to the reputation if the RAF).

How the incident came to happen will no doubt come to light in due course. In the meantime, lets try not to cast unfounded aspersions.

I'm sorry if I'm getting a bit earnest here - I know this is a Rumour Network. But this kind of comment can be intensely irritating to the people involved (which doesn't include me) and lead to all sorts of nastiness in the press, so I felt I had to say something. I doubt very much that you'll be getting a letter from Sue, Grabbit & Runne, anyway.

Rant over. I'll get back in my hole.

QRA
 

There is too much mud slinging on this site by people who love to stick their oar in without understanding how those concerned are operating.

The background to this incident goes deeper than you ill informed losers are speculating about.

For those of you who can, ie RAF aircrew, then you will see the report in good time. Since the CAA churn out all airprox incidents, the geeks can access it once published in the annual "CAA look how many crashes we nearly had" book.

QRA, particularly southern QRA (ostensibly to protect London airspace, outside the remit of NATO), has a sensitive and difficult job to do particularly considering the aircrew responsibilities should we need to "take one out" as was so eloquently put.

TCAS SHMEECAS when you've got the burners in with a scramble instruction to follow and when you should be on an AD Priority service anyway.


RAY.

Hmm, I wonder what the TCAS display for a contact climbing in full reheat looks like?

Mere civilians consider 5000 Ft/min a potential ear drum bursting experience and the TCAS algorithms weren't designed around military climb rates. ;)

'a published false statement damaging to a person's reputation'

Sounds like most of the character assassinations in ACRs....


Back to the thread - if Q is scrambled, surely it's then Air Defence Priority and everything else is made to GET OUT OF THE WAY! If that other traffic is in Class G under IFR with a RIS/RAS, it is that traffic's responsibility either to take its own action on reported conflictions and inform the air trafficker (RIS), or to manoeuvre as advised (RAS). If it's under VFR, then by definition it won't be getting a RAS and has total responsibility for its own separation even when receiving a RIS - it's very likely that a TCAS TA or even RA will sound as there is no mandatory separation minimum applicable.

Beagle

A fair point regarding ADPF status. I do not wish to comment on this particular incident, but it is worth pointing out that these days an ADPF ac is only 'granted' that status once he has been identified to the controllers concerned.

If an FA calls the Swanwick Civ/Mil Sup, saying (quite properly) that C/S XXX has been scrambled from XXX, will be squawking XXXX, heading XXX and climbing to FLXXX, requiring ADPF status, the status is not actually confirmed until the controller has gone back to the ATC and identified the ac once airborne as the one he is talking about which requires ADPF status.

At the early stages of the flight, climbing, turning and accelerating away from homeplate, I doubt very much whether the Airfield ATC has time to do this liaison, and in any case, would rightly be criticised for wasting time when they should be handing the ac over to the CRC.

On the TCAS issue, given that there are no standard separation minima which apply to all users in Class G, it does make one wonder what is the point of a mandatory TCAS report under circumstances where the 'conflicting' ac may be under FIS/RIS or even VFR.

Blacksheep,

'Hmm, I wonder what the TCAS display for a contact climbing in full reheat looks like?'

We are talking about an F3 here - probably looks the same as an airliner!

"If an FA calls the Swanwick Civ/Mil Sup, saying (quite properly) that C/S XXX has been scrambled from XXX, will be squawking XXXX, heading XXX and climbing to FLXXX, requiring ADPF status, the status is not actually confirmed until the controller has gone back to the ATC and identified the ac once airborne as the one he is talking about which requires ADPF status".

Fair call - but it was slow, laborious ground-to-ground comms which was partly the problem on 11 Sep. Has UK AD learned from that?

"Flash - all sectors, Q1 & 2 have been scrambled and WILL be airborne from *** squawking standard AD squawk in 30 sec. They WILL have AD priority over all other traffic!"

If not, why not. If I was in the cockpit it would be "Full a/b, where are the bad guys, keep the trash haulers out of my face, DO IT NOW!!!"

Anything less is NFG!

Beags

Don't think the G2G between ATC and CRC had much to do with 9/11 - albeit that the ATC guys might have left it a little late to do anything about the 4 jets that weren't doing what they should have been. Once the QRA were airborne I think they pretty much got their way - the fact that there were 4 (count them) 4 Q jets for the entire eastern seaboard of CONUS might have had more to do with it.

On the original ADPF point - have you SEEN a radar display showing the London TMA recently? I only do surveillance and it scares the c*&p out of me. I've seen controllers go the scariest shade of white even taking jets to the edge before handing them over to LATCC. You CANNOT just turn the traffic off - it takes time, and this is the most efficient way of doing it at the moment.